User talk:198.252.8.202

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

v • d • e
Key Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Overview
Global principles
Article standards policies
Behavioral policies
Behavioral guidelines
Resolution policies
Classification guidelines
Content guidelines
Editing guidelines
Style conventions

Contents

[edit] Regarding edits made during April 2, 2007

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made during April 2, 2007

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Pueblo. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —DerHexer (Talk) 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Guineafowl has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. J.delanoygabsadds 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] May 2008: Regarding change made to Roger Mahony

To User:198.252.8.202 Thank you for your recent note to me regarding your edits to the wikipedia article on Cardinal Roger Mahony. As someone who has lived in the Los Angeles Archdiocese under the prior Archbishop, Timothy Manning, it was very noticeable that the new/current Roman Catholic Cardinal did not follow the more common convention of placing the "Cardinal" title between first and last name. This is not just a whim of the Deacon in charge of the webpage, but rather common practice of the Cardinal himself, as is evident all of his publications published not only in his webpage but also in other archdiocesan publications (e.g. The Tidings) and in mainstream publications that regularly cover Cardinal Mahony, such as the Los Angeles Times. There is now a well established record of Cardinal Mahony using the title in that way, and therefore it follows that it will not conform to other Wikipedia articles of other Roman Catholic Cardinals who choose to use the title differently. And as I mentioned in the Talk page for the actual article for Roger Mahony, the Wikipedia article for Roman Catholic Cardinals states that this form is correct. I think it is proper to revert to this form. Please continue this discussion on the article Talk page or send me a message again.Westofpch (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008: Until this issue is resolved, it still remains open

To User:198.252.8.202: Thank you for taking the time to reply and give further rational for your point of view. It seems clear that (a) we both want to present information in good faith which is clear, correct, and verifiable, (b) that we do so within Wikipedia guidelines of verifiability and style convention, and (c) we disagree on how best to do this in the case of Cardinal Mahony.

In support of your point of view, you essentially brought up three points (two in bullets, one in your conclusion). I will respond to each in turn below:

"Roger Cardinal Mahony's use of his own name, and title. Purely by way of explanation, I mentioned that your reference to the Cardinal's decision about use of his office title was unclear at the present time, but you misunderstood. I meant that no one can include this fact claim unless verifiable, reliable sources (plural) are given in the article which establish the Cardinal's usage of his name and title."

To this end, I offered up multiple verifiable, reliable sources which establish the Cardinal's usage of his name and title as "Cardinal Roger Mahony": reprints of speeches the Cardinal has given, letters he has published, and articles he has written all titled or signed as "Cardinal Roger Mahony." While each of these is an independent occurance, they all come from the Los Angeles Archdiocese (whether from their website or from their diocesan newspaper, The Tidings); in my mind, this would be the definitive source, but since some might actually regard it as ultimately being insufficient, I offered up quotes from the Los Angeles Times showing their usage of the cardinal's name and title as "Cardinal Roger Mahony." You seem to have a different issue with this reference (which I will address below), but regardless of your issues with either, the point of fact is that there are already multiple "verifiable, reliable sources (plural) given . . . which establish the Cardinal's usage of his name and title" as you request.

"Encyclopedia article style convention[s]. When you referred to the entry on Roman Catholic cardinals, you explained that your decision was correct. What the article says in fact is that both usages are correct, but you did not acknowledge that in your message – and I wonder why."

You are absolutely correct in that the article says that both usages are correct. I did not feel that I had to state that explicitly since the vast majority of cardinals use the title as you prefer, i.e. Sean Patrick Cardinal O'Malley. In my mind, it is analogous to being accused of refering to an article about an eclipse but failing to mention the sun is visible most of the time, when both writer and reader know the obvious conventions. In this case, you and I both know that most cardinals use their titles between their first and last names. I unhesitatingly stipulate as to the correctness of the more common order of first-Cardinal-last, and I referenced the wikipedia article on Roman Catholic cardinals as evidence that both are, in fact, correct. I anxiously await your acknowledgment of this same fact.

