User talk:OpenFuture

Please Note: I will reply to your posts on this page!

Say something!

Shock Doctrine

I'm already sorry I got involved with talking about that review of The Shock Doctrine. I'm not very invested in that article. I haven't read the book and don't particularly plan to. I know the article's a POV honeypot that I don't really want to mess with. So, good luck with your edits. I better step out before the wikistress hits me. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your wikistress. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Durutti Column

I've reverted back. In british english bands are considered to be collective plural groups so 'are' is correct. US english considers them to be singular entities. Therefore we use "Bon Jovi is" but "Def Leppard are" constructions - it's based on the origin of the group in question. Exxolon (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Even when the band is in actual fact a one person project? Weirdos! :) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Klein

I finally posted the promised data, wont be going back to that site , thanks again for the discussion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Russia's 1993 crisis

Hi, I noticed that you've been doing a great job trying to balance this article. I also plan to develop this article, because it is quite an important subject. As of now, the article has too few references and seems too one-sided to my eye. In fact, the corresponding article in ru.wiki is much more informative (though even more POVed). Regards, --Miacek (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Spacing change?

WTF? It's strange that you removed the more readable layout of some of the citations in the Naomi Klein article, while making no content changes. It's so much harder to edit citations when they are put in the ultra-compact "waste no newline" format, and much more difficult as well to edit the surrounding text. LotLE×talk 06:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You make these changes as part of other changes, which makes it impossible to see what changes you actually made. If you want to make layout changes in an article, do them separately from content changes. And in any case, inserting loads and loads of empty lines, as you did, does not make any change and does not make anything more readable. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? <sarcasm>Have you ever tried reading an article while editing?</sarcasm>. It's just so much self-evidently easier to work with when editing if the citation templates are spaced out as I did (for a few of them). When articles have this it's simply enormously easier to identify and modify citations (and combine dups, fix details, etc). The size in the database, FWIW, is exactly the same size to hold a linefeed or a space.

I do know that changing the layout makes the single incremental diff harder to read, but it makes every future edit easier. Maybe now that you've introduced the de-prettification, you can just look at the diff to see the usefulness of the edits, then restore the citations to the far easier to work with format?!

It's one thing if someone just adds some citations that aren't prettified. But to go into an article and destructively remove the prettification! It boggles the mind. LotLE×talk 07:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I repeat: If you want to make layout/whitespace changes in an article, do them separately from content changes. Otherwise it's very hard to see what you changed. Once you change whitespace, it looks like everything has changed, any any actual content changes are hard to separate out. Doing major changes especially in whitespace as a way to hide other POV changes is a common technique. You seem to understand this, so I don't know why you are so hysterical.

Secondly, you added formatting that was plain nonsensical, with loads of empty lines in the quotes. Don't do that.

And if you think your formatting is a great idea, why don't you do it for all the quotes?

Lastly, no I don't agree it's easier to read and edit. I find that it creates a break in the middle of a paragraph where there is none in the rendered text. But that's obviously a matter of taste, and that was not the reason I changed it.

--OpenFuture (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus MFing Christ! Now along with the destruction of readable layout, you are removing the use of citation templates to restore misformated references! This is nearly as vindictive as it is stupid... and we're skating close to user RfC territory here. LotLE×talk 07:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, RfC all you like. Stop inserting loads of blank lines in the code. Meanwhile, why you waste time on RFC:ing, I'm going to try to do this the Right Way. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Before you start again at messing up spacing, why don't you read the rather clear instructions at Wikipedia:Citation templates. Hint: you're doing it wrong, and there's simply no ambiguity here. LotLE×talk 07:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right, there is no ambiguity. Each and every example there actually use an inline style, and not the vertical style. And there is not one case of that page of having blank lines between each row like you do. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read that page, did you!? If you had, obviously you'd see every example in a vertical style. Why are you trying to mess up the work I've done for absolutely no reason, other than apparently some stupid ego game. The content you've worked on looks perfectly fine... messing up formatting just for the sake of messing it up is about as childish as any edit can get. LotLE×talk 07:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not looking very closely. The examples in the table are not in a vertical style. They actually have several paramateres per row. They just end up looking vertical because the columns are narrow. And still you don't get it: You insert blank lines inbetween each row. There is no example for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the edit history, I see that you have never made a constructive, or even vaguely content-related, change to the Naomi Klein article (although I think you have to some related articles). What on God's green earth put it in your head that you needed to make random reversions and re-formatting of that actual content-changes I've tried to work on?! It would be one thing if you actually had a content disagreement. That would be fine: revise my edits; bring it up on talk; cite policies; whatever. That's how things should work. This nonsense is just pure, infuriating disruption for no purpose other than disruption. LotLE×talk 07:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's nonsense, and the problem here is that you obviously don't read a thing I say. I can't do anything about that. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Compromise/improvement

