User talk:Jossi/Archives/2006 October

Golden ratio: block quote

The block quote you added begins "[A universal law]]" (1 bracket before, 2 after. I am not sure what you intended, so I don't know how to fix it. Finell (Talk) 03:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it is fixed (you're quick!), inserting the key phrase (which is what the brackets indicate) rather than quoting it is problematic. Is there a way around this? Perhaps quoting the key phrase and replacing intervening text with elipsis points? Finell (Talk) 18:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistress meter

Are you sure that your Wikistress meter is working? You might want to check the calibration. Finell (Talk) 18:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment

Hi I wonder if you can comment on a disagreement that I have with Slrubenstein? It may be that the version that you thought was consensual, was in fact not so; in any case, the phrase that he insists on adding is definitely not consensual and IMO possibly detrimental for the quality of Wikipedia; but instead of discussing before eventual reinclusion after improvement he turned to edit warring without discussion.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slrubenstein#Please_Talk_instead_of_including_non-consensual_statement_on_policy_page

Regards, Harald88 15:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Harald. If you are referring to this sentence "Articles which draw predominantly on primary sources are generally discouraged, in favor of articles based predominantly on secondary sources", I would say that it is my understanding that it is a correct explanation of what is encouraged and what is discouraged in articles, as it pertains to primary/secondary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Jossi that's what I refer to. S. reatedly put back there without proper discussion. And why would you say that is "a correct explanation" of the No Original Research policy? It appears to be new (so new that it wasn't in your pre-edit-war version), and although I may have missed a discussion about it (possibly due to a discussion having effectively been moved off-record of my watchlist to a sub-page, as I notice just now!!!), it's definitely incompatible with WP:V as well as with writing quality articles which should base primary information on primary sources; it may be deemed incompatible with WP:NPOV as well.

In short, it is not only discouraged but generally forbidden to trust hear-say in articles; instead one should always consult the original sources, be it "primary" or "secondary". Therefor the way the above phrase is formulated is no good, and I can see no justification for it.

There happens to be already another phrase of that kind in the same section which is quite OK and sufficient (except for terrible grammar!):

Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources shoud be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions.

(BTW a correction by myself of the grammar was also reverted, and I now notice an additional spelling error...)

Anyway, if you don't revert it I'll put it up for discussion on the affected policy pages.

Regards, Harald88 18:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

Your policing is disgusting. First you didn't provide any objections. Now you are threatening. I refuse to talk with you any longer. You have attitude problems, colleague. `'mikka (t) 00:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a threat, but a bit of friendly advise. You reverted three times in one day Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and I was warning you not to do another revert as that would have resulted in you getting blocked. Please take the discussion to the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you try to compromise, and you know the other party is in error based upon the rules and you cannot get anywhere. How can you assume good faith? I really want to close potential loopholes in the rules to protect those of us who act in good faith and make it harder to argue on technicalities. --Pravknight 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions and comments all point to one conclusion: Wikipedia may not be for you. You may want to try Wikinfo that does not have a policy of NPOV. Some friendly advise? Drop it, move on, or take a long break. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to supersede the foundation issues?

Alright, so NPOV is essentially beyond debate because it's a foundation issue, right? No original research and Verifiability are aspects that help out with NPOV. In that sense they're based on the NPOV principle, so ok, fine, you get to say they're linked with the foundation issues, and that's why you shouldn't mess with them on wikipedia. That'd be a fair deal I suppose.

But what you're doing now is basically saying that these rules are not negotiable at all, and that they supersede everything (including foundation issues, the actual software logic used in the wiki, common sense, or even the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia).

But that'd be crazy talk. I'm sure I'm reading that wrong.

Sorry if I seem dense to you. Could you explain what you are actually trying to say?

-- Kim Bruning 09:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying to say, Kim, is that our project is not viable without the basic content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. If these three are compromised in any way or manner, (and if you spend sometime monitoring these policy pages, you will see that attempts to compromise these happen daily, and much more lately), there will be massive disruption. We need these basic policies to remain unchanged as much as possible. Yes, the wording can be tweaked here and there, but asserting that these policies (not rules, policies) are negotiable is irresponsible at this stage of the project. Note that a massive amount of content has been developed under these policies. Any substantial change to these policies will immediately jeopardize the quality of articles and the hard work of thousands of volunteers. With popularity, comes responsibility, Kim. Don't ever forget that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First up, don't panic.

Much content has been developed for the wikimedia foundation even without the three content guidelines you mention.

As long as our content is neutral, licensed under GFDL, and remains editable on the wiki, things will even out in the long run.

Our project is only in its fifth year, and I would like for it to continue to exist for at least another 95 years. That's a very long time in this age of accelerating developments.

Getting ourselves tied down to short term quick fixes would likely do more harm than good. We should avoid doing so, even if that means conceding some quality on the short term.

Can you take on the responsibility to make something last 100 years? Or will you have forgotten all about us in only a year or two? ;-)

Kim Bruning 15:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I want this project to continue on I am here for the lomg run, Kim, and I do not see things as you do, as clearly explained above. My viewpoint about the importance on abiding by our basic content policies, and the principles upon which these policies were based, are in no contradiction with the want to make this project last. On the contrary. It is without them that this project will not survive. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]