User talk:Isogolem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Copyvio 2 Welcome to FBOB! 3 New project over at Films based on books 4 Wikipedia Film Quotes 5 Paleo-Tethys Ocean 6 IAR 7 The 2R thing 8 Loaded words 9 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

[edit] Copyvio

You haven't made any edits in over two years, but if you ever come back some day, just be aware that text should never be copied verbatim from copyrighted sources, except of course when providing an attributed quote for some reasonable purpose. Specifically, your edit here added two full paragraphs taken almost word-for-word from here. I've removed these. —Simetrical (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't plagarize. Compare the submission date of my change (here) to the publication date of their article: November 3, 2003 vs. May 12, 2004. They plagarized us. I have sent them an email based on unacknowledged copying without GFDL.

Simetrical — I was upset that you gutted this article, that I worked quite hard on, without fully researching who was at fault or what parts were copied (they also lifted "Whatever the risks..."). Still, thank you (seriously) very much for taking the time to research it as far as you did and to notify me, so that I would be sure to notice it and could do something about it. — Isogolem 22:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to FBOB!

Hi there, and thanks for signing up at WikiProject Films Based on Books. We don't have anything specific going on at the moment, although while going through film stubs I keep ferreting out items to place in the various "Films based on..." cats. Cheers, Her Pegship 21:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - Isogolem 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New project over at Films based on books

Greetings! I put together a list of stub articles that need to be split into separate book and film articles and posted it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books/Splits. Feel free to take a crack at it. Her Pegship 13:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Film Quotes

Hi, Isogolem:

Thanks for the suggestion on the WikiProject Films quote. It's up now and I think it suits the project well. Jonathan F 20:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. You know I didn't mean you had to take my suggestion, right? Isogolem 22:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, and I hesistated to be the one to put it up, having not seen Grand Canyon, but those other quotes had to go. Jonathan F 23:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, yah. Way to be bold! Isogolem 15:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paleo-Tethys Ocean

Hi! I saw you changed my edit on Paleo-Tethys Ocean but "Alpine mountains" is a bit vague term for "Alpine Belt" or "Alpine Orogen". In fact, maybe it is better to erase the list of mountain ranges and just put in "Alpine Orogen" or "Alpine mountain belts" with a link. On the page Alpine Orogeny the reader can find the definition. Woodwalker 11:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Took a stab at what I think you suggested. Better? Isogolem 21:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it clearer this way yes. Good job - the whole article! Woodwalker 21:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You've done more work on it than I have. :) But, thank you! – Isogolem 07:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IAR

Okay, correcting my own stupidity...

Not at all. They were perfectly reasonable things to have done. 192.75.48.150 14:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Meh. I will likely pack up and bail off that cluster-fsck real soon. I'm thinking rather than merge, what's maybe needed is a WP:IARNOT, something close to as succinct as IAR that points out what IAR isn't. -- Isogolem 15:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, that sounds like pretty much how "suggestions" got off, and earlier, "use common sense", "interpret all rules", and I think "process is important" too. Basically people add their (reasonable, if somewhat contested) views to IAR, and eventually it gets forked off. Then it starts again. By the time "suggestions" came along, it was pretty much reflex to boot everything out. Now I guess we're past even that reflex, and into auto-fsck mode... which is maybe overreacting just a bit. Anyways, I don't know exactly what you have in mind, but "Interpret all rules" is probably the closest to IARNOT (in fact its shortcut is WP:DIAR). You may which to look at that, or maybe a new page is appropriate. 192.75.48.150 15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I was thinking something a little closer in spirit and structure to WP:NOT. But I didn't know that so many pages had been spawned off IAR - that history just keeps going and going, and I read to slow. Fair enough. I'll ponder for a little while before proceeding. -- Isogolem 17:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 2R thing

Please don't do that. It gives me the impression that you're counting your reverts. --Tony Sidaway 23:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm not doing it to make you uncomfortable. Still, it's not just an impression. I'm counting my reverts and being honest about it. There are any number of cases of User-A counting User-B's reverts and nailing User-B when they go over. It helps keep me from getting off balance, keeps me aware of when I'm reverting and how much, and avoids ever getting close to WP:3RR. My intent was to never even hit 3R - after 2R, if we're not on to dicussion instead of edits, they've lost balance not me. I'm okay waiting a day, or asking someone else to step up to the plate. Best of intentions.

What's wrong with it? Appearance of wikilawyering? -- Isogolem 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Isogolem. I have a similar policy. I try to limit myself to 1 revert and sometimes I get to 2 reverts but I really try to catch myself after that 2nd revert. I can count on one hand the number of times that I've been at WP:3RR and I don't think I've ever gone beyond that. Ideally, I'd honor WP:0RR but I'm not a saint.

