Jump to content

User talk:Just Step Sideways

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrTooGood (talk | contribs) at 03:29, 2 October 2011 (→A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

please stay in the top three tiers

Your DYK nom for Alaska Veterans Memorial

Hi Beeblebrox, I've reviewed your DYK nom at Template:Did you know nominations/Alaska Veterans Memorial and I have a couple issues with notability and referencing. Could you please see my comments at the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Side note: It's very threatening to have to write a negative message under two red exclamation marks and a stop sign... Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry my edit notice scared you. I've had it for nearly two years and nobody has else has mentioned feeling threatened by it before, but I suppose I could tone down the graphics. Replied to the DYK concerns at the template. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, now that I've changed it I have to admit you have a point. It's looks a lot friendlier and less alarming now. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elk discussion

   While of course admin behavior is only punishable when exercising admin permissions, i'm surprised that an admin would ignore bullet one at WP:CIV#Avoiding incivility by summarizing "groan", and i'm sad to say i hesitate to be direct in responding to your more substantial comments. Where shall we go from here?
--Jerzy•t 09:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you have hinted that you don't want to discuss something about that FAQ directly, as though there is some terrible thing, some horrible fight or something that you are aware of but don't want to get into. I don't have a clue what secret motivation (or whatever it is you are hinting at) I am being back-handedly accused of having. Frankly, if you feel like an edit summary expressing mild exasperation falls into the realm of incivility and are afraid to directly respond to my criticisms of your ideas, then I don't know where to go from here either. All I can say is that usually when two people are in disagreement the best way forward is to find more users to comment on the situation so that a consensus may be reached. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
   When i say "Where shall we go from here?", i don't mean "I don't know where to go from here", but rather "I think it would be worthwhile to hear something more from you."
   True, i'd hoped that you would choose to at least acknowledge that reasonable editors could construe any expression (e.g. "groan") of negative emotion (e.g. "mild exasperation") as falling under the ambit of
Incivility – or the appearance of incivility – typically arises from heated content disputes.
* Be careful with edit summaries. Edit summaries are relatively short comments, and thus potentially subject to misinterpretation or oversimplification. They cannot be changed after pressing "Save", and are often written in haste, particularly in stressful situations. Remember to explain your edit, especially when things are getting heated; to avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with; and to use the talk page to further explain your view of the situation. [All emphasis is as in the policy page itself; however, for the convenience of colleagues who want to read the adjacent text that i consider irrelevant to this discussion, i have downsized it rather than removing it from the bullet point.]
(I also intentionally included here the passage on "personal comments" toward colleagues, and invite you to have half an eye open in all your serious undertakings, esp'ly as any defensiveness you may experience about this discussion leaches away, for evidence that virtually all your colleagues, anywhere, consider themselves targets of any negative emotions that you express about how their respective work products affect you.)
   But you aren't here to meet my expectations: AFAI am concerned, where we were going next is that at least we're disagreeing about the size of that particular ungulate (rather than whether it's in the room or not).
   You say that the first edit in this user-talk section i "have hinted that [i] don't want to discuss something about that FAQ directly." It's possible that our psychological styles differ enuf that any effort at clarification by me makes no sense to you except as some kind of portent-fraught "hint", and I also admit the possibility that your reference to a first time is more than a claim to have read my mind. (Bring that to my attention if i don't succeed in making you comfortable about that.) Still, you were clearly misreading it re the second time: I'm sorry it was unclear to you that the third clause of the first of those two sentences was about (as was the rest of the msg) your tone as it affects our communications, and relevant to the FAQ, if at all, only thru that.
   In fact, you clearly erred in putting the word "FAQ" into my mouth, as is clear from my proceeding from addressing you on this page to my next edit, which proposed a replacement FAQ text, which (after a number of unsaved drafts) i saved 45 minutes later (some four hours before you said that). (I find it usually much more effective to go directly toward the goal, and discuss a new text, than to focus on finding fault with old ones, tho of course YMMV; probably at least Mongo and i will eventually get around to that.)
   As i hope i just succeeded in implying, "i hesitate to be direct in responding to your more substantial comments" must be read in the context of the rest of its sentence, and my hesitation (a precautionary delay) was against giving the impression that the ungulate's size was far from the elephantine end of the scale; i hold that closing our eyes to violations of that Pillar of Wikipedia is a great way for the project to subside into crap.
   Yes, you and i have had some communication problems; perhaps we'll have more, but there's time to straighten them out. As your WP-handle reminds some of us, DON'T PANIC! Thanks for you attention,
--Jerzy•t 05:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almohad caliphate and Moroccan quarter

