User talk:Coterminous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 02:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:National Civilian Community Corps

The material was moved to its own article at NCCC accomplishments by another editor. Therefore continued addition of that material to the main article, results in a POV fork and this is why I reverted the addition of the material to the main article. Cheers, ^Ariel♥Gold 02:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your request for assistance

First, thanks for all the work you have put into the NCCC pages. It is very extensive for one with little or nor previous Wikipedia experience. Though I have been around a bit longer than you, I am still my no means an expert on Wikipedia. Second, at this point in time I am unable to invest the amount of time needed to do any real justice to the article, but I will add some of my thoughts about it on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCCC accomplishments page. Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCCC

"I would like to request that Wikipedia administrators / mediators have the critical quotes in general about AmeriCorps that are posted at the NCCC site considered as to their suitability (or not) for the Wikipedia AmeriCorps page"

Note: Administrators / mediators generally do not get involved with basic article content. They leave it up to the editors to resolve the issues between themselves with the primary method being the article talk page. There are a number of specific steps that can be taken if concensus can not be achieved; but these should be used as a matter of last resort. I do not think that we are at that point at this point in time.

Another item for you to consider is to stop copying and pasting large blocks of copy from one page to another. It is much better to simply provide a link back to the data.

It is also important to remember to sign all posts to talk pages and it is best to log in prior to posting, especially in an ongoing topic, otherwise the reply get attribuited to an IP address rather than the actual user.

There are a lot of "rules" or accepted proceedures, that if learned and applied, helps make one more readily accepted as a valued member of Wikipedia. I know that I still have a lot to learn myself. The AfD debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCCC accomplishments is a good example. This is not the place to discuss the content of the article, but rather to discuss the merits of the article for inclusion in or deletion from Wikipedia. It is best to keep the comments short and to the point. Extensive discussion about the article itself should be done on the article talk page with a link to the discussion added to the AdD debate page. If you are viewed as simply trying to present you own POV most users will simply disregard anything you post. Being willing to work with the other editors using the related talk pages is a much better approach. If you really want to get involved with Wikipedia you will find it very helpful to spend time reviewing some of the fundamental material about Wikipedia and a good place to start is Wikipedia:About The problem is, to actually read all the material takes days not hours or minutes; but it is worth the time spent. I am still trying to make my way though a lot of it myself.

I hope what I have written is found to be helpful and is presented solely for your bennifit and remember that I am basicly simply a new user myself with only a few months of experience and most of that in the limited area of categorization.

Best wishes and have fun editing. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of the &

I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish by adding the "&" infront of the the image tag. I do not think that it is doing what you want it to do. You have added it twice and it has been removed twice as it only adds the & to the first line of the article. If you would care to expain what you are trying to do maybe someone could help with getting it done. Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In repsonse to your reply on my talk page:

As to where to reply, either place is fine. The advantage of a reply on the receipients talk page is that it is flagged as a new message. Replies on you own talk page must be monitored but is it generally accepted that if someone asks a question they will be watching for a reply. So to restate, either place is considered acceptable.

As to the "&", the history clearly shows that you did add it, but knowing now that you did not knowing add it, clears up any question about how to handle it. Stray entries can easily happen. The fact that it happened twice only raised the flag that there might have been some intended purpose for it. If it happens again, it is a simple matter of deleting it, no big deal. Some of the syntax used in Wikipedia is confusing and does not always work the way one expects it to work; which was my only reason for asking the question. Thanks for the reply

The way to add [citation missing] is by using the following code {{fact}} which I displayed here using the nowiki code and the repeated using the template code ^{[citation needed]}

As far as the OMB report goes, the change to an internal link verses reference seems to me to be a simple error, so changing it back should not create any issues.

I hope this addresses the issues you raised. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCCC talk

Your long posts on the NCCC talk page are frustrating and counterproductive. We all would like to be able to discuss the article in question. Publishing lists of grievances against other editors is not really conducive to discussion. I would encourage you to stop soapboxing and to start engaging in a reasoned and open-minded discussion with other editors. If this is not possible, other avenues of resolution will need to be explored. - Che Nuevara 19:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Coterminous: The process at NCCC would go much smoother without unilateral action. Rather than continually editing and then posting summaries of your posts on the talk page doesn't really mean you're discussing the issue. I urge you to stop taking unilateral action, no matter how well-intentioned, and discuss the issues on the talk page so we can all work on this together. - Che Nuevara 20:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paid editors?

