User talk:DeirdreAnne/Archives/2008/09

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for possible guidance re: user talk page archiving

• Doug: I noticed your suggestion to Ecoleetage (my past mentor) and wonder if you might have any suggestions about how to make sure that my auto archive bot is properly functioning; after the current bot began usage on my user page, I can't even see my own archive page names anymore in preview mode, so I have been unable to use new chronological names for the 22 currently in existence [by adding the | character and chronological spreads after current file names]. I don't know why (maybe it's the "yes" in automatic in the template).
• It hasn't seemed to be archiving automatically after 2 days the way it used to, and I wouldn't mind having the chronological dates in the archive page names (though I can't take the time to alter that myself), and I wonder if you have suggestions. When I tried to cut and paste the template format from your own talk page, it didn't seem to do the trick; I had tried it in a "preview" practice way, replacing my current archiving template w/ that. I do not want anything to interfere with the way my current "N.B." box posts or to make my archive box contents without a "show" (or not) option; I like it as small as it is because it's unobtrusive and directs the attention to the rest of the page as I prefer it.
• Also: I've read some comments in Eco's Afd that say that others do not archive their talk pages at all, and I wonder why I have to keep such an extensive archive (or any). Perhaps you can or another administrator can advise about what the actual archiving policy is in Wikipedia for user talk pages; I did think it was voluntary and differed from user to user, but I've been required to archive things no less than over 2 days old. I used to archive myself, and people complained that I archived their comments too soon. So I ended up having this automatic archiving bot feature, which has stopped functioning as it did before. Maybe there is something missing in the coded template? Thanks for any help you can provide. --NYScholar (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

IEC Binary Prefix

Hi Doug: Thanks for volunteering to mediate the dispute on the usage of IEC Binary Prefixes. What has happened is that two editors GregL and Fnagaton with the occasional assistance of Headbomb have acted in concert to prevent any indication of a dispute on the usage of IEC Binary Prefixes in Wikepedia. Then they further impose their will at the Binary Prefix article. It is not surprising that GregL and Fnagaton will not agree to mediation, they have everything the way they like it and together bully other editors into submission or acquiescence. Essentially together they use the 3RR rule to prevent any individual editor from raising any question about their view of the world at both the Binary Prefix article and the MOSNOM article. I suspect the next step is arbitration. The alternative is to find 4 or more editors to act in concert as does GregL, et al. How does one go about getting binding arbitration going now that u have closed the mediation case? Tom94022 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PS I will watch for a reply here Tom94022 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You would go to Requests for Arbitration and follow the instructions there (sorry, I've never filed one, so I can't really help). Can you explain what the arguments are for the IEC system? (please do so without telling me that the change goes against consensus or anything of that nature. Consensus is generally a circular argument. You either have it or you don't and arguing you have it is generally pointless. Read some of the essays on consensus for more information on that point.) I can't mediate the case (unless the other parties magically show up and agree) but I may be able to provide you advice one whether to go forward with an RFAR.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