Hello Beeblebrox, I read what you wrote at the WP:RPP and agree with it. Please consider that the IP is suspected of being a sock of a blocked user (FAIZGUEVARRA (talk · contribs)) per evidence presented here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokpasa and here: [1]. I started a discussion at Moroccan Quarter explaining how to move a page. (copy/paste moves are not allowed as far as I understand). On Almohad Caliphate, please also consider this rude edit summary, as a reply to an invitation for discussion: "dont play games this is an encyclopidia not a forum or private site". Tachfin (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI was not mentioned in the RFPP request, or I may have taken that into consideration as well when evaluating the request. Trying to communicate by edit summary while reverting one another is usually not a good way to get anything done, so I'm glad you have elected to try and discuss it more openly on the talk page. The IP has been a bit pig-headed, and if they continue to ignore attempts to discuss semi-protection may be deemed more appropriate, but for now it looks more like a content dispute, and when considering protection requests admins have to be careful not to pick one side or the other, hence the current full protection. You are correct that copy/paste moves are not allowed as they are not consistent with Wikipedia's license, hopefully some sort of consensus can be arrived at from the discussion, when it does I or any other admin can perform the page move if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I totally understand your view from an admin perspective. Thanks for clarifying, hopefully this will be sorted out within wiki procedures. Tachfin (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arman Cagle requesting File mover

Hey, I have been waiting for some admin to approve my request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover but I have not seen anyone. Can you approve it? Thanks
Arman Cagle (Contact me EMail Me Contribs) Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 16:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never actually reviewed one of those before, so I may not be the best person to ask. Your request is less than 24 hours old, I'm sure if you wait a bit longer someone who knows what they are doing will get to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks

Arman Cagle (Contact me EMail Me Contribs) Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 16:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's now 'notdone' [2].  Chzz  ►  22:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/Tenmei

Thank you for your participation in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei, especially for your comments here.

As it turned out, the RfC was cited as part of an ArbCom findings of fact which explicitly endorsed the complaints of Qwyrxian here and Bobthefish2 here.

Although Tenmei was counseled on this issue during the prior case, his manner and style of communications during disputes has not improved. Whether intentional or not, Tenmei's involvement in the current dispute has frustrated involved and uninvolved editors alike, amplifying and prolonging the dispute resolution process.(Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei (see views by HXL49 and Taemyr); Evidence section "Tenmei", provided by Qwyrxian; [3])

As remedies, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision included:

Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.

In retrospect, I would have preferred you did something different in the RfC. It would have helped me if you and others had argued forcefully that the complainers needed to help me by addressing the direct questions I posted as an initial response:

A. In specific, what could I have done differently at any specific point?
B. In specific, what should I have avoided at any specific point?
C. In specific, how could I have parsed perceived options differently at any specific point?
D. In specific, what unidentified options were overlooked at any specific point?
E. In specific, what worked? What didn't? Why?
F. In specific, what illustrated good judgment? bad judgment?

Quite simply, your analysis here was too generous. You may recall writing,

I find the "evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" unimpressive. Especially [4] in which this RFCU is held over Tenmei's head as a threat. These goal of an RFCU is to come to a mutually agreeable voluntary solution to an unresolved problem. It is not a court and Tenmei is not on trial. RFCU is generally the last stop before ArbCom, if this effort fails to arrive at a solution I seriously doubt ArbCom would accept a case.

I explain this now because I hope it will influence your thinking in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the very least I failed at second-guessing what ArbCom would do. The main reason I did the close was that the users who created the RFC stopped participating. To me that implied that they had given up and were not interested in pursuing the matter further. I may comment about this at the ArbCom case. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

