User talk:Atemperman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sentiments regarding the US and a learning project[edit]

Hi there, I found you when I read your insightful comment at the vote regarding Pro-American sentiment. Unfortunately no one has yet taken care of it. But there are more important things. I started a project about learning, mainly vocabulary. Some guys discussed it with me on my user page. Maybe you are interested, if so, please let me know there as well. Get-back-world-respect 19:29, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tallest structures - "Paris area"[edit]

We are presently having a dispute over an article title - an article about structures "in Paris" , but over 70% of the article content, and the tallest of the lot (save a very few), are not at all in Paris. A few of us have managed to come into agreement over an "in the Paris area" title - your views and vote on the matter would much be welcome at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. Thank you for this and for your contributions on a similar question. THEPROMENADER 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation - I know that my call for your involvement was a bit 'above and beyond', but I did like the objectiveness of your comments on my "naming convention" questions. I left you a reply, as did User:Hardouin. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you perhaps add some impartial comment to the discussion? You are one of few there of that category. A vote would be welcome if all is clear to you - I know the talk page is long. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 13:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lion[edit]

In case you are still interested, the section on lion social behavior is being slowly eroded into meaninglessness. Haiduc 11:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Jenny Wong[edit]

Sorry for delay in replying. Been offline for a while...

No, not me - must be someone else with same name! Jenny Wong 10:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Parley[edit]

I've checked Oxford, Random House, American Heritage, Merriam-Webster. They all have the same pronunciation. Are you sure you aren't making the mistake of assuming that ē is /ei/? Also, turnout doesn't have an unstressed syllable. It's /ˈtɝnˌaʊt/. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the alleged secondary stress in turnout only means that the vowel isn't reduced; it isn't actually stress. (If it were, it would be primary, as the last stressed syllable in a word said in isolation takes primary stress.) I also have a diphthong /ei/ in parley, but we could use Monday as an example. kwami (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, I stand corrected. I'd been looking up parley. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Thanks for your note. I can see merit in your unreferenced tags being different to others, in that referencing ought to be a Wiki basic. I don't know the current issue is the best place to raise that idea, but go ahead. I can tell you that in the current case I'd have to oppose the suggestion.

The reason is simple, everything in the section is verifiable, it's just a matter of time finding nice sources. If people want references, they can search for a few and add them.

Adding unreferenced tags doesn't add information to an article, they are there for when someone wants to insist something exists that doesn't. You can let someone have their text for a while, and eventually delete it when they fail to deliver the goods.

The current issue is just a couple of people being pesky. They've not added any sources or content to the article, they're just quibbling over debatable style issues. That'd be fine, but they're arguing, "you won't let us make changes because you won't let anyone ever make any changes, therefore we should be allowed to make changes because you've got no good reason except wanting things your own way." That wouldn't even be a good argument for a change even if it was true.

Think about it from my angle. I've got two options:

  1. I can support changes for the reasons they give, I never allow changes so a change must be forced for my good -- admission of guilt
  2. I can keep rejecting changes for the reasons I give, what is best given what sources say on the topic of the article -- cited as evidence of guilt

The argument line that's being used implies, "it doesn't really matter what Alastair says, 'cause he'll say anything just so long as it let's him have things his way." Indeed, it does make it pointless me even showing up to such a debate. Either people can see it's invalid from them and so I don't even need to say anything, or people believe the line, in which case what I say will be ignored.

Whatever I do, they are right and I am wrong ... if you accept the argument that is being offered. But it's just plain wrong. It's aimed at forcing me to back down under threat of public shaming. Or pushing to gain compromise by weight of numbers. However, I have more faith in people's good sense. Rejecting edits on good grounds is not proof of any pattern of behaviour. There is no compromise when there is only one issue -- my character. I'm not compromising on that, and no one should ask me to.

The fact is, there is no content dispute, just a couple of young and inexperienced editors testing to see how the system works. I don't have time for such games.

Sorry if all that's too hard to follow.