Would you agree to use the nice capability at Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references? If you do that, I'll live with the uglier ultra-compact no-linefeed style. That's still a little harder to read, even within the {reflist}, but it doesn't make much difference down there. LotLE×talk 07:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. I hadn't seen this addition until just now, but I actually proposed the code to implement it about 4 years ago (and I'm pretty sure I was the first to do so). I have no idea if the actual MediaWiki code is mine or just something analogous... though I do know you can thank me for the capability of referring to a named ref earlier than its citation details in the body. LotLE×talk 07:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well what do you think I'm doing right now? I told you that while you where wasting your time, I'm going to try to do this the Right Way. And you excpect me to believe you propose a feature, and then don't check up on if it's been implemented? Right... Now stop disturbing me. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Encuesta or Referendum

Hi, the confusion here over whether its a poll or referendum revolves around the fact that there are in fact 3 decrees using different language each time to describe the June 28 event. The language of the first was sloppy, not particularly legal even by the judgement of Zelaya's own legal advisor, and was never published, but the court documents present what they claim is a faithful copy. The second, which was published in La Gaceta, I thought called it an encuesta but I'm working from memory because I don't have time to look for my copy now. Finally, just two days before June 28, a 3rd decreto was published that sought to get around the military's lack of cooperation by calling on all government employees to help with the poll. It definitely called it an encuesta. There was never an intent to make it a binding referendum, just sloppy crafting of law, like we've seen under the de facto government as well. Hope this helps with your confusion. Rsheptak (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't confuse referendums with binding... In any case, if we can have more sources than La Gaceta that would be helpful. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In the Honduran legal code, a referendum is binding, period. To call something a referendum is to imply that its binding. La Gaceta is the official newspaper where laws are published, so its definitive. We don't need other sources. Rsheptak (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Kensington Runestone

I may have not done the best job editing the article on the Kensington Runestone, but the evidence I cited needs to be entered in an obvious way. The article is very one sided and does not consider any of the research on the stone over the last ten years. The article draws a conclussion in the first paragraph. I dont think my version made it seem like it was definatly 100% ligit but it raised the question. I suggest if you happen to be flipping through the channels and see the special about the Holy Grail in America on the history channel you take the time to watch it. I don't have a horse in the race so I am not going to get into a fight of changing it again but I think the way it is written is very misleading. Garkeith (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You have not cited any evidence, only a newspaper article containing a bunch of obviously impossible fantasies. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Grytviken

Suggest you try it in a few different browsers and screen sizes, the revisions you made utterly screwed with the formatting in my browser. Firefox is not that uncommon really. Justin talk 22:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried it in many screen sizes, and I'm using Firefox. The problem with having all the images on the top is the all the [edit] links end up in a bunch somewhere further down the page. See the Talk-page. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And in my browser all the text is screwed up and there are large tracts of whitespace. Justin talk 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, then change it so both problems are fixed. That's NOT how it looks in my browser. If you can have all the images on top and still have the edit links show up correctly, that would be OK, although I'd prefer it if the pictures actually are close to the topics. And also, as mentioned, you reverted things that was not a part of these changes. Again. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Again you're reverting to a version that DOESN'T WORK. Now please stop the ridiculous edit warring. Justin talk 22:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

IT WORKS! AND you are reverting more that you say! Is this hard for you to comprehend? Don't blindly revert over and over, Listen and FIX! --OpenFuture (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

IT DOESN'T WORK. Listen and fix? I might stand a chance of doing just that if I didn't keep getting an edit conflict because some idiot has edit warred in the mean time to a version that doesn't fucking work. Well that is just the most utterly ridiculous thing to edit war over, you're knowingly reverting to a version that fucks up the format. I do hope you're proud of yourself breaching WP:3RR for such a stupid edit. I'm not going to indulge you in your pettiness, I will not be making a further revert but you can consider this your 3RR warning. Justin talk 22:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Since all I have reverted is your reversion, I have not reverted any more than you. And since that's three times, you can not reasonably warn me.

You wouldn't get edit conflicts if you didn't revert. Just fix it instead of reverting. And for the last time: You are reverting other things than the image moving. How many times do I need to tell you that before you get it? Hello!! Anybody home? LISTEN!!! --OpenFuture (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR is a guideline not a right to 3 revisions, you're knowingly reverting to a version that you've already been told doesn't work. That could well be considered vandalism by some and in which case a block for blind reverting is entirely possible. Telling someone to listen, when you ignore something as basic as that is also somewhat hypocritical. I see that someone else has also reverted for exactly the same reason as myself. Perhaps you might get it now, you fucked up, its that simple. Your edit doesn't work, perhaps now you'll listen. Justin talk 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are knowingly repeating a revert you know is incorrect and broken. You are reverting something else than you claim you are reverting. You include two other changes, not just the order of the images I did. How many times will I need to repeat this until it registers in your brain? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[1] Diff....you are the weakest link, goodbye. 23:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And his link *also* includes the incorrect reverts you did, where you reverted MORE than my changes of image ordering. Do you really not understand this? Look at the diff! There are changes in the headers, for example. You reverted more than you thought you reverted. OK? Is this unclear somehow? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now put the article into the state it was before the changes that you claim broke the page. Ie, the page is now in the state you claim you put it in (but you didn't). That should solve your issues, without reverting unrelated things, as you did. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A partial revert is still a revert, you are now in material breach of 3RR. I intended to remove those changes, the previous titles were more relevant. Justin talk 23:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that can be discussed on the talke page, but that is a separate topic, I think they are an improvement. Also, your erranous revert included another picture that doesn't have proper formatting. The article is already load of pictures, that's already causing problems, this isn't flickr. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Or if I were so inclined I could simply make a 3RR report and have you blocked for edit warring. They're not an improvement, I would also suggest you read WP:BRD and stop acting in the manner of a rude arrogant asshole. There is no reason to remove that picture, so what, there are plenty of ways of fixing it if becomes necessary. Justin talk 23:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Geez, you just do not listen do you? If you don't think they are an improvement, discuss that on the talk page, not here.