IEC Binary Prefixes when used to disambiguate ambiguous terms such as MB are unambiguous, succinct, simple to use, simple to understand and their use is approved by national and international standards bodies. IMO there is no good reason to deprecate them, but the reasoning seems to be that because they are relatively unknown and infrequently adopted they shouldn't ever be used in Wikipedia. A more complete statement of the reasoning is here. Thanks for your assistance. Tom94022 (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything in that link is basically a copy-paste of the same text here with minor tweaks and in that talk page archive those unsupported incorrect assertions were refuted and rejected again by multiple editors. Then the time before that in the previous archive and then again here. A very short summary of the whole talk page archives presented above is that everything in that link you posted above is contrary to how Wikipedia works with guidelines and policies because nothing in that link tackles the real issue that using IEC prefixes is against the following WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL. Those cited guidelines and policies are relevant because we use secondary sources for articles and those sources do not use IEC prefixes in the majority of cases (less than 1% of secondary sources actually use IEC prefixes). You want to rely on the primary sources of the standards bodies but you cannot do that without secondary sources to support your point of view, since you have very few secondary sources then WP:UNDUE applies. Your personal point of view that "IEC prefixes are easy" etc is also irrelevant because you need to detach from personal bias when crafting guidelines. Your personal opinion also appears to be refuted by the vast majority of reliable sources that have chosen not to use IEC prefixes, if they were as "easy" as you claim then surely those publications would use such an "easy" system for their readers to understand. The fact that the majority of publications do not use IEC indicates that they do not see IEC as a benefit to their readers. This is no surprise because the majority of manufacturers also do not use IEC prefixes. IEC Prefixes were proposed nine years ago now so their failed adoption by most of the technical people indicates they are a failed standard, thus they are a fringe theory (WP:UNDUE). Headbomb is an excellent example of remaining balanced and neutral because he personally likes IEC prefixes but he also knows that Wikipedia is not the place to use them. This neutrality is why we must reference existing Wikipedia guidelines and policies when considering changes to guidelines. Since the vast majority of the real world does not use IEC prefixes then to advocate use of IEC prefixes for disambiguation presents a false point of view (synthesis of an idea from a primary source) to our readers, which violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. Also with reference to your statement above "The alternative is to find 4 or more editors to act in concert as does GregL, et al." it is firstly a bad faith accusation against Greg (and others) and secondly consensus is not how many editors you can find on a particular day because consensus is made by good strong arguments so that would not help you because the arguments presented in your link are not as strong as those presented by other editors. It is pointless to repeat old refuted assertions again because old refuted assertions are not suddenly good arguments just because they are repeated again and again. If you or Thunderbird2 can provide new and better substantive arguments then please do post them on WT:MOSNUM. But please listen to the multiple editors that have refuted and rejected those assertions with much stronger arguments that are relevant to how Wikipedia guidelines and policies work. So in summary, since you and Thunderbird2 have not provided new substantive arguments and because the old arguments presented by Thunderbird2 (and thus yourself in that link) were discussed, refuted and rejected by multiple editors in multiple talk archives then there is nothing to mediate and therefore no need for mediation. Fnagaton 01:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As u can see, Fnagaton likes to shout, sometimes that no arguments were made and sometimes that the arguments were weak and rubutted. I am not going to bother to waste the time and space in this forum. He and GregL have imposed there will by shouting down any debate and so it is either binding arbitration or I find a set of editors who can shout louder. Tom94022 (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As can be seen by the reply above Tom has failed to actually rebut the arguments presented and has resorted to misrepresentation and using weak personal attacks about "shouting" instead. Obviously since Tom has failed to present a valid counter argument then his objections are weak in comparison to the many editors who have presented strong and relevant arguments. I'm glad Tom has chosen yet again to demonstrate he is unwilling to provide substantive arguments because if it did ever get to arbitration his actions and threats about finding "a set of editors who can shout louder" are a matter of record. Not that there is a need for arbitration in this case because it is obvious Tom is unwilling or unable to respond in a constructive manner so to go to arbitration would be just wasting time that could be better spent on other more deserving cases. Fnagaton 05:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why are we still arguing about this? Tom94022 complains that the final 7:3 vote should somehow be considered as invalid because *he said* he thought the issue had been settled earlier. Yet, debate raged (and he participated in that debate) for over a week after a preliminary vote before he dropped out. So he knew—or should have known— the issue was still active the day he lost interest. In fact, debate and dispute resolution continued for another 41 days afterwards. Thunderbird2 stuck with it the whole time and his position in the final pole (a “1” vote) was clearly a minority view; the consensus was clear and that decision was posted to MOSNUM. This is simply an issue of these two editors failing to accept the consensus view.

  And what is that consensus view? That Wikipedia will be like every other magazine and encyclopedia in the world and use “megabyte” and “gigabyte” rather than terminology that is unfamiliar to our readership. The Mac OS X reports file sizes in “KB”, “MB” and “GB”. So too does Windows. If one goes to today’s Featured Article, Poliomyelitis, and click on edit this page, Wikipedia itself reports that “This page is 64 kilobytes long.” Notwithstanding the wonderful virtues of the IEC prefixes (“kibibit”, “mebibyte”, etc.), such language is unrecognized by our readership and looks quite odd. Encyclopedias observe new standards only after they have seen wide adoption by industry leaders; they never let editors thrust them into the position of promoting a new standard by setting an example in hopes the rest of the world will follow their lead. This is simply a problem of flogging a dead horse. The views of Tom90422 and Thunderbird2 have been considered and discredited. There is nothing to mediate. Greg L (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Doug: See what I mean about GregL and Fnagton - filibustering seems to be their preferred mode of operating. I'm not even sure what they are doing on this page other than inferring with our dialog. You asked a simple question - i gave you a short answer (1,322 bytes) and they jump in and in 14.2 KiB :-) pretty much confirm my statement of their reasoning. Most of what they say about arguments in favor of Binary IEC Prefixes is either misleading, incomplete, untrue, irrelevant or oxymoronic. If I tried to respond, point by point, they would just bury this page in more misleading, untrue, irrelevant and/or oxymoronic stuff so its either binding arbitration or a group of us will have to stand together to stop this bullying or both. Tom94022 (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Tom94022, mediation often results in a “split the baby down the middle” solutions. We tried that sort of compromise three years ago and it didn’t work at all. As a consequence, Wikipedia didn’t even have any internal consistency because some of its articles used “kilobyte” to mean either 1000 bytes or 1024 bytes whereas still other articles used the term “kibibyte”—so “kilobyte” had a more specific meaning in those articles. Further impeaching this compromise of letting all the articles that Sarenne converted to kibibyte (before being banned for life ) remain with the IEC prefixes, is no one else in the real world was following our lead after three long years. When is it going to dawn on you that encyclopedias follow the common practices observed by industry leaders in the real world and never try to lead everyone to a new and better tomorrow®™© through example? Nevertheless…