"...It appears that you might have confused your personal preferences with the issue of article style conventions in this encyclopedia. No reader or editor may capriciously decide to change an article to suit their personal judgment, even in regard to how the subject uses their name and title themselves, because style conventions have to be maintained consistently throughout the entire encyclopedia.In conclusion, please give this matter some serious thought. It does not matter what rules of style the Los Angeles Times, for example, has adopted for itself, because that decision does not affect style conventions inside Wikipedia. There are basic rules for how Catholic articles, for instance, must all match, and a matter such as how Cardinal Mahony uses his own title bears no relevance to what is written in this encyclopedia. Please let me know what you think."

A few points here:

  • You are absolutely incorrect in assuming or inferring that my "personal preferences with the issue of article style conventions in this encyclopedia" in any way affect my attempts to edit this article . While I do not have access to the style guide of the Los Angeles Times, I do find it interesting that the newspaper currently refers to "Cardinal Roger Mahony" while in the past they used the form "Timothy Cardinal Manning" for Cardinal Mahony's predecessor as Archbishop of Los Angeles and that Cardinal Manning preferred that style when referring to himself. Both the Los Angeles Times and I seem to be following the convention and example set forth by the Cardinal himself in his own writings. In contrast, I have not chosen to make similar edits to any other cardinal, e.g. Edward Cardinal Egan, since in his own writings Cardinal Egan chooses to place his title between his first and last names.
  • Your reference to style conventions inside Wikipedia is an interesting one. Upon checking Wikipedia:Manual of Style, one will see that there is no reference as to the preferred usage within Wikipedia for use of the title of Roman Catholic Cardinal within that man's name. It is clear then that the issue is still up for discussion and debate (as all of us are now doing here). I can only conclude (without malice, mind you) that your references to "article style conventions in this encyclopedia" and "style conventions inside Wikipedia" are not references to any agreed upon manual of style within Wikipedia, but merely a statement about the most common usage of the title within Wikipedia. I am not surprised that this is more commonly used within this encyclopedia considering that it is, by far, the most common usage by cardinals throughout the world; however, "more common" does not equal "more correct" and until there is clear consensus on this issue, it is prudent to continue to allow for either correct usage.
  • Your subsequent statement of "No reader or editor may capriciously . . ." along with your statement on the Roger Mahony talk page that "I do not know whether Westofpch has any kind of ideological ax to grind which would serve as any kind of motivation for editing Roger Mahony in this manner; nor would I care to speculate on the matter, since it would not advance the quality of the article" is, whether or not you intend it, inflammatory and clearly violates the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith. While you try to caveat your statements and/or make them generic, this passive aggressive style is still accusatory, regardless of your intent, in the same way as the following very similarly worded statement: "I do not know whether Person X beats his dog; nor would I care to speculate on the matter. . . ." Merely raising it as a possibility in a public forum such as Wikipedia is tantamount to accusation, whether or not that is your intent and whether or not you place caveats at the beginning of your article stating that it is not your intent. I urge you to refrain from such statements as we continue this lively debate.

To summarize my arguments and line of thinking:

  • 1) Both styles (i.e. "Roger Cardinal Mahony" and "Cardinal Roger Mahony" ) are widely acknowledged to be correct usages of the title for a Roman Catholic Cardinal, both within Wikipedia and in other sources outside this encyclopedia.
  • 2) Roger Mahony himself uses his title as "Cardinal Roger Mahony" as is evidenced in his own writings and speeches. This evidence is referenced within Wikipedia and is available through a number of sources, both online and through other media.
  • 3) No clearly established rules or style guidelines have been established on Wikipedia as to this issue.
  • 4) Given all of these three, it is within the spirit and mandate of Wikipedia to present complete, thorough, and unbiased information that the article for Roger Mahony duly refers to his title of Cardinal in the manner which he himself prefers.

With this in mind, I will state my intent to revise the article such that it makes reference to Cardinal Mahony's preferred usage of his title without changing the entire article; however, this should NOT be construed as my acceptance of the form "first-Cardinal-last" in cases where the Cardinal himself chooses to use his title differently; on the contrary, I strongly consider this issue still open until such time as a genuine consensus is reached and/or Wikipedia administrators make a definitive ruling, I welcome and look forward to continued lively (and respectful) debate on this topic. Westofpch (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)