User talk:Andreasegde: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Andreasegde (talk | contribs) |
Andreasegde (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
== [[Swarcliffe]] == |
|||
I have again removed the book cover image. You first [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swarcliffe&action=historysubmit&diff=443347619&oldid=443346362 added it back] arguing that "It is the only book written about the area, by a person who actually lives there. If Harding had his own page, it would be in it." The book may be significant, and I am not saying that it should not be discussed, I'm saying that what the cover looks like is not all that signficant- the usage does not meet NFCC#8. The book cover is not needed unless the cover ''itself'' is in some way significant- and the same would be true in an article about the author. Yes, it is generally accepted that a single cover image in the article about the book meets the NFCC, but this does not extend to other articles, whether or not an article on the book exists. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 15:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:A rather convoluted way of saying that you don't want it in. The best is this: '''"Yes, the book is significant, but that does not mean that its cover is"'''. If that doesn't make anyone laugh, it should.--[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde#top|talk]]) 18:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Helpme on [[Talk:Swarcliffe]] == |
|||
You placed a {{tn|helpme}} request on [[Talk:Swarcliffe]], but it just says, |
|||
{{xt|If you don't stop this bollards, I will contact an admin to sort it out. You syntax is extremely clumsy, and you are not interested in discussing changes on the talk page.--[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde|talk]]) 18:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)}} |
|||
I'm not sure what help you wanted - but, anyway, it's best to deal with helpme requests here, on your own user talk page. |
|||
Therefore, please could you say what you want (here). Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 19:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I thank you. I need help with an editor that does not want to co-operate on the [[Swarcliffe]] article, and insists on changing text (with references) without talking about said changes on the talk page first. The article was up for a GAR, but because of the changes I had to take it off the GAR list. The editor in question has spent a lot of time on the "Politics" section (double-linking), but now seems to be intent on changing text that is confirmed by the references, because it does not suit the editor's personal opinions. The editor's syntax is clumsy, but this does not seem to matter, even after I pointed out the various mistakes. Yes, I know that my replies were testy, but after working on it for a considerable amount of time, it is frustrating to see it being changed with such a careless attitude.--[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde#top|talk]]) 19:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::What's the name of the editor? <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 19:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::The editor is [[User:PamD|PamD]] ([[User talk:PamD|talk]]). For an example of the editor's work, look at [[Leeds Country Way]].--[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde#top|talk]]) 19:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{ec}} |
|||
OK. I see there is currently a discussion on [[Talk:Swarcliffe#Rubbish]] about the sentence concerning a church, but the last edit there is actually PamD making a suggestion. Do you feel that discussion could continue there, or, do you think you are 'deadlocked' on that issue? |
|||
I see there are a lot of other comments there, from PamD - so, they do seem prepared to discuss the changes; thus, normal procedure would be to talk it out there - remembering to comment on the ''content'', not the other editor. In the event you can't reach agreement, the best thing would be to ask for further outside opinions - but to do that, you do need to fix on one specific concern at a time - such as, "I think it should be THIS, but another user disagrees - I would welcome more opinions" - and then, put a neutral note on some project group (such as [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire|WikiProject Yorkshire]]) or, possibly, on a noticeboard, to get more input. |
|||
I don't ''think'' that the user has tried to force any changes through without discussion? Unless I am missing something? |
|||
I can understand it being frustrating when an article you've worked on is changed - but, I'm sure this can be sorted out, if we discuss the changes calmly. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 20:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:The problem is that the editor in question just changes things without talking (and most importantly, agreeing) on the talk page. This article was on the point of a GAR, but the frequent changes made that impossible, as it looked like edit-warring. If only the editor(s) would talk about the changes first, this problem could have been avoided. Looking at the pages said editors have written, it is hard to see how they can know what a modern GA review entails (it was easier in the past, wasn't it?) The [[Leeds Country Way]] article being a prime example of that inexperience. I don't want to say this, but I have worked on many GA articles, and I have a lot of experience here. If only editors with less experience could learn how to 'learn', it would benefit Wikipedia. I can only recommend that the editor be 'advised' to talk things through first, before plunging in to the deep end of rash edits.--[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde#top|talk]]) 20:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
OK; I see that it was listed on GAN on 29 July [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations&diff=prev&oldid=442044892] and removed as "failed" on 6 Aug [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations&diff=443415159&oldid=443413311] but, I can't see where it was discussed, or who failed it; there is no [[Talk:Swarcliffe/GA1]]. Can you enlighten me, about what happened/where? <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 20:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Never mind; I see now - you removed it yourself! [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swarcliffe&diff=prev&oldid=443064046] Well, I assure you - a GA-reviewer should not decline a review just because there are lots of recent edits; they'll only decline it if there is an ongoing dispute. Still, it's your choice to have withdrawn it. It's unfair to blame others for it being removed; that's not what happened. |
|||