  • Badger, redux: I finally had enough time to check out the Census FactFinder. I clicked on a random spot on the map, and the resultant dialog box referenced its location in the "Badger CDP." I only looked at the FNSB, but it appeared that CDPs (along with the two incorporated cities) now cover all the populated areas along highways and other major road systems within the borough. Obviously, the placement of these entities within Alaska are a matter of putting the cart before the horse, since no one has gotten around to figuring out which are new CDPs and creating articles for them. I've had an offline revision to Alaska sitting around for months on account of the fact that it would ultimately involve revisions to other articles as well, and that takes additional time to figure that out. Ironic that while we're hashing this out, Mayor Isaacson of North Pole has commented recently that having an area with such a large population outside of an incorporated city, but commonly assumed to be a part of it, just confuses people. An old, old friend of mine, who is a reporter for the FDNM and lives in "Badger," mentioned the very same thing when I ran into him at Wal-Mart the other night.
  • Re: the Alaska Veterans Memorial - I would recommend to you that you at least get in contact with Bruce Merrill at the Loussac Library, who I have found to be a very helpful person WRT various things over the years(*). Most major Alaskan newspapers should have subject indices in print form for those years which they have published and furnished to libraries. These could certainly provide a starting point for future research. At the very least, any relevant content could be reprinted in the talk page to either demonstrate the existence of reliable sources or to provide interested others a guide of what to look for. Unfortunately, the majority of article tagging I observe amounts to one editor telling another "That's your job, not mine." Occasionally, these editors have a hidden agenda, such as attempting to maintain the primacy of their favored sources in cases where sources are everywhere, including even reliable sources where none are normally presumed to exist. (* - the employee search dialog at muni.org doesn't return his name. I would think that if he retired, I would have heard about it. Could possibly be an error; I've found muni.org to be pretty useless since its last major revamping.)
  • Re: the suggestion about biographies - it may be time for me (or anyone else) to reassess certain content associated with the project. I'm dealing with two major things suddenly happening in my personal life: 1) the realization that I'm soon to become a snowbird twenty or thirty years early. I hope I can become strictly a snowbird rather than staying there year-round, because I can't possibly imagine wanting to stay in Arizona during the summer when it's 120 degrees F all the time. Since one of my short-term goals has been to finish my degree, I may benefit from doing that outside of Alaska anyway; and 2) suddenly having a girlfriend 17 years my junior. Now, rather than fuck around at random like I have been, I may have to sit down and take stock of the important work and get it out of the way first while I still have a short-term opportunity of doing so.
You're going from the Interior to Arizona? You're going to melt. On the other hand, it may give you a chance to visit notable Alaskans who are in prison down there... I did indeed take the photo of Gruening street here in Homer, I knew there was stuff named after him all over the state and we had no images. As you can see below, another editor jumped in and found some more good sources for the Vet memorial, but I can imagine having an ally at Alaska's biggest library (I think it is anyway) could be very helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Alaska Veterans Memorial

Hi Beeblebrox. I've placed Template:Did you know nominations/Alaska Veterans Memorial on hold. Through NewsBank, I've been able to obtain secondary sources about the memorial. I hope the sources will help you expand Alaska Veterans Memorial and make it less reliant on primary sources. Best, Cunard (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether to thank you or smack you. I guess thank you, that's quite a list you managed to dig up and will certainly assuage any concerns about the subject or the DYK, it's just that in my somewhat limited experience with DYK I have never had so many obstacles to overcome to get my nomination through, and I thought I'd finally gotten it through the gate. I'll start plowing through those refs and see what I can do with them. Seriously, though, thanks for finding all that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can do both: love and hate me. :) The article passed DYK but I put it on hold because it could be improved with sources to which you didn't have access. I hope you don't mind the slight delay in placing the article on the main page. By the way, the images are breathtakingly sharp and beautiful. Best Cunard (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have several clarifications about the changes I've made to the article's references:

  • For the NewsBank links, I've replaced the iw.newsbank.com links, which are transient, with docs.newsbank.com ones, which are durable. In a few hours, this iw.newsbank.com link will no longer work, while this docs.newsbank.com one will.
  • For newspapers, I generally use the {{cite news}} template. If you use the {{cite web}} template, remember to include the newspaper name in the |work= parameter, which places it in italics. The |publisher= does not.
  • I've added archiveurls from WebCite using the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters to prevent link rot. This ensures that if the docs.newsbank links stop being durable, you will still be able to access them.

Cunard (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, before this DYK I had never even used {{cite web}} before, I had always used simpler ref formats, so I don't really know what I'm doing with that, but I was asked to add access dates to the refs so I've been trying to pick up how to use cite web on the fly. I don't think I've ever used newsbank before either, so I had no idea about that. Your modifications are very much appreciated. I've done my share of content work, but never really put a lot of effort into learning my way around the various alternatives for ref formatting. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I recently learned about the Harvard citation template, which I've started using. Wikipedia has so many citation templates that I wouldn't be surprised if there were more citation templates I've never heard about.

I think I'm wrong about the iw.newsbank.com link's being non-durable. I must have confused it with infoweb.newsbank.com links, which expire very quickly. However, I think the docs.newsbank links I changed are better because they are shorter and do not clutter the edit window as much. (As you can probably tell, NewsBank's subdomains are very confusing. Some are durable, some are not, and one redirects to another.) Cunard (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for saving the John Muir article by protecting it! Mrtoogood (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Just_Step_Sideways&oldid=453471781"