But basically, this issue will not be resolved until someone, other than me, says exactly all the things I'm saying. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Very nicely said. I know exactly what you mean by "imperious tone". I would suggest it is considerably stronger than that now. In the face of very determined editing, I've needed to respond in kind, at least in communicating seriousness. I think it has actually worked.
Unfortunately, it requires time to go back to see where all this started -- with Ilkali talking dismissively of "guff" replacing his own edit. The reality was he replaced text stable for six months or more with unusual terminology for God, unrelated to the rest of the article, but was simply unwilling to accept this despite the patient provision of explanations and sources. Concurrent with this he edit warred, with provocative edit summaries, over my restoration of the stable text and I warned him. Finally, for the first time in years I felt the need to refer the matter for assistance, that backfired, since someone came and attempted compromise, but actually provided something factually questionable, not merely stylistically awkward like Ilkali; and then, he copied Ilkali in attacking me rather than addressing the points.
If I made any error, I think it was in allowing personal attacks against me to continue for too long. I won't make that mistake again. But who knows, I tend to get a better look at people when I allow them some liberties.
As to sourcing the section. Yes, I really don't care at all about tags. I didn't create the article. Prior to Ilkali's arrival, all I'd contributed in 18 months or so was a few reworkings of the Christian section. Mind you, reverting attempts to weasle or corrupt that section has resulted in many, many edits. The page is on my watchlist, not on my "articles to get to GA status list". It's a really boring topic, God is almost universally perceived as male throughout history, and feminist theology has not caught on anything like feminism in other areas.
But, back to "to-tag-or-not-to-tag", the current policy is tagging as a last resort. The point is to get editors to discuss content rather than taking the lazy way and throwing tags about. The point of tags is attracting discussion or edits, it is not a means of avoiding this. Since the FACT status of no particular sentence has actually been challenged, we've not even started discussion, let alone reached the tagging stage.
If the other editors are supposed to be such reasonable people, why not ask them to try actually questioning the factuality of something, or to provide other POVs like in a normal discussion? I've made many suggestions for ways they can contribute lasting text to the article, why not suggest those as ways forward to build a working relationship?
The reality is they're not interested in the article, nor in contributing to it. Let's see if they can prove me wrong. I'd be delighted.
Thanks for your time on this. Let me know if you're discussing something on a policy page regarding pushing for more sourcing. I'll get involved, can't promise to agree on the details, but I'll try to offer ideas that move things forwards, and I certainly agree Wiki needs much, much more sourcing. (This goes, whatever you end up saying at Gender of God, btw.) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Georgian Tuning[edit]

I'm looking for reliable references for the description of Georgian tuning. Your comments would be welcome at Talk:Music of Georgia. Cimbalom (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Alvaro Pereira[edit]

Just fyi, in case you see it again - the formatting was messed up because you had a single space at the start of the first line of your comment. I fixed it. Station1 (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Aures[edit]

I'm Aures habitant, i would like to tell you that the name Aurès is the french pronounciation of the original name so even in french resources you can find "Aures", the original name is Awres or Awras, so in wikipedia (English) i think we should take by concideration the Original name not french as original. You can check my site photographs about Aures : at GTPhotography. Ghezaltar (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral notification[edit]

As somebody who took part in the previous move discussion, you may be interested in the current move discussion here. Varsovian (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A note[edit]

  • I really believe you should never call editors "obtuse jerks" the way you did in Kudpung's RfA. It lowers the weight of your argument in the eyes of the community. Regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough with regard to it being uncivil and inefficacious to use the language I did. I found myself incensed just by reading his argument with kwami, an editor whom I have a lot of respect for, and my emotions showed up in the intemperate language I used in my comment in his RfA. My comment, though, was substantive and, I believe, accurate. Do you disagree? Have you read the exchange between him and Kwami yourself?--Atemperman (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hardly a spur-of-the-moment burst of emotion methinks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry? What does that link mean to show? I recalled having read the discussion between you and Kwami when I noticed your RfA. I reread it and got angry, and then posted to his talk page and to the RfA. I don't see how there's any meaningful disagreement at this point: I reacted intemperately to an archived discussion in which you were a jerk, but more than a year has passed and people who work with you largely find you to have reformed. I regret my reaction; you presumably regret your conduct in the discussion with Kwami; we've all moved on, right?--Atemperman (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)