Your comments found in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-05 National Civilian Community Corps " I have never received a check from NCCC, nor have I received a check from Wikipedia, for that matter" and "I have done an extraordinary amount of unpaid work" strikes me as funny. The part about NCCC sheds very little light into your actual relationship with them, not that it realy matters. There is not a single editor in Wikipedia that gets paid for their efforts by Wikipedia. Those that are being paid by outside sources are generally pushing the POV of the employers. None of the Wikipedia "administrators" are paid. The same can be said for the Wikipedia "bureaucrats". The paid staff is very small, limited to those necessary to keeping the program running. See Wikimedia Foundation#Employees. The most laughable is "I have done an extraordinary amount of unpaid work". You may have put a lot of effort into the article, but it does not come anywhere near being extraordinary. Sorry, but I just could not let those comment go unanswered, but did not want to cloud the attempts to reach a consensus going on at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-05 National Civilian Community Corps or on the article talk page. I hope that we can continue to move forward with the result being an improved article; though I doubt that it will ever reach feature status. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A comment at my page is signed "Dbiel (Talk) 02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC), and refers to me as follows; "The most laughable is "I have done an extraordinary amount of unpaid work". You may have put a lot of effort into the article, but it does not come anywhere near being extraordinary"

This comment does not befit someone touted as a natural mediator. You (or whoever posted that notice) have no way to gauge the years of pro bono research and writing and editing on this and related subjects that were required to be able to work on this article now. Belittling my efforts and comments as "laughable" is beneath you.Coterminous 03:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did write it and I do regret the use of the term laughable, but even at that you have still not gotten the point; and I am having some trouble understanding what you are trying to say "A comment at my page is signed...." this is your talk page and the comment appears right above your reply. But lets try to look at each point individually:

1) you are the only one "touting me as a natural mediator" The only thing I claimed to be was a NPOV editor.

2) I never refered to you as laughable; just the comments of "an extraordinary amount of unpaid work" as it relates to Wikipedia also when match up with the statement "I have never been paid by Wikipedia". Wikipedia never pays anyone for editoral work - EVER. That whole concept is laughable.

3) Your efforts are not laughable, but some of your conclusions such as "not being paid by Wikipedia" are extremely hard not to laugh at.

4) "You have no way to gauge the years of pro bono research and writing and editing on this and related subjects that were required to be able to work on this article now." This is the major problem with the article. All of your pro bono research is Original Research and is not allowed in Wikipedia. This actually puts you at a huge disadvantage when it comes to writting a NPOV article. It is nearly impossible for anyone to maintain a separation between ones own original research and NPOV content from notable sources when one has that much invested in a project.

5)Lets work on the article, one point at a time any then we should be able to make progress; but don't think that you knowlege of the subject gives you any advantage in trying to write from a Wikipedia NPOV, but it should be of great bennifit in finding notable sources that actually support the facts of the article.

6) Lets try to do the work in the talk page in a discussion format rather than in the article, it will make progress easier.

7) Please stop posting the same thing multiple places. Pick one place and then simply provide a link to the first copy. In this case you posted the exact same thing here and on my talk page. If you post it here, then there is no need to also post it on my talk page. If you feel you want to expand on the subject one place but not the other, that is fine, but do not copy and paste the entire text both places. The same holds true for the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-05 National Civilian Community Corps your most recent post just does not belong there, simply reply to it on the article talk page which is where the discussion should be going on.

Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 14:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia pages saved as .pdf

"When I saved the NCCC entry as a .pdf file, the dubious - discuss tag was not captured. If that is standard, it limits the usefulness of the tag."

Wikipedia uses its own Wiki code that never was intended to to pdf friendly. The {{dubious}} ^{[dubious – discuss]} code is only one of thousands used in Wikipedia. Dbiel ^(Talk) 17:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the {{dubious}} code when used in the article name space also adds the article to Category:Accuracy disputes. Additionally the two words in the displayed code are links to two other pages making the code very usefull within Wikipedia. It is your use of pdf that fails to render the Wiki code correctly that is the problem. You may want to take some time to study up on just how this wiki software works, it will make using it easier.

