Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers

Another reversion by Andy Mabbett

After Eusebeus suggested "Let's archive the (overly long) talk page and put this to rest", I archived most of the accumulated discussions. Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett then immediately reverted the section Infoboxes again (above). Consistency is a virtue in editors, but in this case? -- Kleinzach 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You omit to mention that- before your archiving - I replied to Eusebeus by pointing out that his claim that the discussion was over was false. Do you really think it acceptable to archive an on-going discussion? That appears to be an attempt to stifle debate. Andy Mabbett 09:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Andy can have that debate all on his own, since no-one is interested in discussing this with him. AND he has been happily banned from making disruptive edits, so we don't even to worry about reverting his petty, point-plagued edits. Now let's clear this infobox rubbish from the talk page. If Andy keeps reverting it, take him back to ANI and we can ask for a ban from editing this page. Eusebeus 10:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Mr. Mabbett seems unable or unwilling to fix the myriad problems involved with bioboxes, which were so spectacularly demonstrated on the Paderewski page yesterday. So there is nothing left to discuss. Archive it. --Folantin 10:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is now re-archived. -- Kleinzach 10:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your - collective - refusal to discuss compromise or attempt to reach consensus is disappointing. Andy Mabbett 10:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. Mr Mabbett, you are being disruptive for no good reason whatsoever. Knock it off or you'll be blocked. Moreschi ^Talk 10:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware, there is no policy of blocking people for pointing out lack od consensus, where none exists; or for pointing out that an on-going discussion has not ended. Andy Mabbett 11:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but we do block for disruption, and you've done nothing but that on this completely stale issue for weeks. Please stop it. Refusing to acknowledge consensus is disruptive. I'm off to remove any more infoboxes that are causing problems. Moreschi ^Talk 11:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Outdent

I must say your attitude to all this Andy is hilarious. Your definition of 'lack of consensus' is 'lack of consensus with me'. The whole point of a WikiProject is to bring editors together to come to a consensus. So when the consensus isn't what you want ie. no infoboxes, you use very predictable arguments:

• Firstly, you claim the discussion has not ended, when you're the one whose won't let the discussion end. You do realise the discussion won't end till you back down or the whole WikiProject backs down. At the moment, it seems neither is going to happen.
• Secondly, you clain there is no consensus. Again, unsurprising and you alone are not giving consensus.
• Thirdly, you start claiming WikiProjects do not own an article and therefore have no right in removing infoboxes. That's like saying a group of people reaching consensus have no right to impose article guidelines. Interesting then how you, as an individual are imposing your guidelines.

Andy, why don't you try this idea - until consensus is met to bring back infoboxes, we do not have infoboxes. Not the other way around. You don't own the page, so stop pushing YOUR views. Democracy has spoken, a group of editors who outnumber you have reached a consensus and want to remove the infoboxes. What's makes your view much more important than theirs? Centy 01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Your definition of 'lack of consensus' is 'lack of consensus with me'." If you're gong to start off by posting lies, you're the one who's going to be laughed at. My definition of consensus is that at WP:CONSENSUS.

"you're the one whose won't let the discussion end." - Apart form the fact that you're the first person to post here on this topic for three days; so what?

"you alone are not giving consensus" I refer you to my recent post (almost immediately hidden in the archives), listing all the other people who do not agree with the current claim of consensus.

"you start claiming WikiProjects do not own an article and therefore have no right in removing infoboxes." - No, I don't "start claiming" it; I merely point out that it's Wikipedia policy.

"That's like saying a group of people reaching consensus have no right to impose article guidelines." - no, it is not.

"Interesting then how you, as an individual are imposing your guidelines." - No, I am not.

"why don't you try this idea - until consensus is met to bring back infoboxes, we do not have infoboxes." - and until consensus is met to remove infoboxes, we keep infoboxes.

"You don't own the page" - which page?

"Democracy has spoken" - Wikipedia is not a democracy. You really should try to understand why that is and what it means.

"a group of editors who outnumber you have reached a consensus" - they may outnumber me; but they have not achieved consensus. Consensus is not voting.

"What's makes your view much more important than theirs?" - Nothing. Where have I said that it is? Do you think that their view is much more important than mine?

Andy Mabbett 10:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

they may outnumber me; but they have not achieved consensus. - Andy, that's not true and that's where your argument falls down. If they haven't reached consensus why is everyone active from the WikiProject disagreeing with you? Oh and No I'm not is a very poor response to the points I've raised.

Do you think that their view is much more important than mine? - Yes, they view of many outweighs the view of one. There are individuals who wish remove their biographies from Wikipedia. Do you think the view of the majority of people who use Wikipedia and want it remain?

Which page? - Every page you are reverting and claiming there's no consensus.

Look the reason I mention this is I know as soon as your infobox probation is lifted, you'll start reverting again. You don't have a good history when it comes to accepting guidelines laid down by WikiProjects. I'm not trying to annoy you, I just want you to realise that your arguments for infoboxes if flawed things should just stay the way they are now. Centy 11:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"that's not true" - oh, but it is!

"why is everyone active from the WikiProject disagreeing with you?" Whether or not "everyone active from the WikiProject" disagrees with me is irrelevant, since they do not WP:OWN the articles, and since not everyone who has expressed an opinion disagrees with me; so there is no consensus. Please do try to understand what consensus means in Wikipedia.

"they (sic) view of many outweighs the view of one." - not here they don't. Perhaps it is your fundamental lack if understanding on this point which is causing you to fail to appreciate the lack of consensus?

"Do you think the view of the majority of people who use Wikipedia and want it remain?" - I can't parse that fragment.

"You don't have a good history when it comes to accepting guidelines laid down by WikiProjects." - Wikipedia projects may "lay down" guidelines, but that's all they are: guidelines. They don't trump policy.

"I just want you to realise that your arguments for infoboxes if flawed things should just stay the way they are now." - I can't parse that fragment, either.

Andy Mabbett 11:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

..."accepting guidelines laid down by WikiProjects"? IMO, composers are persons; therefore their articles are biographies, in which Wikiproject Biography's guidelines use infoboxes. Composers are also musicians; in which Wikiproject Musicians' guidelines also use infoboxes. I would say that consensus would need to be reached with those projects as well -- good luck with that. Anyway, guidelines are just that - guidelines - a suggestion - not a hard and fast rule. So if a major contributor and/or author of a composer biography chooses to use an infobox based on two established guidelines, they should be left alone -- or at least consensus reached for or against an infobox on the talk page of the particular composer in question. Cricket02 05:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has finished. Please feel free to talk about it somewhere else. -- Kleinzach 07:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has not finished, and you have no right to declare it so, This is the appropriate forum for the discussion, and any Wikipedia editor is entitled (and should be made welcome) to post here as art of it. Andy Mabbett 08:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)