--Richard 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't count reverts. Really. Don't. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why, Tony? If it's has been written already, give a link. If not... I'd like to understand your reasoning. -- Isogolem 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

When new editors see more experienced editors counting, it encourages a false sense of entitlement. Even if the experienced editor is making a very exceptional second revert, this won't be evident to the new guy, who will assume it's what people do. --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Entitlement? Ah, you refer to meant to cite intent of 3RR. Hmm... I'm not sure if I agree with your reasoning. I _am_ a relatively new editor and I think that people reverting like wild in so many places is a much stronger encourager. ... But I see your point, perhaps better perhaps to follow 1RR and not count. Or perhaps to add something the WP:ROWN about this. -- Isogolem 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loaded words

Copied from Tony Sidaway's page ... in case I ever need the reminder.

Hi Tony, Do you think you might get a better response from some people if you used the words like the following less often?

• fatuous
• paranoid
• baseless

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have used the word "fatuous" to describe a fatuous and clearly false suggestion.
• I have used the word "paranoid" to describe a clearly false and baseless accusation of malicious manipulation that was, however, made sincerely.
• I have used the word "baseless" to describe a baseless accusation.

Don't mistake this for loaded language. Wild, absolutely incredible accusations are being made. We must describe them for what they are. --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you meant to sidestep the question or not, but I'm curious as to your answer. Do you think you might get a better response from some people if you used the words like the above (and others) less often? --Kbdank71 03:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the context. Obviously the correct word has to be used for the situation. When people have, as it were, strayed from the facts, sometimes you need to tell them clearly that they're completely wrong. --Tony Sidaway 03:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing I've learned in this life is that some targets are very hard to hit exactly. Arriving on time for things, for one. Sending a message to someone is another. If you aim for exactly what you want, sometimes you overshoot, sometimes you undershoot. If you want to be on time reliably, you have to aim at being early.

In this instance, the cost of overshooting greatly exceeds the cost of undershooting. If you undershoot when trying to explain something, no real damage is done, the other person can ask a question and you can try again. But if you overshoot, if you overstate how low your opinion of someone is, it's really hard to recover. (Unless the other person is prepared to cut you some slack, as you and I are to each other.) But if the other person isn't feeling patient, perhaps because they have a history with you, or are having a bad day, or just because they are the sort of person who is inclined to overstate things, then you can get into a vicious circle where everything that gets said makes things worse.

Now, maybe you _are_ using these words acurately. But your counterparts in this converstation don't agree, or they wouldn't have made the wildy fatuous, paranoid and baseless statements in the first place. So if you want to influence them, you need to take a different tactic. Just telling them they're wrong won't help them understand why, it just turns them hostile. We can only call things as we see them, but it helps if we use language that can be heard.[1]

You are more interested in being understood, than in scoring points, aren't you? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, how about I phrase it this way, then: It's pretty clear that where you've gone lately, conflict has followed. Your words and a good deal of your actions rub many people the wrong way. Do you even care to get a better response from people? --Kbdank71 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The places I go? It's not surprising I pick up a bit of flack. --Tony Sidaway 03:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So that'd be a no, then. --Kbdank71 03:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. Another of my favourite pages is http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?DefendEachOther Regards, Ben Aveling 03:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to overshoot. If you're honest and you undershoot, there would be some who thought your were being dishonest and hiding behind polite words. If you overshot, people would think you're being undiplomatic. Figure it out for yourself. I haven't stated my opinion of anyone. --Tony Sidaway 03:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say dishonest and hiding. I'd say you were trying to be polite. And I wouldn't say undiplomatic. Other words, but not that. Either way, though, I've got my answer. Thanks for the explanation. --Kbdank71 03:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Put it this way: supposed somebody has already become so confused that he has accused you of a breathtakingly ridiculous falsehood. If you try to be polite and say "oh I think you're wrong you know" and try to weedle about it, you're not going to convince the fellow, he's too far gone. But if you don't respond in a forthright manner there's always the chance that some of the publicly stated falsehoods will be believed by some reasonable people simply because they appear to have gone undenied or denied in an insufficiently forthright manner. In the circumstances, it's much better to be thought a little rude that to be thought dishonest. Utterly false, extremely defamatory, paranoid, baseless and frankly stupid allegations have been made about the arbitration committee, Angela, and the bureaucrats. Let's not mince words, let's call them that. --Tony Sidaway 03:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not just say "false and defamatory"? Why add "paranoid and stupid"? What good does that do? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See the precise explanations in my responses above. Giano clearly sincerely believes the outrageous falsehoods that he has published. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wonder what you both thought, by the way, of the appropriateness of permitting Wikipedians to make such baseless and false slurs against some of the most trusted Wikipedians. --Tony Sidaway 04:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Couriously, I was just trying to work out what he said that's so annoyed you. Was it this: "The arbcom, (all of them I suspect were in on this - even Angela - there are no innocents here) calculated and estimated the response from the "fickle and ill-informed populace." [2] . (note: no one has censored Kelly Martin for such a stupid error) How far dare they go? They have now taken a vow of silence, so must be judged or damned together. They will survive because as I have said they divide and rule, poor old Sidaway though they use him as their barometer. Even I am never that cruel - but he is getting away with blue murder - so they assess and calculate. Sinister isn't it? Doubtless the next comment will be Giano is paranoid! Well I am not, I smell a rat, I see a rat, and I don't like it one little bit" [3] ? I have to admit, it's wierd. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not annoyed in the least, so don't worry about that. However such paranoid ravings have no place on Wikipedia. I still think it would have been best to give him a few hours of downtime. --Tony Sidaway 04:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I don't know. I agree, rants like that are unhelpful. But blocking him for saying what he thinks won't change his mind or improve his behaviour - far from it. What would Miss Manners do? The only reputation he was damaging was his own. I'd say that one of the standard warnings is appropriate for a first offence, followed by a short block if he repeats. But the focus should be on the fact that what he was saying was unacceptable, not on our assessment of his mental stability.

