User talk:Paulszym

Risk-Based Testing

Thanks for trying to help with the dispute. I disagree with your assessment, and ask you to follow the very guideline that you chose to bring up. I've removed your comment from my talk page per the instructions on my talk page. If you'd like to reword your comments, providing diffs, it might be worth following your line of reasoning.

I don't like how the dispute has gone. Walter has done an incredibly good job of digging himself into a deep hole quite quickly. While I've not looked at his past behavior in any detail at all, his blocklog suggests this incident is not unique.

I do appreciate your trying to step in to help. I hope it will change the situation for the better. --Ronz (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz. Thanks for your feedback and your quick response. I have done some Wikipedia editing in the past, but I'm by no means a Wikipedia editing expert. The Wikipedia protocols and mechanics are extensive and not well known to me, and I generally operate by applying WP:DBAD as a first principle. Please excuse any errors on my part resulting from lack of familiarity with other protocols and editing mechanics.

Having spent some time now reading your user page (something I missed by following the link directly to your Talk page), I assume by "the instructions on my talk page" you mean your comment to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. I agree with the principle: it's a perfectly sound and good guideline. I also note your comments about not assuming that editors will be civil. You also mentioned my reference to WP:AGF.

So that I'm clear, are you objecting to the wording of my comment, or the place I have posted it? I think I can address both issues with a little help and direction.

My feeling is that it will be difficult to help the discussion come back to a focus on the content with the current contributors, unless both the existing parties involved WP:DISENGAGE for a while and can get back to a position of WP:AGF. I assume that is an acceptable comment to make, and that's what I wanted to suggest. That seemed to me to be more usefully directed at the parties involved, not the content itself, but I'm happy to take advisement on the best place to communicate that. I'm not certain how to make my comment if I can't recommend to WP:DISENGAGE to return to WP:AGF. I think it's fairly clear that the nature of the comments from both contributing parties have escalated to the point where WP:AGF has been lost.

I'm certainly happy to help resolve the situation if I'm able to help do that. Paulszym (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My blocks were for unrelated matters. Your lack of understanding of the subject matter is part of the problem. My inability to explain the subject matter is my problem. Your assertion that this risk-based testing is a neologism is on the surface understandable. However your insistence in the face of additional information is not.

Further, your page notice does not describe the comment that Paulszym left for you. You warn editors to see the talk page guidelines which state: " Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why you hold it. Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus." The comments were perfectly inline with that basic guideline. Perhaps you should indicate which guideline listed were offended. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, my comments were actually intended for both parties, and I'd hoped that both parties would act on the suggestion, take a break, and arrive back at a neutral position. My comments were also very specifically about the risk-based testing page, nothing further. What I don't want is to be cast as taking a particular side on the concern I have raised. I think both parties have contributed to the situation. To that end, please accept my decision to edit your post here to retain your comments that I feel might help to reach resolution of the dispute, and remove the comments that I think will be likely to worsen the situation.

When it comes to the content of the risk-based testing page in question, I'm very happy to contribute to some solid discussion about how best to present the content, and I expect there will be some disagreement. I'm happy to help achieve a good outcome. Paulszym (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paulszym for the reply.

I have messages both at the top of my talk page and at the top of the editing page for my talk page. On my talk the relevant portion is, "In order to make conversations go smoothly, please follow WP:TALK and WP:AGF when contributing to my talk page. Comments that don't may be immediately deleted." When editing, it says, "In order to make conversations go smoothly, please do your best to make your comments civil and hold off on any negative assumptions of others (per WP:TALK and WP:AGF). Otherwise, I'll most likely remove any offending comments."

So, no, it has nothing to do with WP:FOC. To start, if you want to make any accusations against anyone, provide diffs. Better yet, when new to a dispute, go light on the accusations and focus on your proposal. --Ronz (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may not be necessary Ronz. Your lack of good will is clearly evident to Paulszym so perhaps his attempt at neutral commentary should be taken in the good faith that it was offered rather than the way you did. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI for User Ronz

Concerning a pattern of behavior not suitable for Wikipedia, by a user you've had dealings with, please list examples Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ronz_behaviour Dream Focus 22:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ESEAP Conference 2018

Hello Paulszym,

I’m Irvin from PhilWiki Community, a member of the Communication Committee of the ESEAP Conference. ESEAP Conference 2018 is a regional conference for Wikimedia communities throughout the ESEAP region: ESEAP stands for East, Southeast Asia, and Pacific. Taking place in Bali, Indonesia on 5–6 May 2018, this is the first regional conference for these Wikimedia communities.

East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific are the most under-represented regions within the Wikimedia community. There is a significant number of Wikimedia contributors in our regions, yet we continue to struggle in establishing a well-managed community. This conference will bring participants from various ESEAP communities together in order to better understand the issues and to look for solutions. It also aims to connect people of the Wikimedia movement within ESEAP regions, to share ideas, and to build regional collaborations that are impossible to achieve through online communication.

We’ve got a lot of participation from several countries, but we’re lacking from your country. As we need more participants from your country, we believe that your contribution and participation would be a valuable asset to the success of this event. If you would like to participate in the conference, please do fill the form as soon as possible (by April 5, 2018) and we’ll inform you if you get selected for the conference.

Thank you and we hope to see you soon. --Filipinayzd 01:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:User en-NZ has been nominated for discussion

Category:User en-NZ has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede 66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]