Anyway; I've made a few comments on the talk page, and I hope we can all work together now to sort out any concerns. I don't, honestly, see anything problematic about PamD's edits; xe seems willing to discuss. I think, really, you might be [[WP:OWN|taking it rather too personally]], which is understandable having worked on it a lot. I will ask the user to ensure they discuss things. But, still - there's no deadline. I'm sure it can be resolved. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 20:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, I took it off the GAR list myself, as I know it would never have passed a GAR with the problems it was going through. I thought it had a very good chance (as I had worked on it for a whole week), but the deluge of changes (and my reverts) made it impossible. The early problems were mostly about double-linking and too much emphasis on the "Politics" section. (I did wonder about this, as I tried to point out the problems about predicting the future of elections, but I was ignored). Then the changes included supposed problems about whether the Wilson estate had been "taken in", "bought by", or "taken over" by the Leeds City Council. This seemed to be of paramount importance to the editors in question, but seemed to me to be concentrating on minuscule details. Maybe they just wanted to make a contribution, no matter how wrong. Oh dear, I have just read "'''we''' can all work together now". Hmmm...--[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde#top|talk]]) 20:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::OK - well, I can certainly look over the article more. I haven't actually read through it properly, yet. I've done quite a lot of GA-reviews myself, so I do know what to look for. I'll have a proper read of it; it might be tomorrow before I can comment though. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 21:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not asking you to look at the article, I am asking you to look at the changes and how they were implemented, without agreement.--[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde#top|talk]]) 21:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::OK, well, in that regard - anyone can make a good-faith edit to an article without getting agreement, unless there are special circumstances (such as, an Arbcom injunction) - and, any other editor can undo it. At ''that'' point, discussion is required. But, there is no policy that forces users to seek agreement before making a change; it's part of the fundamental [[WP:BOLD]] policy, and further detailed in [[WP:BRD]]. However, as I said - I've already asked the other editor to be extra-careful in discussing any further changes. So, I think all we can do there is, wait and see how things progress; at this time, I don't think any other actions would help. Of course, if you disagree - or indeed if I have missed some inappropriate conduct on behalf of another user - we can deal with that. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 21:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I thank you very much, so we can only hope it works, but I am already experiencing other edits that are strange. Is this what happens to 'Places' articles? I should have stayed with the crazy world of 'Music'. :))--[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde#top|talk]]) 21:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It can happen anywhere. Geo places certainly do attract a lot of new editors - who want to add info about their home town, and so forth. But...music was easier? Really? I'm guessing you didn't edit in the field of popular-culture music then, because some of those articles are incredibly disputed! |
|||
::::::Anyway - yes, let's see how it goes. Sometimes, the process of making a really great article can be tough, but thrashing out problems - hard as it is at the time - usually does improve things. I've been in some tremendously frustrating disputes, which made me want to quit altogether - but, if I look at the articles ''now'', I have to admit that the process did finally result in a better article. Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and so forth. These things are sent to try us, I guess. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 21:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::P.S. I will add one bit of advice - if you ever find yourself actually getting ''angry'' - just step away from the keyboard, for a while. And/or, consider leaving the article alone for a few days, and working on other things. Never reply when you're actually feeling anger; as tempting as it might be to vent, it's never productive. That's just friendly advice, from my own experience in similar cases. At the end of the day, it's only a wiki; easy to forget that, when embroiled in a dispute. Best, <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 21:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Oh, I do know that feeling, but I will ask you one thing; if somebody keeps slapping you in the face for five minutes, and says that you are wrong (when you know you're not), how long would you last? :))--[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde#top|talk]]) 21:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::They wouldn't be able to keep slapping me, because I'd have walked away. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 10:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Discussions relating to Swarcliffe == |
|||
I'm doing all I can to help resolve matters relating to the article. |
|||
I have taken the liberty of rearranging some comments on the talk page - striving to stick carefully to [[WP:TPO]]. Each edit I made is explained in edit-summary. |
|||
In order to keep the discussions on-track and collegiate, I ask you to note the following; |
|||
Please stick to discussing content, and making constructive comments. Do not disparage other editors with comments like, {{xt|sounding like someone foaming at the mouth}}. Please use meaningful, helpful headings instead of e.g. "Rubbish". Avoid [[WP:SARCASM|sarcasm]], such as calling a section "Amazing", or saying {{xt|For a fine example of a GA article, look at Leeds Country Way, Marvellous}}. |
|||
'''Please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]'''. See also [[WP:TPG]]. |
|||
Now, let's put that behind us, and get on with improving articles - OK? <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;"> ► </span>]]</span></small> 11:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:To be really honest, I wonder if the [[Swarcliffe]] article—because it's not one of the multitude of Geography/Places stubs about various subjects—has attracted too much attention from people wanting to flex their literary muscles? Hmmm... You might think my comments are sarcastic, but I'm just backing off from warring, and enjoying myself with a bit of humour. I'm not going to revert anything, but I must be allowed to comment about what I think is the diluting of an article that was almost a GA. That's the really sad part. |
|||
:Anyway, over the last week or so, I have contributed 889 edits to an article that was a stub. Apparently, this did not mean anything at all to the editors that felt they knew better, and did not understand the meaning of agreement before change. I put this down to the number of '''stub''' articles they have created, and seem to be very proud of. Nobody argues about a stub article. If the editors involved do not react to my comments, sarcastic or not, it means they are ignoring them, which will please both parties, I suppose. Does this sound like a situation that is not the best for a Wikipedia article? I think not, but we'll see what the tide brings in.--[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] ([[User talk:Andreasegde#top|talk]]) 20:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:19, 8 August 2011
 Archives |
|---|
|
Barnstars · The and Non-notable relatives · 2· 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 |