User talk:PaulRhoads

Vance

Paul, I agree that it would be a tragedy if irresponsible criticisms damage the web page. I think we're close to a conclusion now, though -- I believe that we can eliminate the GR and W/W sites from the links, if you're comfortable also eliminating other message boards. WP:EL really doesn't approve of such links, so we're OK there. Then since Baphomet V has said (if I understood him) that there is no need to incorporate any critical comments about VIE into the article, we can simply place a ref to the VIE from the relevant paragraph, and we'll be done. Then, as Hayford and Russell said, we can move on to improve the article.

I was going to leave it till later today to make the change just in case there were any further comments, but I'll try to implement that tonight. Then we'll need to wait to see if I get reverted by anyone, and manage that if it happens; and I hope this episode will be over. Thanks for working with everyone on this -- you're strongly involved, and I appreciate the effort you've gone to to state your case and participate in a group consensus. Mike Christie 15:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just wanted to let you know that I moved your note to me to my talk page -- messages between users are really best placed on talk pages. User pages are more for the user themselves to control, though I think some other things get put there. Thanks. Mike Christie 15:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you were asking what I intended -- as of now, I think there is little to change on the main page to achieve the consensus I think we have. I'll remove a couple more message boards, which don't fit WP:EL, and check that the VIE paragraph is referenced.

However, the "VIE: Crucial for Appreciating Vance" section shouldn't be removed; it will be archived after a while and will disappear from the main page. The issue is that talk pages are explicitly supposed by WP policy to remain a record of all discussions, sensible and inane. Only obvious vandalism can be removed. The justification is that most readers of the article will never click on the talk page, and will never see it. In addition, once the discussion has aged a bit with no further comments (I'd suggest a month or so) the page can be archived. I understand you'd like to see text that you regard as nonsense removed from sight, but WP is pretty clear on this. I think if you're patient it will age, be archived, and it's unlikely it will re-emerge after that. Mike Christie 16:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I think there are two different tacks we have to take for the main Vance page, Jack Vance, and the associated talk page, Talk:Jack Vance. For the Vance page, it looks as if we're going to be in agreement, so I'll skip that and discuss the talk page. Talk pages often contain discussion regarded by one party or another as ludicrous. If there is actual libel there, then there is an applicable Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Libel. The policy states that history pages which contain defamation will be removed from history, thus removing them not only from the current version of the page but from history as well.

Though I am not any kind of legal expert, I have to say that I haven't seen any argument yet made which is libellous, so I don't think this applies. That means that the governing WP policy is that talk pages should remain as an archive of the discussion. I understand that you feel this is trolling, but it's policy (not my policy, WP policy!) and is unlikely to change. Do remember, though, that 99% of the visitors to Wikipedia who are interested in Vance will only visit Jack Vance and will never look at the talk page, so they will never see this discussion. And, as I said, it will get filed away in an archive, which is quite unlikely ever to be looked at again.

I think that if you were to actually try to delete any of the material on Talk:Jack Vance, you would risk irritating the other editors on the page, who are knowledgeable about Vance and will be very helpful in improving the page once this controversy dies down. And I am pretty sure you would just get reverted, so it would be a frustrating and unproductive thing to do. I'm not saying you would do that, but since the policy is currently written that way, I really think the Talk page is going to have to stay the way it is. My own opinion is not relevant here (I'm just an editor, like you); if I edit in WP I have to follow the policies.

Of course you can try to persuade other editors to change that policy; if you're interested, I can dig up the place where you'd have to make the argument -- it would be the talk page of one of the policy pages. I have had a look around, and I have been unable to find a page that explicitly says "Do not delete material from talk pages as it is required to keep a history of the discussion". However, there are several places that imply this quite strongly. Incidentally, I assume you do realize that even if it were all deleted, all the comments would still be visible in the talk page history?

