User talk:Hob
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AIDS
Hi, I know that you're on a short break, but AIDS is up for FA status and we could do with some input. --Bob 20:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Greetings
[edit] 334 Novel
Response in my talk page at User_talk:Kevinalewis#334. Regards :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- And I have responded as wel in my talk page at User talk:Errabee#334. Thanks for all the work you've put into it! Errabee 11:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nursing Portal & wikiproject
Hi, You may or may not be aware that User:THB has crated a Nursing Portal and Nursing Wikiproject aiming to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nursing. It would be great if all Wikipedian nurses got involved. — Rod talk 19:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eu-FEDS response
Moved this to Talk:Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis. ←Hob 01:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eu-FEDS response part II
Moved this to Talk:Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis. ←Hob 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ==Eu-FEDS response
I had already been made aware of the article by another party. I've been reading through the talk page and have posted information about the RfC on the medical portal. Hopefully we can get enough people together to approach this topic reasonably. InvictaHOG 08:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jesse Reklaw
...I was busy posting on talkpage. Yes, 13 Cats is from a graphic novel he is working on--I know it for a fact. But, it's important to remember viz Wikipedia that the standard is "verifiability, not truth"--so whether I know that or not, or your opinion of what the source says doesn't refute the source: "in spite of what the alumni magazine says, it's not" is not information Wikipedia can use; Wikipedia uses sources, not the opinions of editors. Please do not aggressively remove sourced infomation because you disagree with it--it's still sourced information, and removing it could be called vandalism. Reklaw is not a controversial subject, I don't really understand why you are removing sourced information from this article. Cindery 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm gonna give it a rest at least till tomorrow, so do whatever you think is best and reply as needed, and I may or may not argue some more later. I'll just say this, and hope I don't sound too much like an asshole: it looks like you started editing four months ago. OK, maybe you were around earlier under a different username or something, and I'm no Jimbo Wales. Still, it's really not such a great idea for your very first communication with someone to be like this - "Please do not aggressively remove sourced information because you disagree with it .... removing it could be called vandalism" - unless you're really really sure that they totally don't know what they're doing and you do. You jumped in with reverts while I was still moving stuff around - where's the fire? Do you think text is lost for all time if a revision exists without it for one evening? Does my own edit history really look like someone who's just goofing around or is unfamiliar with WP or comics articles? I know you put a lot of good work into the article, but that's no reason to go in with guns blazing when someone's 2/3 of the way through a large revision and is carefully commenting every single edit. You don't have to agree with me but please assume good faith; I will do the same. Å©Hob 07:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You removed 3/4 of the article, all of it cited content, with zero discussion on the talkpage... Cindery 07:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have over 2,000 edits and have created several articles, so yes, you do "sound too much like an asshole." Any experienced editor knows that if you make "bold" edits with no discussion, you should expect bold reverts are a possibility. Again, Reklaw not a controversial subject--unless you have "ownership issues" over comics articles, or displaced animosity towards Tolkein fans and their long article. (I will happily help you shorten that "fancruft," if you like :-) But I don't see the point of sniping or hostility or aggressive editing viz a short article on an alternative comic artist. ? Cindery 07:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for never leaving any huge rants on my talkpage like the one below again. Wikipedia is a "content over community endeavor," and I am not obligated to personally engage with you to the extent that it appears you would like to engage with me. If you remove huge amounts of cited content without discussion, expect that it is likely you will be reverted; it's standard on Wikipedia. Removing cited content is vandalism--I assumed good faith enough not to put a vandal warning on your page, I just replaced the cited content and asked you to discuss on talk. Cindery 10:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oy. You know, when someone says "I hope I don't sound too much like an asshole", that's usually meant to be a self-deprecating diplomatic gesture of some kind, requesting that you try to see what follows in the gentlest possible light. Replying that "you do sound like an asshole" is just a straight-up personal attack, and I would really appreciate it if you'd remove it. I did not call you a dumb newbie or anything remotely like that; I said that your initial response was pretty aggressive, a bit hasty (how did you know that my next few edits wouldn't have produced something more to your liking, or that I wasn't going to write them up on the talk page within half an hour?), and generally didn't assume good faith quite as much as it could have... and since neither of us is a deeply experienced editor, that kind of vehemence might be a wee bit unwise. I really don't see how I've been "sniping" or hostile.
- I'm sorry I didn't spell out everything I was going to do on the talk page and then wait X amount of time for approval, but since (as you pointed out) this is not a large or controversial article, it would be a little unusual if I had; these sorts of articles generally sit around with very little going on for months at a time. But in any case, I would never have jumped down anyone's throat like that if they'd tried a major revision of something I started. You can clearly see I'm not a hit-and-run vandal, I'm not revert-warring, I'm arguing specific points on the talk page. If I should've done all that before making any edits, well, that is very easy to fix: we can revert the whole thing with two clicks, and the conversation will still proceed. So I'm not sure why you're still pounding at the illegitimacy of my original edits. You clearly don't agree with the reasoning behind them and you wouldn't have if I had suggested them on the talk page first; the result at this point is the same, except that I may have wasted some of your time. OK, we move on, we try different things. If we can't agree, we ask for opinions in WikiProject Comics or RFC.
- I only "removed 3/4 of the article" if you count my moving the Slow Wave material into the article specifically for that strip. That's a difference of opinion, and it may need a 3rd party to resolve it; but it's not vandalism, it's not unusual, and there are many, many examples of editor consensus to support it. Your opinion of what's valuable to readers may be correct, but if we get some other editors into the act (as we certainly should do if we can't reach consensus) I think you'll see that that's not how a lot of editors in arts-related articles see it. I'm not claiming ownership, just some familiarity with similar articles - and I do think, based on your odd use of reference sections and the fact that some of the "sourced material" is nowhere to be found in the sources, that there might be a couple of areas where you're not totally clear on WP style and the purpose of citations; I hope you will at least consider my suggestions about those. (And I don't have any Tolkien issues or "displaced animosity" - that was just a freaking analogy, with absolutely no bad implications toward you, and I said so very clearly.)
- By the way, even if you don't consider me a reasonable collaborator, I do really appreciate the care you've taken in documenting your edits and keeping the various issues more or less separate on the talk page. And now goodnight. --Hob 10:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A certain editor
Hi Hob.
I have been annoyed a few times by a certain editor, and I known many others have too, including you. But I am unsure how to proceed. Are there sufficient ground to get him blocked? Would he just reappear with a different name (though his style is easy to recognize)? Is the best way to keep silence, not to engage in fruitless disputes with him? After all, he is not disrupting any articles; he is just wasting our time on the talk pages. Please see my post on the issue at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#24 November 2006. At this point I have chosen not to name him - perhaps that's silly. Any comments?--Niels Ø 22:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peer review
A request for a peer review of New Universe has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/New Universe. I'd appreciate your comments on the article, hopefully it will kickstart the comics project's peer review process. To comment, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible. Steve block Talk 22:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] James Tiptree, Jr.
Hob, congrats on a fine job on this article. It's been somewhat expanded and fine-tuned since then. Can you be tempted to come back to it? Particularly needed would be summaries of the stories in articles on the anthologies, and perhaps separate articles for the more notable stories. Also, an uploaded cover illo would be nice-- I'm hopeless at the task. Good work on the Jim Woodring article. You're a pretty good cartoonist yourself! Rhinoracer 13:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