  …I’m all for binding arbitration (not mediation) if you’re up to it. The only rule would be that there would be internal consistency on Wikipedia after its all over; either all articles on Wikipedia use “kibibyte” (KiB) and “mebibyte” (MiB) and also do so on our edit preview page (“This page is 64 kibibytes long”), or it stays the way it currently is going, with all articles using the conventional prefixes and following the practices used by all computer manufacturers and all general-interest computer magazines when communicating to a general audience.

  The arbitration would also simply rule on one issue: was all the previous discussion, debate, and voting that transpired on MOSNUM properly conducted and was there a general consensus for the action taken.

  If arbitration concludes that there was no proper consensus, then we go back to MOSNUM and start all over with properly conducted—and supervised—debate and polling.

  So, do you just want to forum-shop in hopes of dragging this out and “winning” a little bit here and there via a thousand cuts (?), or do you want to just get this settle once and for all? Winner takes all. As you can guess, I’m entirely confident what the outcome of this challenge will be. And I’m prepared to go through the hassle just so I don’t have this nagging feeling that your trolling about, agitating on an issue that everyone else except you and T-bird has the wisdom to recognize that it’s been settled. Greg L (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do u continuously try to impose your view everyplace. The place for this conversation is on my talk page or the MOSNUM talk page not in the middle of a dialog between Doug and me. Tom94022 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, since you asked… Because when you start out with a post on a mediator’s talk page, with an fallacious accussation like “two editors GregL and Fnagaton with the occasional assistance of Headbomb have acted in concert to prevent any indication of a dispute on the usage of IEC Binary Prefixes in Wikepedia”, the allegation demands being rebutted—but not directly. I at first elected to simply go straight to the heart of the matter and address the real issues. I was perfectly content to let your utterly absurd accusation impeach your credibility. Neither Fnagaton nor Headbomb, nor I have are trying to squelched your right to speak up. We are all firm believers that there is no room for censorship on Wikipedia unless someone engages in personal attacks. In the playing field of debate, the proper response to “bad speach” is “better speach.”

  Secondly, this talk page isn’t your private reserve; this page exists so everyone can provide information for Doug. It would be absurd if we had to start jumping through hoops here and post a separate thread a few inches down on this screen so we don’t “trample” upon these sacred grounds that you seem to have laid claim to; you don’t own anything on Wikipedia. Finally, as a mediator, Doug is no normal user. He doesn’t like being mislead and is in a position of influence that can affect MOSNUM policy and practices; you understand this point perfectly well and that’s why you are here, aren’t you? So I’ll thank you to not presume to tell me what I can think, how I may express it, and with whom I may do so. Greg L (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop! I did not invite you to bring your debate to my user talk page. I invited any of you to come and talk to me about it. That means you need to wait until I've read what you've said and replied, maybe I'll say "OK, tell me more", maybe I'll say "OK, what do you (the other side) have to say about this", as it is, you're all making me consider saying, "Sorry, I asked, I'm not interested please go away". No more posts here please until I make a substantive reply. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• As you wish. Greg L (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Doug. I have just noticed this discussion here. I appreciate your interest, but don't understand why this case was closed. Could you explain that please? Thunderbird2 (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, two reasons: 1) Mediation is voluntary and if all parties do not agree to mediate it is pointless - the anti-IEC group was not entirely willing to participate; and 2) the pro-IEC group seemed to be looking for a "decision" from the mediator, whereas the anti-IEC group seemed to be looking to bring their "debate" to the mediation (to the extent they were willing to mediate at all). I'll write something substantive soon hopefully but the case was not suitable for the normal medcab process and would not be at all suitable for MedCom.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, speaking only for myself, I am not seeking a decision by any mediator. Just their presence on the talk page to ensure fair play. Would you be willing to do that? Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Fair play" would be you Thunderbird2 stopping your attempts to misrepresent other editors (the harassment (Wikistalking) on your user talk sandbox for example), stop repeating already refuted/weak arguments and stop denying there is a consensus. Headbomb did point out many times that you actively refused to answer questions put to you. If you can agree to debate in a constructive manner then we might be getting somewhere and we wouldn't need to waste the valuable time of Doug or anyone else. Fnagaton 09:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Doug: I apologize for my fellow editors dragging the debate onto your talk page. Back on 21 Aug I tried to fairly answer your question:

