User talk:Padillah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 00:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC).—cyberbot I NotifyOnline

Archive

Archives


Archive 1 Archive 2

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably unnecessary[edit]

... Boghog has objected to my shading your text as heavy handed, and demanded I ask your permission. As I have said, it is being done, so new editors comments are not lost in the sea of counter-discourse between Boghog and I. Can I have permission to leave your comments highlighted, to make the new comments and questions easier to find, and easier to refer to? Thanks. (RSVP here.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. WP talk pages have worked fine for quite a awhile and I don't see many contributors complaining about loosing entries yet. I think it's best to leave well enough alone until there is an actual reason to change. Padillah (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
If I cannot persuade you to allow this simple, neutral, minority-protective and practically useful tool, I will probably give up on this article, as my persistent opposing editor has stated is his wish. The ability to draw in new voices, and to allow those voices to hear one another, and to be able to point to them once their points are made (or supported)—this is near impossible otherwise, given the lengths of the sections and repetitive, side-stepping nature of the forms of argument taking place. If the new voices entering cannot be made foremost, and easily seen, then there is no hope here. And, frankly, as much as I esteem you for what you are trying to do here, it is a war of attrition being fought, and the expert voices needed have only begun to arrive. At some point, the opportunity cost of this activity, balanced against the likelihood that I can make a positive contribution (which appears to be narrowing again) overwhelms, and if it does, I have to let the persistent opposing editor have his way, though the message remains errant. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel this way. I've never seen this "tool" used and I've edited religious talk pages, T.V. shows, Movies, and Palestine. There is always a way to hear others and you can always simply say "Like padillah said the other day". There, I pointed to another user. It can be very easily argued that this tool is simply used to give undue weight to statements you agree with and allows you to point new participants to sections of text that agree with your point. It could also be argued that changing other users talk comments (even in as simple and innocuous a form as this) is tendentious editing. There's just too much that could go wrong with this type of approach. I really do hope you stay with the article, I need someone that actually knows what they are talking about. I can only provide a third opinion, you have to provide the first. Padillah (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The graying is over every person's comments besides me or Boghog, and so it permits no bias toward or against my views. (The only exceptions being persons declining permission. If you decline, it begins a trend I cannot fight.) Bottom line, highlighting, as when done with book reading, allows critical content to be "lifted above" the vast morass of remaining content. I view every outsider's utterance to be such critical content. Last try—may I leave yours highlighted (grayed)? If not, all graying comes out, and the progress will suffer for it. There is no bias in its use, you can check me—but bias against smaller voices will ensue if it is removed. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Unclear on what you mean, Pad — leave well enough alone (with gray highlighting in as it is), or remove highlighting? Have one last look before replying. The goal is not to allow newcomer comments to be overwhelmed by the at odds discussants. I want Smokefoot, Doc, your comments to pop, because it breaks up the wall, and allows people to get at the issues more quickly. One last look, and then "keep the highlighting or "lose the highlighting"? Give me a minute to update before checking. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I meant ot loose the highlighting. I meant to leave the talk entries as they are when they are made. The easier way to keep the page legible for others is to keep comments and responses as small as possible. Don't wait to respond to several points, respond to them as they arise. This also helps keep the discussion from wandering around too much and loosing focus. Also, don't use more text than necessary to explain your point. Now, that last has to be tempered with the knowledge that you are explaining high-level chemistry concepts to neophytes (at best) so there may be some explanation required. But even then, let the other party ask for clarification rather than assuming they don't know and over-expounding a topic. Padillah (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't[edit]

Start archiving the NP Talk page yet. As knarly as it is, it does have Smokefoot's, your, and V8rik's comments. If it is archived, I will be without this support (2 of 3 of you are scientists), and I will be forced to restate my case. And when I do that, the argument with Boghog will begin again—except lacking the three voices visible, that I just mentioned. Please do not archive, and so eliminate, the "lower volume" but critical additional voices. (See also reply in section immediately above.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Userspace deletion requests[edit]

For future reference -- {{db-u1}} tags stuff in your userspace for deletion. MER-C 14:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been a while and all I really had was Twinkle tools. I knew there was a way to delete userspace stuff, I just couldn't remember it. Padillah (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A last short needed look[edit]

Please see possible "closing arguments" here, [1], and consider a final persuasive comment. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk)

This linked communication will likely be of no help to me[edit]

…in any sense in future, but it comes after seeing this Admin make a comment to another Admin, suggesting that I refused to answer his questions (a repeated claim, repeatedly responded to at the time): [2]

Letting you know, only because it contains statements of great respect for your dedication and ultimate role (please take no offense at statement regarding zero subject expertise). The truth is, apart from you, there was no progress, and there would have been no help at all for this article in the month of this conflict. Thank you, and please, maintain hope for the article, for its best. I am giving it one last effort, but am ready, after this Admin's intervention (and the long history of the other editor's refusal to budge) to leave this article, and even WP, out of exhaustion. Yes, you pried the boulder loose, and it has begun to roll. But with only two persons involved (no other experts recruited), we are likely to end again at an impasse, a 1-to-1 vote, with no others to resolve it. This is not to complain to you—you at least engaged. This is simply to admit I am tired of it all, and I may not last to see a good article here. TY, regardless, however it may end, for your sincere and wise effort. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)