As a side note, different Wiki's use different code. Wikipedia use '' for itallic, another wiki I work with uses // for itallic. It is simply a matter of learning the exact code being used by the program you are working it. Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progress is being made

Breaking up your post into multiple sections with each covering is own single topic is a huge improvement over your previous long drawn out post. Thank you Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit's edit summary is entirely inappropriate. Name-calling and fighting on this article needs to stop. That goes for all parties involved. Dbiel is right -- we need to start small and do this the right way. - Che Nuevara 20:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCCC and crossing the line

• [1]

I didn't read the entirety of this post yet, but I can tell you already that you crossed the line. So shortly after I cautioned that it was unwise to call names, you called LoverOfArt intellectually dishonest, incompetent, "or both". This is plainly and unequivocally unacceptable.

You're going to have trouble maintaining credibility in this from here on out. Dbiel and I have both asked you to try and work with the group instead of blatantly against it. Dbiel explained why he thought we should start from a shortened article, and we've acknowledged all along that the criticisms section is a point of contention and needs to be addressed. And LoverOfArt, while he has been stand-offish, has not been nearly as contentious or offensive as you have.

You had a chance to work peacefully and neutrally with other editors, and you stubbornly rejected it in favor of pushing your point of view, at the expense of civility and your own credibility. I do not expect this to end well for you.

Sorry this couldn't work out better. - Che Nuevara 22:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: it is still not too late to start over from a clean slate, but the time is running out fast. Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed ... I don't plan on giving up trying to convince you (Coterminous) to cooperate and add constructively to this article. I sincerely hope you will agree to work with us on this. The place where the scales are tipped, however, is good faith: you need to prove that you have an honest desire to work cooperatively with the community to create a neutral and appropriate article and do so in a civil and respectful manner. So far your actions have spoken elsewise. - Che Nuevara 22:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that your most recent major edit reverts have lead me to believe that you may never be willing to try to work as a group. Your most recent statement "He should be reassigned to the Wikipedia Sandbox." is totally unacceptable and reflects your total unwillingness to try to work together. I am at a loss as to what to do next. You were given suggestions on how we might proceed which you seem to have simply ignored. Che Nuevara and my self can work with LoverOfArt but not when you keep insisting on every thing your way and working against the group. Everyone but you had agreed to work from the downsized article. There was just way too much self promo material added, but you insisted on putting it all back in again. If you continue in the direction you are going, this entire article will be flagged for deletion with what ever can be salvaged simply being merged back into the the parent article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assume Good Faith Does Not Mean Have Blind Faith Despite the Facts

Dbiel and Che Nuevara: It took a lot to get me to sound off about LoverOfArt. I responded calmly to his repeated rants about me, saying I was foaming at the mouth, my writing was Lunacy, fluff, and similar crap. His biased and maliciously distorted Criticisms of the National Civilian Community Corps should disqualify him from being part of this group. I am perfectly ready and willing to work respectfully and cooperatively with any editor who has not used the vicious and underhanded methods that LoverofArt has resorted to.

When I read what he wrote and posted at Wikipedia, that the author of Feeling Your Pain had called NCCC a "fraud" (untrue) devoted an entire chapter of his book to criticism of NCCC (untrue), even I started to doubt the litany of glowing reports from credible and verifiable sources that I had read about this organization. Someone unfamiliar with those positive reports would have been even more likely to greet news of the demise of NCCC - something ardently sought recently by persons using the same kinds of arguments LoverofArt posted -- with detachment, if not pleasure.

That his statements -- quotes -- about NCCC are now known to be false and misleading means that he no longer enjoys an assumption of Good Faith.

So please spare me your lectures about my supposed sins. No information is better than misleading information, as Jimbo Wales liked to say. LoverOfArt has no business mauling the content of this page.

I have shown a willingness to respond to your editorial concerns. Dbiel wanted more notable sources. I posted a number of them quickly, including citations from the Baltimore Sun. LoverofArt discounted all of those, saying none were notable. I do not insist that all of my copy is perfect or unassailable or that others work has no place. I have labeled some posts "suggested edits."

But as I see it, LoverofArt wants to be true what he believes to be true, and is clearly willing to resort to dishonest (or at the least, grossly misleading) editing to ensure that his view prevails.

