Talk:Silvermine, Connecticut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] pdf move

This sentence: "It is much easier to look at the boundary on this pdf map than the description below, but if the map for some reason becomes unavailable, here's the description:" is unprofessional. It is more reminiscent of a post-it note than an encyclopedia sentence. I also see it as not needed....I moved the pdf file to external links, where it is quite easily accessed without loss of "useability"...the page isn't that big that it would get lost in a huge sea of text TJ0513 03:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia standards for civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. How do you expect to work with others if this is the tone you take? The way I had it was easier for a reader to use. Your way means the reader won't know that there's a map before going through the (more difficult) description. Your idea of "professional" seems to be to copy the limitations of written encyclopedias and use stilted prose. Is our aim here to impress others with our authoritative tone or get them information?Noroton 22:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have less faith in the mental capacity of readers than I do. I do not see how removing this sentence would detract from the usability, or prevent access to information. I'm not convinced in the need for this sentence, while you seem to be operating under the presumption that removing it hinders page usability, which isn't for definite. Frankly, we're only talking about a three paragraph section of two sentences each. So, you are failing to convince me of the need for this sentence, when the pdf link can be placed in external links. I also don't believe taking the sentence out limits the article to the mold of a paper encyclopedia...if they really wanted, they could have this exact same sentence (but maybe reworded to "look at the picture on p. 241" or something, so it's certainly possible in both, but it's just my opinon this isn't the best worded sentence). Finally, I shouldn't read into my tone, we'e just having stylistic differences, and remember that wikipedians don't "own" the pages they create. TJ0513 14:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not the mental capacity of readers but their psychic abilities that I have less faith in than you do. A reader interested in the boundaries of the neighborhood shouldn't have to read through that description and THEN discover that there's an easier map to look at. I don't have to read rudeness into your tone, it's in your words.

Again, please review Wikipedia civility standards.

From WP:CIV:

Civility is a rule for the conduct of edits, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. "Civility" is the only principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it's the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. [...]

EXAMPLES [and I'm not saying they all apply to you]:

Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:

• Rudeness
• Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped rambling crap")
• Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
• Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another
• Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
• Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.

Noroton 16:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa!!! I wasn't trying to be mean. You should review Wikipedia:Assume good faith....I looked at what I said and if I was out of line by saying the sentence was reminiscent of a post-it note I'm sorry...I could have bene articulate, what I was really trying to convey was that the sentence was a bit informal, and non-encycplopedic in structure (see: Wikipedia:The perfect article, "be engaged" towards the end about tone). What in your mind warrants an external link at all, because if *all* of them are related to the articles, we should put them in the beginning to all sections, no?, to make information more easily accessible and not have the reader bother with the article. This is not convincing to me. TJ0513 01:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I really resent cut-and-copy of "examples" if they don't apply.