I hope this is helpful. I'm sorry you're frustrated by this, but I think the policy is pretty clear. If I may make a suggestion, I'd recommend you remind yourself that the main Jack Vance page is going to be free of links to the GR and Wannek sites, and that the talk page will be archived eventually. If you can reconcile yourself with that outcome, then I think you'd be a very valuable resource in improving the Jack Vance page, which is what everyone would like to do.

Any more comments or concerns, just drop another note on my talk page. I'd also be happy to talk to an admin and try to get an official statement of the relevant policy, if you'd like. However, without Hayford, Russell and Baphomet agreeing to delete the material I believe this approach is unlikely to be worth the effort; still, let me know. Mike Christie 20:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

No problem -- it can be confusing. If you go to my user page, you'll see the same little tabs at the top that you do for a regular article. If you click on the "discussion" one, that's my talk page. Yours is the same. It's not a big deal, but it's a good habit to get into since you'll surprise other Wikipedians if you post notes on their user page. Let me know if you can't figure it out from that and I'll try to be clearer.

Yes, everyone has a talk page. Wikipedia doesn't technically include the talk pages; they're in a different "name space", meaning that if you were to print Wikipedia or dump it to another website, they wouldn't be included. That's why the rules about archiving are different -- Wikipedia pages don't need archiving, since the final page is the main work product, and history is available if needed. But talk pages get archived because they provide the record of what discussions led to that page. So if anyone ever starts a debate about the VIE on the Vance page, we will be able to point to the archived talk page and say "we already have consensus on this and it was a big debate, so please don't start that again without reading all this".

Mike Christie 16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vance page

Hi Paul, Yes, I definitely agree with you about the pretentious prolixity of the page. I dunno who on earth wrote it -- it sounds like a paper that someone wrote for an English class. It badly needs editing but I am too lazy to do it. Almost every single sentence has to be either omitted or rewritten. In any case, I dunno why the other guy keeps referring to my ARTICLE -- all he really means is my EDIT, which could have been very, very minor. I have contributed to the article over the last couple of years, but not very much, and NOTHING about his output or characteristics, just a couple of facts. And the photo of him playing the kazoo. Hayford Peirce 20:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dave told me that he had met you a couple of times. As to working on the Vance page, I don't feel like doing much original writing, but I will certainly do copy-editing and general clean-up if other people do the heavy lifting. Hayford Peirce 20:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PaulRhoads, I was not aware of your problems at the Jack Vance page, actually it was the first time I ever visited the page; and I would have rather seen nothing than an out of place discussion item (as posted by you). My remark was placed to warrant the quality of Wikipedia, not to take sides in the debate

Briefly reviewing the discussion, it is all about the inclusion of the VIE section.

If you are sure the guys changing the page are only about vandalism you can revert to a previous edit and add, vandal warning tags on their discussion page [1]. Once done you can later on alert an admin (also see that page) and ask some people to be blocked.
If it is about a difference in opinion, the discussion page needs to give the solution. If negotiation and a compromise does not solve anything mediation and arbitration may be a way out [Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]. Remember though that these are last resorts, try to solve it through negtiations, or suggest a solution and put it to the vote on the discussion page. With consensus changed edits can more easily be classified as vandalism, with subsequent sanctions.

Goodluck finding a way out Arnoutf 19:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (PS sorry for posting this initially on you user page, stupid mistake on my side)[reply]

Guys and knocking off

It's pretty simple. No arguments, no flames, no contention. Not just you, anyone. Please don't think it was directed at you alone. Peter1968 20:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean I am not allowed to present an opinion, or to complain about bad treatment? Where have I flamed? Do you not see that there are troublesome people here?PaulRhoads 07:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One hit wonder

I just looked at your contibutions and I was amazed. Do you realize that there are manymmany, many pages here on the wiki other than the one on Jack Vance? lol. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but I couldn't help but comment on your amazing level of dedication to this one solitary subject. Do you work for the guy or something? ^>^ - Big Brother 1984 08:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what's it to you? PaulRhoads 12:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]