I left his Criticisms page on the NCCC article for a long time, until I could verify whether or not it was accurate. That is the mark of responsible editing. Dbiel, I respect your knowledge of the Wikipedia way of doing things. I expect some return respect for the knowledge I have of this subject, which is new to you.Coterminous 11:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I do respect your knowledge of the subject, but unfortunately you have proven that so far you are only able to input that knowledge from a very slanted point of view. My edits, comments about content, for the most part have been only of a general nature, as you stated, the subject is new to me. Most of my efforts have been working at trying to get you to start to participate as a group and not strictly on you own; and that you have still refused to do. The article talk page is for discussing the subject, not simply stating your POV. And it is that attitude that has caused an administrator to step in and lock the entire article for the next 7 days so that no one, except an administator can edit it. We now have 7 days to work on discussion, but that discussion will include LoverOfArt, that IS the Wikipedia way. You should be in the best position to prove your POV, not just insert it. Are you willing to at least try? Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Assume good faith does not mean have blind faith despite the facts"

Personal attacks are never, ever okay. Period. There's no discussion there. I already expressed this to LoverOfArt when he attacked you before. But it is absolutely not okay to attack another user, ever, whether or not he attacked you first.

You are every bit as biased as he is, just from the other side. Your inability to see that reveals an aversion to self-reflection in this matter. And while you were didn't have "time to answer (my) notes", you had plenty of time to overhaul the article repeatedly despite our pleas to work together point by point, to draft enormous diatribes when we asked you to cut down the rhetoric and engage in actual discussion, to quote several dictionaries in a quibble over a word which you agreed was undesirable even after I told you that it was insulting to me, and accuse LoveOfArt of "disrespect for the truth" and of being "irresponsible".

You do not hold the moral high ground here, no matter how much you protest.

Yes, LoverOfArt has acted inappropriately as well, and both Dbiel and I have expressed this to him. I seem to have been on Wikibreak, however, when community consensus was formed about Wikipedia:Two wrongs DO make a right.

And by the way, you seem to have misunderstood my reference to good faith above. I wasn't asking you to assume good faith in LoverOfArt. I was asking you to demonstrate that you are a good faith editor. - Che Nuevara 18:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

Please note that a Wikiquette alert has been request regarding editor behavior related to article National Civilian Community Corps. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks on Talk:National Civilian Community Corps

I am saddened by the tone of your comments on the aforementioned talk page. When I protected the page, it was to force the parties into dialogue, but dialogue should never include personal attacks. Please take this as an official warning: personal attacks are not welcome on Wikipedia talk pages. Comment on content, not on people. Further violations will result in you being blocked from participating in Wikipedia. I believe an apology is in order.

It's still possible, in my opinion, to come to an understanding on that page, but it's going to require that all parties come to the table ready to communicate, and to communicate with an open mind and mutual respect. Please choose to be a part of that process. - Philippe | Talk 19:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

May I ask that you make your views known regarding article mediation found at: Talk:National Civilian Community Corps#Mediation Cabal Thank you in advance. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

I am afraid mediation will be impossible regardless of who the mediator is as long as the following represents your point of view:

National Civilian Community Corps/Criticisms of the National Civilian Community Corps‎; 19:30 . . (-1,678) . . User:72.75.55.211 (Talk) (Deleted My Copy from this page - I consider it an Insult to be listed in the same company as LoverofArt (signed: Coterminous))

Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please log in to Wikipedia

It is requested and expected that users who have actively participated in Wikipedia log in prior to posting, rather than hiding behind IP addresses as you did in your recent post at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-05 National Civilian Community Corps other wise your are viewed as a sockpuppet Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Living on line

It is not expected that anyone is always on line and delays in replys are exepected. What is not expect is ignoring posts on your talk page while resonding to the same topic. Failing to log in makes it impossible to use the watch list and turns off the auto notification of talk page posts. Don't hide behind the claim that you do not live on line, when in reality you are simply hiding behind multiple IP addresses and failing to log in. Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Coterminous, I will not ask good faith editors to retire from discussions because you simply disagree with them. Your actions are bordering on disruptive, and I'm going to ask you to calm down and edit in good faith at this point, or you will be blocked from editing for disruption. - Philippe | Talk 14:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I'm curious about this diff [2] - can you explain why you removed dialogue between another user and myself? - Philippe | Talk 23:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued incivility after multiple warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - Philippe | Talk 14:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)