Do me a favour? The next time you want to describe someone's comments as paranoid, including a link so that I can see for myself? Thanks, Ben Aveling 04:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the first thing to do in a case of such serious attacks is to stop them. He had been at it for days and warnings had no effect. I don't take the view that his ravings were without effect. Your mileage may vary. I cited samples of his accusations in the block report on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 04:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't assume I read everything you write at WP:AN. I agree, his behaviour is a problem. But your response to it, that too has caused problems. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I misjudged the sheer amount of fuss a brief block would cause. This is one of the hazards of adminship. --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could tell you "do this next time, and the result will be better". Ben Aveling 05:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that, when a case gets this bad, there is no "better" And that's normally where you'll find me, at the pointy end. --Tony Sidaway 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You've reminded me of one of my favourite posts on rec.bridge. In essence, the question was "How can I play $X cards to get out of situtation $Y" and the answer was "I wouldn't get into situation $Y." It wasn't a very comforting reply, but the second bridge player had a point. The first bridge player's bidding had dug him into such a deep hole that skillful play of the available cards could not extract him. Some situations are easier to avoid than to repair. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah but that would assume that we cause the situations we try, and sometimes fail, to defuse. --Tony Sidaway 06:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Rather, in trying to defuse situation $N, we cause situation $N+1. Ben Aveling 06:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And coming back aroudn to the orginal topic, using loaded words - even when they're accurate - is being part of the cause and, by their nature, a failure to diffuse. You need not call someones comments "baseless" to prove them so. -- Isogolem 17:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is gained from not calling baseless and damaging allegations "baseless". Except perhaps the impression, among at least some people of good will, that one is being cagey and evasive. I do not wish to give that impression. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Tony - 19:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Ah, here's an example of two different ways I could respond to this:

1. Tony your response above is paranoid and baseless. Your claim that "nothing is gained" from making an effort to be polite is willfully ignorant of reality. Your response implies both that cagey and evasive are equivalent (which they obviously are not), and that making any effort to be polite is equivalent to being dishonest (which it also is not). Your comments may avoid giving the impression evasion, but including such defamatory language is instead guaranteed to give the impression of denegrating other users under a false banner of "honesty".
2. Tony, I don't agree with you that "nothing is gained". Significant portions of wikipedia policy and guideline are devoted to asking poeople to be polite, including WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and of course WP:CIVIL. Using words like "baseless" (let alone paranoid), skirts the edge of civility and absolutely breaks AGF. That kind of language is more likely to draw people to the accused's defense (and on to flame wars), whereas a calm neutral tone response (even if brief) is not. In a straw poll, I think most users would say they'd rather deal with comments that are cagey or level-headed, than with comments that break the spirit of WP:CIVIL. I actually find loaded words more indicative of evasion than less loaded ones - IME, it is easier to hide logical fallacies in loaded word comments. By using loaded words (especially without cites), you actually make it harder for me to distiguish your quite valid comments from those of the trolls and vandals.

So, which of these two comments is better?

Neither is much use. Both are based on the false premise that it is uncivil to identify a baseless and false accusation as baseless and false. Both falsely suggest that we should pussyfoot about clearly baseless, false and damaging accusations, treating them with a weight equal to serious, well founded suggestions. Taken seriously, both would damage Wikipedia very badly. --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that clears that up.  :) Thanks, it's been fun! -- Isogolem 06:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can