User talk:Dscos/archive14

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

June 2005[edit]


Can you explain your edit [1]? It looks to me as though you haven't read or haven't understood Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Gdr 13:46, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

  • Didn't you and I just go through all this a few weeks ago? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Largesovietflag2.PNG listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Largesovietflag2.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —MetsBot 19:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[2]. I love it. smoddy 17:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Would you possibly take the time to vote on my entry at Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week? It's "The Seventies," near the bottom of the page. Mike H 16:38, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week[edit]

I'm dropping you a note to let you know that The Seventies, which you voted on, became a Collaboration of the Week! You are highly encouraged to contribute whatever you can to the topic! Mike H 01:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Minor edit flag[edit]

Hi, I see you flagged your changes to WP:AN/3RR as a minor edit. Use of this flag for that edit was inappropriate. Help:Minor edit gives guidelines on when it's appropriate to use that flag; please follow them. And before you say that in your opinion, your change was minor, please note that that page says:

consider the opinions of other editors when choosing this option

so whether you think they are minor is less important than what other editors think. Noel (talk) 16:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

  • Yeah, I know, it was an accident - that is, the minor edit check box is right above the save page button... I have done this a few times. Sorry. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No problem; thanks! Noel (talk) 18:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eequor (2nd)[edit]

Unequivocal oppose? *blink* Okay, but I have no insight as to why. I keep looking through her edits each time, and each time she comes away looking pretty good.

Even so, if I'm missing something, I really want to know. Could you tell me why you made such a strong oppose vote?

Kim Bruning 22:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • [3] [4] not to mention many instances of POV warring, disrupting Wikipedia to make points, continued insistance of a cabal, general erratic behaviour, and on and on.

I'll be the first to admit she has gotten better with time; but, in my book, she's still a pretty terrible candidate. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Don't take offense, but did you read the article at escude before you rejected it for speedy delete? I realize that vanity alone does not merit speedy delete, but this page didn't even have a name for the person, just a online game account name and an assertion that he "pretty much owned the whole game". I would have listed the reason as "total crap page", but I didn't think that really fit with wikipedia standards. I vfd'd it, so it should work itself out anyway.Atomiktoaster 01:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, I read it, yes it sucks, yes I wish I could have speedy-deleted it. Rules are rules, though, eh. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR notice[edit]

Note my comment on your 3rr posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR re User:TJive. In fact, it needs a 4th revert before the rule is broken. I feel it would be very unfortunate if E.E. Cummings descended into an edit war, and would ask that you try something like Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal as an alternative path to take. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 10:09 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid any sort of Mediation is not going to help here. I will defend this to my death, and if I lose this battle, if the Cummings article ends up in AE, I will leave the project. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 13:51 (UTC)
    • That would be a great pity. This is not a battle, and nobody should feel that they are going to win or lose. The Cummings article will end up in the style that gathers the most clear consensus around it. That's the wikipedia way. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 14:26 (UTC)
      • I realise it is the wiki way; but this one means a lot to me. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 14:30 (UTC)
        • Would it be out of order for me to ask why? Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 14:50 (UTC)
          • Not at all. Cummings is my favourite poet of all time, I have put a lot of work into the article, I have seen this happen a number of times before, and I'm tired of it. This is where I choose to make a stand. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 15:07 (UTC)
            • Fair enough; I disagree with you but you clearly feel strongly about this. I would hate to see you banned, so I'm asking you please not to break the 3RR rule. I am seriously considering protecting the page soon if the reverts go on. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 15:19 (UTC)
              • I will certainly not break 3RR. I will time my reverts carefully. I figure the page will get protected eventually. I can only hope you or someone else protects it on the correct version. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 15:21 (UTC)
                • Please do not get involved in gaming the system, either. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 15:34 (UTC)
                  • Gaming the system? Nah. I call it "playing my cards right". BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 15:40 (UTC)
                    • I notice that the page has been protected. I'm about to log out for the day. Talk to you tomorrow. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 15:42 (UTC)
                      • So it has, and on the bastard version. Unfortunate. But the article will live to see another good day! Anyhow, talk to you later, and thanks for your wisdom and patience in approaching this dispute. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 15:45 (UTC)

Blankfaze, you need to grow up. American English isn't bastardized. British English isn't the correct form. They're both correct. Stop making your snide remarks in all the discussion pages that deal with the Cummings fiasco. You shouldn't fight tooth-and-nail over an article about an American subject. And aren't you an American, by the way? Why do you have this Anglocentric take on language if you live in the States? GreatGatsby 30 June 2005 07:47 (UTC)

  • Yes, BE is correct. I do live in the States. However, I appreciate the English language. I take the Anglocentric take on the language because they can spell correctly. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 30 June 2005 13:25 (UTC)
    • You're hopeless. How about you tell all of Latin America (and practically every Spanish speaking country outside of Spain) that they don't use "correct" Spanish. You don't seem to understand that languages evolve. Why don't we go back to Middle English? How about we all speak German? And shouldn't Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian speakers all go back to Latin? Why stop there? Go all the way back to the Indo-European language group. Y'know, since the first version is always the best. I appreciate the English language as well, as I am a writer by trade. I do not care for British English (besides a few words like theatre), yet I do not pretend that American English is the correct form. Please, be more mature on the subject.GreatGatsby 30 June 2005 18:19 (UTC)
      • Of course languages evolve. The Spanish spoken in Spain and the the Spanish spoken in Mexico, or other places, have considerable differences. I'd consider them two branches of one language. English, however, is very similar in most places. British, or as I would prefer to call it, Commonwealth or International English, is the form used in the majority of English-speaking countries... UK, Canada, Australia, practically everywhere except the United States. It is correct. This is an obviously fruitless debate, because neither of us has any hope of convincing the other. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 30 June 2005 20:51 (UTC)
        • Why doesn't Spain adopt the Spanish used in virtually every country but their own? It is a fruitless debate because you are being ridiculously stubborn. I have never said American English is the only English, I said when dealing with American subjects (and the fact that the article was originally written in American English) we should use American English. Your position is akin to me going into any subject dealing with a Canadian, British, or Australian subject and changing all of the language to American English. You can't convince me of your position, since it is a foolish position, and you haven't a leg to stand on. GreatGatsby 30 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Some questions[edit]


