User talk:Aschoeff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Aschoeff, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Again, welcome! CWC(talk) 08:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krauthammer Birthplace Editing Dispute

[My original message on J M Rice's talk page that began the dispute] Even if you don't like how basic biographical facts affect someone's image, it is not your right to be the self-appointed censor here. I was quite surprised to find out Krauthammer is not American-born, and on top of that he didn't even grow up in the States. This is very pertinent information for a BIOGRAPHICAL web page. Aschoeff 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[Rice's response taken from CK's Talk page] Why did you send me a stupid, insulting message to me about this? I have nothing to do with this place-of-birth controversy, and I certainly didn't revert your edit. — J M Rice 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[My response from CK's Talk page] You are the one using epithets like "stupid." And unless someone else is using your account, yes you did make the edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Krauthammer&oldid=95741673 Aschoeff 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[NOTE: All subsequent comments were all originally posted here unless noted, although I did post some of the same comments simultaneously in both J M Rice's talk page and CK's Talk page, which made following the discussion difficult enough that I consolidated the above messages here on my talk page] Aschoeff 19:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"I'm the one?" Are you all right? The edit I made was over a month ago, and there have been plenty of edits since then. The edits I made have nothing to do with reverting Uruguay to NYC. I still have no idea of what you are talking about. Please stop bothering me. — J M Rice 00:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's the edit where the place of birth was changed from Uruguay to New York City. It was made by user 70.17.123.241 (talk • contribs).
Since Wikipedia has lots of editors from lots of countries (I'm in Australia) with lots of differing beliefs, it is important to try to be collegial. In fact, Wikipedia:Civility is one of the few official policies here. Please try to avoid insulting other editors. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC) who is not always as civil as he should be either

Yes, that's where it changed from Uruguay to New York, but Rice's immediately previous edit removed the REFERENCE. Without the reference, claiming Krauthammer was born in Uruguay is indeed specious, so it's totally understandable some unnamed person reverted it. So yes, indeed, Rice you did do this, whether it was just sloppy editing or no, you need to be more careful. And I need to not assume you had any motive behind this. Aschoeff 19:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, a place of birth does not need to be referenced. It is unnecessary. So the edit was not sloppy, and I don't need to be "more careful". It's you need to be more careful before calling someone a "self-appointed censor." — J M Rice 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My last word on this subject is that I do not think you should be an editor for wikipedia. If you don't understand that any statement offered up as fact needs to be referenced, especially if that statement is a point of contention, then you lack the expertise to responsibly and fairly analyze and edit other people's work. Whether that statement is about a place of birth or not is utterly irrelevant. Good luck to you, and if you respond I'll give you the last word. Aschoeff 22:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have serious issues and need professional help. For the last time, leave my Talk page alone and stop posting your nasty messages. — J M Rice 00:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[At this point, the discussion moves to another part of Rice's Talk page titled "Dreary News". Rice just deleted the entire discussion again, but I learned how to reference sections from previous edits, so look here for the relevant revision prior to deletion. I will copy that whole section here in the future if necessary, but for now this updated link works and needs to be read through if one is following this discussion. After that the discussion resumes below.] Aschoeff 21:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If a User chooses to remove a discussion from his Talk page, that is his choice; unless it includes warnings, notices of block, etc., you should not insist on replacing it. This editor has also asked you to stop pestering him — a request that seem reasonable, looking at some of your unpleasant messages, which occasionally reach the level of personal attack. Note also that your peculiar claim that J M Rice has threatened you is unjustified on the basis of anything that I've seen. Please drop this, and stop posting to J M Rice's Talk page unless you have something civil and/or useful to say. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC) [Note: this was orginally posted by Mel under a new section here titled "Your behaviour" Aschoeff 19:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)]

[My response, originally posted to Mel's Talk page and also titled "Your Behaviour" (Next four paragraphs)] Mel, you wrote the following in your own page: "....so if you think that I've behaved wrongly, let me know — but politely; it's most likely to be inadvertent, as is most wrongdoing here. (If I have a fault ("if"!), it's that I tend to respond badly to rudeness and aggression.)" Does this mean than when someone is slightly rude to you, that you then escalate the situation and become even more rude back? I guess then that would make both of you in the wrong, would it not? That is what occurred in this circumstance, Mel.

As I have a standing advocacy request, you should participate in that if you have an opinion about this. I'm going to add you to the list of involved parties now that you are clearly taking a side and have admin powers, and are not an advocate.

My response to you regarding the substance of your comment is that you did not read all the cited pages where this went on thoroughly enough. I cannot respond in any more detail that that, because you did not go into any detail about your conclusions. "Your behavior" as a title in and of itself carries negative connotations, and is paternalistic, which is a position you are not entitled to take regardless of your admin status. As such I'm going to change the title to something appropriate, but I'm not going to delete it.