WP:BRD has nothing to do with this. This is not a problem of consensus. The problem is that you reverted more things that you intended to (or at least more things that you *claimed* you intended to), and when this was pointed out to you, just just continued redoing the same incorrect revert over and over. THAT is the main problem.

I'll stop acting as an arrogant asshole, when you stop acting as a moron. Start with listening to comments and stop just blindly reverting things. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela

I, I have seen what you have done to edit on Cuba. Maybe you could help with Venezuela, the main Cuba friend. And I really need some help. Look especially at Human rights in Venezuela, Eligio Cedeno and Maria Lourdes Afiuni. Voui (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've only reverted POV vandalism, but sure, I can do that on these pages to, no pb. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is a response to exactly, but it seems like you're not aware the article is currently protected for a week. I've started a userspace draft, User:Rd232/Human rights in Venezuela, which I mentioned in the "Reboot part 2" subsection. Any advice/input would be welcome. Rd232 ^talk 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a response to Voui's talk about "plans". I'm completely aware that the article is protected. The advice is the same I already gave twice in the talk section. Don't rewrite, don't make plans, make small changes, a couple of day, evolve the article but by bit. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

edit warring

You're edit warring at Kensington Runestone, which isn't allowed. If you carry on with this, you'll be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop making baseless threats. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hardly baseless and not a threat. It's a warning (your last) and I will block you if you carry on edit warring. If you don't understand what this is about, WP:Edit war may help. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a baseless threat, as I'm not edit warring in the first place. Just like your ridiculous answer on the talk page: "Not to sound harsh, but that would stray from WP:POINT and if carried on, could be blockable." You are very fond of raising the topic of blocking instead of contributing to the discussion. Try to be constructive instead of threatening, because it doesn't help. Unless of course it's your intention to not help, raise the temperature of the discussion and start a fight. Is it? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't skirt this warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, you change the topic when you are cornered. I'm not trying to skirt anything, I'm pointing out your nonconstructive, aggressive behavior, and telling you to stop threatening me with blocks when you are well aware that I haven't done anything wrong. I'm well aware with WP policy, including edit warring, and I am not edit warring. Neither did I earlier do any disruptive editing to prove a point, yet you brought it up. Again as a threat. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The policy on edit warring is very straightforward, you can't edit by revert, which is what you've been doing. As I tried to say before, you can't skirt this warning by saying I'm being "nonconstructive," "aggressive," "threatening" and so on. I don't want to block you, I very much want you to follow the policy and stop edit warring, which is always harmful to articles, even if what one is edit warring towards happens to be supported by the sources and later consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring is not defined as "editing by revert" but by as "when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion." I made a change. It was reverted. I re-did it, and added an explanation on the talk page. That is *not* edit warring. You *are* being nonconstructive and threatening, by repeatedly, with no reason, bringing up the topic of blocking instead of contributing to the discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I brought up blocking because that's what will happen to your account if you carry on edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop making baseless threats. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

She's making the same threats by me. Another much more aggressive editor called her in for help, and in my case, she has actually taken part in the edit war, so it does not make her an objective admin and it is not constructive when she throws in this imaginary WP policy of 'you can't edit by revert'. --Shuki (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, Edit warring needs to involve at least two persons. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political prisoners in Venezuela

Since you have been involved as an honest broker, I thought that maybe you could help on this. Am in Europe and going to bed now (2am). CheersVoui (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-Adding Spam

Please do not re-add comments such as ":(". It is neither productive, nor helpful to the process. I would assume you know better. --Tarage (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not supposed to change other peoples comments, and especially not as a part of adding your own. It looks like a mistake. It's definitely *not* spam. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. A comment of ":(" and a signature is spam. If you want to take it up with an admin, I am confident they will agree. Wikipedia is not a forum. There is a reason for deletion of comments like that. --Tarage (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I get your point about not readding it, and I won't do it again. But I think you need to read up what "spam" means. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I understand what Tarage meant by calling this frowny face spam, although I wouldn't call it spam, it was nothing but a forumish blip and undoing the edit was helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Political repression in Venezuela

For you information, Rd232, after having nominated for deletion Political prisoners in Venezuela, has also nominated Category:Political repression in Venezuela (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. See the discussion page. Voui (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)