I've been thinking abot this situation overnight, and you're probably not going to like what I'm about to say, but I'd just ask you to reflect on these three questions for long enough to at least try to see where I'm coming from before responding. I have drawn on my own fluctuationg feelings here over the past 2 years while drawing up these questions.

  1. Can you understand that your stated position of defending "proper BE" against "bastard AE" could be construed as a POV warrior one?
  2. Is it possible that you are pissed off with this project and are looking for a reason to leave while claiming the high moral ground?
  3. Is it really worth leaving a project where you have been a valued and valuable contributor over this issue, given that there is a high degree of probability that you would find it difficult to stay away in future?

Please believe me that my only reason for posing these questions is to try to bring about some kind of sustainable resolution that means that the minimum amount of harm is done to both the wider project and to the individuals involved. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 07:52 (UTC)

  • I don't mind at all.
  1. My position is very POVed. However as you well know this is a issue that cannot be presented NPOV in an article (that is, unless the devs found some sort of way to let users choose spellings through prefs, or if we produced multiple versions of articles with different spelling sets). So one POV must triumph. In some articles it is AE, and in some it is BE. This one belongs in BE.
  2. It is possible. There are a lot of things about this project and the direction in which it is going that don't sit well with me. But nothing to make consider leaving, I don't think.
  3. Is it worth it? Probably not. It's rash and impulsive. But I'm not sure I want to contribute to an encyclopaedia in which someone who has never contributed a word to an article can come in and try to enforce their preference. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 30 June 2005 09:29 (UTC)

Thanks. I want to take some time to think about this. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 09:33 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that you are not going to be able to impose your POV on this article over the long term, as there are a number of editors who are determined to resist you, and I cannot see the consensus swinging around to support you. I can only suggest that you reconsider and adopt a strategic retreat approach. As you say, your stance here is "rash and impulsive" and unless you are really certain you are happy to make the stand you have spelled out earlier, it may be a case of "act in haste, repent at leisure". Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 11:59 (UTC)

  • Strategic retreat? If by retreat you mean "give up", then how could that be strategic? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 30 June 2005 12:18 (UTC)
    • I mean agree not to re-enter a revert war if the page is unprotected and meanwhile to try to come to some kind of understanding with other editors on Talk:E. E. Cummings, starting with a clear understanding that terms like "bastard" are not going to be helpful. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 12:38 (UTC)
      • If I unprotect the page today, will you return to the revert tightrope? Filiocht | Talk July 1, 2005 07:26 (UTC)
        • Yeah. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 1 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)
          • I'm off on holiday for a week or two. I've no doubt that the page will be unblocked soon. Please reflect carefully before getting yourself blocked over this. Filiocht | Talk July 1, 2005 12:39 (UTC)
            • I told you, I'm not stupid. I will revert carefully. No blocks. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 1 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)

Hi Blankfaze: I was thinking of unprotecting the E. E. Cummings page, but before I do so, I would like you to confirm my understanding of your position on the following:

1. You will not revert the page more than three times in 24 hours.
2. Subject to #1, you will revert the page as soon as anyone changes it to American English.
3. You plan to stick with this until your view prevails.

Theo (Talk) 1 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)

  • Hi :-). Let's see... #1 yes, #2 yes, #3... somewhat... I do not think my view will prevail. But I figure if I revert as much as possible then people can see it in correct English at least some of the time maybe. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 1 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
    • This presents me with something of a challenge because I feel that you are gaming the system. My understanding of the 3RR rules is that it is intended to encourage debate and avoid edit warring, so your position is in breach of the spirit of that reading of the rule. It seems futile to take the page to RFC, since you appear unlikely to change your stance at the behest of your peers. Equally, I feel that this should be too trivial an issue to take to ArbCom. I am going to start by asking you to please abandon your conversion policy on this page. Like you, I have a personal preferenmce for the Commonwealth English with which I was raised. Equally, I recognise that it is inappropriate to impose that preference on an international encyclopedia. I accept the MoS policy on spelling, however. In this case, I accept the Cummings was American by birth and I do not think it inappropriate for his article to use American spelling. I do not understand why you are so certain that Commonwealth English is the most appropriate form for this article. Please would you explain it simply?—Theo (Talk) 1 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)
      • He has no valid or logical basis for saying that British English is correct and American English is not. It's just a prejudice.GreatGatsby 2 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)
        • I will not presume to make such an assumption about somebody eles's thinking. Blankfaze: I still seek your own explanation rather than the guesses of others.—Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)
          • I have announced my surrender on the talk page. I haven't the energy for a fight. Wikipedia's community aspect will be the downfall of the project. There is too much bad faith. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 2 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)
            • I admire your "surrender"—particularly its witty form. I have unblocked the page. I disagree with you about the community aspect being our downfall; please do not lose your own good faith. How about we find some articles where Commonwealth English is the most appropriate form upon which to standardise? You may call on me to support you in such cases.—Theo (Talk) 2 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)