User talk:Boson

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

Policy page 'Civility' under discussion[edit]

Sir/Madam, Sorry for my perhaps misunderstanding your posting on Wikipedia talk:Civility#Proposed section: 'Offensive language' in my first and hasty reaction on it, 28 July. I've now posted a much more thorough reaction there, addressed mostly at you. Be a good chap/girl and have a look at it (no offence meant). --Corriebertus (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No offence taken, but I would recommend avoiding phrases like "be a good girl and ... ". <smile> --Boson (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Advice taken. New post (for you), on mentioned talk page. --Corriebertus (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Boson on that, as a wandering bystander.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply from SMcCandlish[edit]

Original post: 'I came here because you referred to your talk page at Talk:Harassment. Starting with the section "One of the reasons gardens are walled" and continuing to the end of the page, the formatting of this page on my screen is so messed up that it is practically impossible to read it. Have you any idea what could be causing this? Perhaps some formatting code at the beginning of that section needs deleting. Given that I can't read your talk page properly, perhaps you could reply at my page. Thanks! --Boson (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC). PS: It appears to be trying to render everything as part of a table. --Boson (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)'

The issue is question has been hatted with {{Collapse top}} on my talk page, and peace achieved with that editor (for now; we're in frequent conflict, for about 2 years now). The short version is, I was accused of a sexist attack for having mentioned working on (to de-sexism-ize, ironically; see the RM on it's talk page) the article presently at Shrew (archetype), and mentioning this in a talk page discussion, about doing similar rewriting at that other article, in which a female editor was present. Her assumption that "shrew" was an insult referring to her, instead of an article I'd worked on with similar issues, like I said it was, was pursued in a bad-faith-assuming way on my talk page, and it closely mirrored a similar accusation from a month or two ago, from the same editor, simply for using "woman" in an example sentence (that didn't say anything negative about her or about women). I'd also been previously repeatedly attacked for having the gall to AfD or CfD some things that mentioned "women" or "woman" in their names, like unnecessarily gender-forked categories, and a couple of pseudo-articles of trivia that should have upmerged, after removal of unsourced junk, into Women's sport in Australia.

The gist being that even with things as they are presently, and no special new topic-specific anti-harassment policies, certain parties are already WP:GAMING the rules to demonize debate opponents, for flimsy rationales that few if any other editors will question publicly, because it opens them up to the same accusations. It's not limited to sexism accusations.

The article at which the "shrew" stuff turned pointlessly ugly is also one that potentially could attract racist trolls, and my accuser has been heavily agitating to get rid of this article, Race (biology) (being RM'd to Race (taxonomy)), in language suggesting that anyone who wants to keep this article is a racist troll. But the article is about reliably sourced usage of "race" in taxonomy (biology) (e.g. a study about whether two races of the same Philippine insect should be considered separate species or not) and isn't closely connected (at least in modern times) to race (human categorization). In another discussion I've seen something like "prejudiced against people with disabilities" used to attack someone opposing some HTML/CSS tweaks (regarding tables, I think) that would comply with WCAG accessibility standards, but which were changes that would be difficult to implement on WP presently, and which are not among the Category A (more important) WCAG requirements, but "it would be nice if", lower-tier suggestions. And so on. I think we've all seen examples like this of someone from a particular group (or as often as not stepping in to "represent" people from some other group whom the activist feels doesn't have an adequate voice; see the transgender-related flamewarring at Village Pump) to accuse others of wrongdoing when what's really going on is that not everyone shares the same level of hypersensitivity.

As for my talk page, can you tell me your browser & version, OS & version, and screen resolution? I can probably fix whatever the problem is. I'll start looking at the page code where you said the issue started up, in case it's something obvious like some unclosed <div>.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I've found the problem. Strangely, the problem seems to be the div in the 4th line of the page that is not closed. Presumably things get out of whack when another div occurs. --Boson (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: It seems to be OK now, even looking at the version where I added my comment, so it looks as if you must have fixed a template or something. Thanks again!--Boson (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)