As for my edits of Rice's discussion page, my understanding is that a user can have anything on their own page, but the user discussion page is just that, a place for discussion in the same vein as any other wiki. Therefore one should not censor it, but edit it in the same ethical way as any other page. Aschoeff 17:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding of User Talk pages, if it includes the notion that other editors may control what's there, is wrong, I'm afraid. If someone wants to archive, or even simply delete, a discussion, she can. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you please cite the relevant policy that says this? If this is true, then anyone else should not be able to undo one's own User:Talk page edit. Not only is this not the case, but the three-revert policy holds the same for User:Talk pages. Please explain your premise, please, with a citation if you can find it. Aschoeff 18:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of policy (of which we have few), but the Wikipedia guidelines and general culture. See for example Wikipedia:User page: "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Your citation only says that as a guideline a user can edit their own page with wide latitude, it does not in any way imply specifically that "if a User chooses to remove a discussion from his Talk page, that is his choice; unless it includes warnings, notices of block, etc., you should not insist on replacing it." You are freely interpreting a guideline into specific rules, which anyone can do, but that doesn't mean you are correct. I think it's best to wait for the advocacy process before stating any more personal opinions as policy, which is somewhat of an abuse of your admin status. If you read further on the page you cite, Wikipedia:User_page#Use_of_page_protection_for_user_pages, it clearly states that edit wars are grounds for freezing a User page, but for a User talk page only "in rare cases, protection may be used but is considered a last resort given the importance of talk page discussions to the project." Aschoeff 20:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am, incidentally, amused that you think my creation of a section here with the title "your behaviour" is so objectionable that you deleted it, yet you created a section with the same title at my Talk page. I'll not be oversensitive about it, and it can stay. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I obviously titled that section in your talk page identically on purpose. I am glad you acknowledge that it was objectionable in the first place, and I applaud that you are now choosing to defuse rather than escalate. I didn't delete your comment by the way, I combined it with the other passive-aggressively-formatted comment into the relevant section. You can do something similar on your own page, if you would prefer; the title has served it's purpose. Aschoeff 20:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"I am glad you acknowledge that it was objectionable in the first place" — how on Earth do you read that into what I said? And where do you think that I said that you deleted my comment? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if you don't think that it was objectionable, then there was nothing for you to avoid being "oversensitive" about, hmm? Please explain why you think it was not objectionable, then. As for the deletion, your use of the word was ambiguous enough that it wasn't clear if you were referring to just the title or the whole comment, so I replied in a way that covered both cases because I certainly did not delete the comment. That would be both extremely hypocritical and rather counterproductive. Aschoeff 23:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Try our article on sarcasm. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

...which incidentally doesn't rule out the other in any way, but thanks for not answering anything I asked, and for once again letting me know what you were attempting to say. Aschoeff 21:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy violations

Thanks for your message about our Charles Krauthammer 'bearing an eerie resemblance' to his WPWG biography. I suspected as much when I read the WPWG bio, but I hadn't got around to checking it before I got your email. I've left a plea for help at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems and explained the situation at Talk:Charles Krauthammer#Copyright Issue.

You're welcome; my pleasure. I was just trying to settle the concerns I had with some sort of objective tool. I used copyfind (google copyfind) to compare them, and it was pretty damning. Aschoeff 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

On the birthplace thing: the usual practice would be to take the WPWG bio as a reliable source, unless we have some evidence to the contrary. How would you feel about doing that?

For the reasons I stated here I think we shouldn't use it. In the interest of being thorough, I just went and read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Types_of_source_material. By my analysis, CK's personally written bio that is not officially published by any reputable publisher does not meet the bar of any of the three classes of sources required for any statement to avoid immediate deletion. Further, upon reading the next section, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biographies_of_living_persons, I concluded that it explicity rules this bio out. I then applied the same analysis to Jeet Heer's article, and found that it meets the standards of both sections, except for my procuring of a direct refutation of those facts by the author himself. As a result I believe both sources are ruled out. I understand I didn't go into specifics here, and I will if anyone wants me to, but first would you take a look and tell me what you think? Aschoeff 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Which brings me to another of the many little traps for newer players around here. The old system for "conversations" between two users was for each to leave messages on the other's user talk page. The problem is that the conversation is then split between two pages, and understanding someone else's conversation (or even an old one of your own) may require comparing timestamps ... erk. So a new approach has developed: the person who starts a conversation leaves a message on the other person's talk page, then "watch"es the talk page until the conversation is over. I prefer the new approach. Of course, this means that whenever you get a message you have to check which approach the sender uses ... oh, well.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 16:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it is a bit awkward any way you do it. I mean, do we copy anything we say that may be relevant to CK's talk page? It's similar to the confusion that can ensue when trying to carry on a conversation with a group and with one person in that group concurrently. As for convention, I have also been using the "new" style you were talking about, so we're on the same page (unless I accidentally hit the form-feed button, nyuk). Aschoeff 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My case

I'll be advocating for you. Filing an RfC, may be necessary in this case. Geo. Talk to me 02:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Geo. Thanks in advance for donating your time to look at this request. Would you please be more specific about what an RfC would be written about in this case? Thanks again! Aschoeff 05:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say it would focus on user conduct. Geo. Talk to me 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/s/c/User_talk%7EAschoeff_4d15.html"