Can you explain what the arguments are for the IEC system?

which then set off the storm. I will watch yr page for another week or so in case u have any further questions, after that u can always ping me at my talk page. If you want to see how intense this is you might peruse Fnagaton's accusing me of being a sock puppet. Tom94022 (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I've posted a reply to your question at WP:P*. And given how many projects you're part of or have fingers in, small wonder your watch list is out of control. I mean, mine can be unmanageable at times and I only have 3200+ pages... ghod know how many are on yours. Tabercil (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

DRV tagging

Sorry! I just copied Viridae's setup. rootology (C)(T) 16:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity here -- how would all the people that !voted on an xfD itself know about the DRV, if they were watchlisting the xfD, but no one updated the xfD with the DRV info? rootology (C)(T) 23:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

They wouldn't necessarily know, just like they don't necessarily know at AfD where the discussions are not tagged. Generally, I think the assumption is that if you watch MfD you probably watch DRV and if you only care about a single discussion, likely you are watching the underlying page. I have, however, noted the DRV after the links to the discussions in the "closed discussions" section. It should be noted that DRV is not intended as an opportunity for everyone who argued it at the XfD to argue it again, the closing admin is notified of course so he or she can explain the close but the other participants really aren't necessary, nor even a good idea IMHO. (I am leaving this on my talk page, contrary to my normal practice, in case anyone else comes here regarding the current DRV).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Back on the farm

Hey Doug, I returned from my WikiBreak. One door closed rather abruptly (my failed RfA), but another opened unexpectedly (a movie audition that was successful, go figure). I just added a pair of new Ag articles for the WikiProject: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (a redlinked title) and Daron Joffe (a bright young organic farming leader). More to follow. Hope all is well. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you're back! Being an admin isn't all it's cracked up to be. You're a damned good editor, whereas I do my share of copyediting but don't really write much - I do a lot of deleting and moving discussions and fixing cut and paste moves and commenting on policy, but I don't write articles. Work on your core competency and try to get more articles to GA or FA status for now. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it is good to be back. I will probably do the RfA routine again in early 2009 -- after all, every disaster movie needs a sequel! In any event, I am taking the FCIC to the DYK forum in a few minutes. I will look into GA and FA, too. Thanks, again, for your continued support and friendship. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Greek Paradise 3RR

I think GreekParadise needs to be blocked, because the response I quoted on AN3 "and I will keep this from now until eternity if you don't insult me again" is the very epitome of edit warring, regardless of the number of reverts.--Tznkai (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to GreekParadise I misinterpreted the exact quotation, but I feel from the general tone, he is definitely edit warring, and the mindset of such is there.--Tznkai (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Was that an edit summary? I didn't see it except in your comment. Sorry for closing this after you had said you were going to close with a different result. I warned GP and then started closing the report but got edit conflicted. Since I'd already warned and said what I was going to do, I felt I still needed to carry through with the close. I think this was a close call. The violations weren't blatant ones, but editors need to be a lot more careful with such a hot potato article. GP doesn't know what he's doing and as a result he's breaking the rules and getting into edit wars. I suggest we see if he heeds my warning, particularly my more detailed advice I just provided, and if not we block and seek a topic ban. If I were on more often, I'd consider offering a voluntary probation arrangement to GP as I don't believe he's incorrigible.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It was on the AN3 page. (Don't move, keep it here, I have your talk page watched). I think you made a better call than I did in this case, but in general I think Sarah Palin is getting out of control again, and edit warring needs to be discouraged. I'll strike out my comment on AN3--Tznkai (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, yes, it didn't read the same when you set it by itself; I don't think he meant what you thought, but civility was definitely a problem for both. I'm hoping it cools down, at least between this user and Kelly et al. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

prior discussion (snip)

1) Sorry. Haven't learned how to sandbox yet. I will. 2) I will take your advice and not file, although I do think it's the pot calling the kettle black with 34 edits in 3 days. Despite her severe incivility to me, I will let it go. 3) Thank you for the warning. I'm learning. (feel free to delete)GreekParadise (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Animal rights and etc.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Agriculture#Need_help_with_an_unusual_article. If you can help with this I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Also, if you're interested in helping out with creating some taxoboxes let me know, those have been on the back burner long enough.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. I would agree that the article in question be merged into the existing article on animal rights. That being said, I am aware of certain nonprofits that agitate specifically for the rights of animals used for agricultural purposes -- perhaps it would be proper to expand coverage to include them? As for taxoboxes, I never created one but I would be willing to help if you pointed me in the right direction. Thanks for thinking of me. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother, but I never heard back on the taxobox project. When your schedule allows, please let me know how I can be of assistance. Many thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)