Talk:Timeshare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


he/she he/she himself/herself[edit]

Quote: "what he/she purchased and how that timeshare actually works, or realize that he/she has tied himself/herself with maintenance fees for the rest of his/her life. Or, perhaps the new timeshare owner feels that he/she has not had the time to research the company he/she just bought" - I don't know if WP has a general policy on pronouns of an abstract person, but either just always using the male form consistently has always been my preference (or female), though invariably this will offend somebody*. They/Their has also become acceptable in formal writing these days and most dictionaries list it as a correct gender neutral pronoun, though this will invariably offend somebody. FIVE occurrences of he/she (or himself/herself) in two short sentences is annoying to read; it doesn't flow well and comes across as bad writing - it can rephrased such that only a couple of personal pronouns are needed, which would mitigate the problem to a tolerable extent.

If somebody could let me know WP's policy or whatever the emergent consensus is on usage in languages that lack gender neutral person pronouns? Presumably there is one, this is a one-size-fits-all issue in which the same rule should work equally well for all English-language articles (e.g. as opposed to spelling, where in some articles British spelling is preferable)

*I recently read a book by Roger Penrose, and he/she devoted far longer than ought to have been necessary in explaining his/her exclusive use of the male pronoun as intended to be gender neutral (Cycles of Time IIRC?). 109.159.9.88 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Why don't you write the section how "you" would word it right here. If it makes sense, and doesn't favor one gender over another, I'll edit it into the article. - Pocketthis (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • BTW, I want you to know that I wrote that original copy that way for a reason. Aside from the gender favoritism factor, and the encyclopedic wording factors. That reason is that a single woman of moderate income is no safer in a timeshare presentation than a single well to do man, or a family of means. It's all numbers to the timeshare resort. Humanity and compassion never enter the equation. -Pocketthis (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:S/HE and WP:GNL for guidance. General Ization Talk 17:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, it's been reworded with most of the he/she and himself/herself phrases removed. - Pocketthis (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This reads much better now! Pocketthis, as to why I didn't re-write it, simply because I have been bitten enough times to learn that pointing out issues in talk-pages saves wasted energy and editors have the ability to ignore or implement my advice as they see fit. I quit editing* because I was fed up arguing. Being bold in practice is an invitation to be flamed (*aside from the occasional clear typographical issue). Anyway, 'prospect' works much better; it is unfortunate we lack a gender neutral pronoun. I think the Chinese 他 (ta) would make a nice addition to the English language. 109.159.9.88 (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: I don't consider using exclusively male pronouns to favour a gender, as far as I am concerned it can be considered gender neutral for the abstract person, although some take offence. ("...one giant leap for mankind" is clearly not intended to be gender specific) 109.159.9.88 (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Like I said previously, I wrote it that way to drive home the fact that man, woman, married or single, rich or poor, you are just a number to a timeshare sales crew. No mercy, no compassion, just the bottom line matters. It really had little to do with gender specific issues, however, being an encyclopedia, I got away with it until your complaint. That's OK. It did read uncomfortably, and there is still a couple of His/hers to drive home the point. Thanks- Pocketthis (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your point, and you're right of course, but it was bordering on not maintaining NPOV. I still think the point is equally strong as it reads now. a reader will be well-aware that the person/prospect on the receiving end of the sales spiel could be of any gender, and 'prospect' works well because it emphasises a certain degree of dehumanisation (or depersonalisation?) of the person receiving the pitch from the perspective of the time-share dealers, but manages to maintain NPOV. It seems like you've had a bad experience with these folks! Here in Britain I've never seen it advertised, I only know about them through US sitcoms etc... 109.159.9.88 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It is the business of selling air. Purchase some air one day, and then try and re-sell it. Truth is, unless you're on Mars, you can't even give it away, and that is the situation folks find themselves in should they decide to eliminate the maintenance fees from their life. They literally can't give their timeshare away.-Pocketthis (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

semi-protect?[edit]

Is this an article which REALLY needs semi-protection? Timeshares are not a controversial subject or an active news story with biased or inflamed opinions ... It seems to be in need of spelling corrections, typo fixes, and many citations, etc. With the article semi-protected, no one can do that. That's just food for thought. It seems that semi-protect is being abused on this and many other articles. 68.37.24.220 (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2015‎ (UTC)

  • Timeshare sales is an extremely controversial subject always in the news, with "extreme bias" and often displaying inflamed rhetoric from both sellers and buyers. An article is only put in semi-protect status when a consensus of active editors has asked that it be so, and those with the power invested in them to do so, have investigated the article's history, both recent, and past, and decided it was in the best interest of said article for these protections to be implemented. Thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeshare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors. Checked by: Pocketthis (talk)

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Warning to User:Pocketthis[edit]

You have maliciously edited my revisions on this page, and claim that I am the one in error. Please note that if you continue to vandalize my edits, you WILL be reported to Wikipedia administration. Quidam65 (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC

  • Excuse me sir, but I wrote over 90% of this article. You have been destroying it with poor wording, and nonfactual statements. Any edit that you make that I don't think is constructive, will be reworded to make sense. If you're going to report me to someone, please do it quickly so we don't drag this on. P.S.: I'm making edits, you are in an edit war making reversals. Why are "your" edits important, and mine vandalism? You've been here long enough, and been in trouble enough times to know exactly what I'm talking about. I haven't liked one edit you've made here yet. This isn't a La-Dee-Da-article similar to others I've edited like science or movie articles. This is a really important article because over 20,000 timeshare prospects come here every month counting on the facts to help advise them on whether or not they should be spending tens of thousands of their hard earned dollars on a timeshare. This article must tell in earnest, the facts both pro and con. This is not an article to edit for the sake of editing, as you have been doing. This article needs to stand solid as a beacon of truth for the public that visit here for help. Your edits are not only "useless", but they are conjecture on your part. I spent 40 years in this business, and am now an advocate for the prospective buyers. I am not about to let a timeshare owner in his 40s that is still wet behind the ears when it comes to this industry, and all its intricacies, practice his editing skills in this article, and undo all the work we have done to get the article to this level. If you were making valid grammar corrections, I would have no issue with your edits. However, you have attempted to rewrite the entire article over the past month or so, for no reason other then to put it into "your own words". Not this article Mr. Quidam65. A mistake here, and someone could be out of pocket a lot of money they will then complain to Wikipedia about, when they discover one of your facts wasn't quite as you reworded it. Please leave it be and move on. Pocketthis (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)