User talk:Fluri/archives/2007Dec

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 BLP difficulties at Ed O'Loughlin 2 The dog and the cat 3 grey squirrel 4 O'Loughlin Again 5 Vandalism to Liger by 82.150.99.2 6 Red Squirrel and MoS 7 Hard spaces again

[edit] BLP difficulties at Ed O'Loughlin

I dont agree with your edits of O'Loughlin's page despite the fact that it was cleaner on the following basis:

(1) The Michael Gawenda reference is genuine and referenced - just because it was not readily available on the net it does not mean that something does not exist (it is available and verifiable with some effort) - conversely just because something is on the net it does not mean that it is real. Anyway, I had to pay $22 dollars to download the Gawenda article from the Fairfax Archives website, but it was worth it because it was an integral piece of archival material that provides insight into O'Loughlin by his own former respected editor-in-chief. What better source for a biography of a journalist? So dont just go around razoring stuff you have not properly checked!

(2) The conclusion of the Media Study Group's study merits mention. This study is a valid refernce because it is carried on an unrelated credible websites (there are others). Moreover the actual methodology of the study is transparent, allowing any critique to be made by antagonists - yet none has been made. Not everyone has time to read extensive detailed reports. Certainly it is there if you need to check, but it is a little cheeky to excise the main point of a paragraph in order to achieve brevity.

(3) A colleague of mine already went through the article to comply with the Wikipeda stylesheet. I must admit your formatting seems cleaner, and thanks for your efforts, but I re-instate the article as originally because I could not easily separate the stylistic changes you made from your textual editorial changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.92.25 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that it really doesn't matter whether you "agree with" my edits or not. That's immaterial to this discussion. The references don't say what you claim they say. You are committing the very same error which you accuse O'Loughlin of committing: you are allowing your personal (anti-O'Loughlin) bias to colour your writing. I have no doubt that you can assemble an article that is both fair and that adequately reveals any and all of O'Loughlin's biases. But, this one does not do it. You cannot take a bunch of stuff and extrapolate it to tell some sort of story just to make a point. That is the very antithesis of what an encyclopedia is about. Did you even bother to read the reply I gave to your question at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests? Did you bother to read the policy at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as I requested that you do? If you had read those things, you would have seen why I made the changes I did. I would very much appreciate your posting a reply to this message which details how you've altered the article to conform to the policy. If you can't do that, I'm afraid I shall have to revert your changes and request that the page be protected. The article as it stands is, in my opinion, a clear violation of policy. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The dog and the cat

I'm posting this here to be clear about the grammatical point involved, not as escalation. In "The Dog and Cat are making me miserable by whining for food and I really must go milk the Cows, slop the Pigs and water the Horses," all of your upper case usage is incorrect (based on the interpretation of proper nouns I advocate). Your cat is any old cat and your horses are just a bunch of horses. That is, you're using the words as common nouns. The Dog is a carnivore and a subspecies of Canis lupus. That is, I'm using the word as a proper noun. The Dog is a subspecies—a discreet, named entity. My dog is a member of that subspecies. That's central to my point, so I post to you directly. Marskell 20:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] grey squirrel

So what do you thin would be a good way to reword the section about predators in Britain?--Marhawkman (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why, do you have a specific objection to the wording I introduced in my last re-write of that section? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 20:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I was kinda hoping that you'd clarify the part about "few natural predators". That's all really.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing as I don't live in the UK, I'm not fully conversant on the fauna of the UK and I'd be, at best, making some educated guesses. Whilst there's nothing wrong with that on its face, I think it preferable to defer to someone who is more well-versed on that fauna than am I. Now, I notice that, further up in the article, it says, "Predators include humans, hawks, mustelids, skunks, raccoons, domestic and feral cats, snakes and owls." I would imagine that at least some of these operate as predators in some parts of the UK. If you feel my input would be of value, post for me a first draft of what you think an improved discussion of natural predators in Britain would look like and I'll kick it around for you. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 12:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I don't live there either. The reason I was asking was you seemed relatively knowledgable. I'm not really sure what approach should be made. IMO the current version is essentially what you'd use in a short summary at the beginning of the section and then elaborate on later. But as written there is no elaboration. That is the main failing I see. However, I'm not sure HOW to properly elaborate on the subject.--Marhawkman (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

 ?? >_< Anyways... the way it is described, the phrase "few natural predators" is somewhat misleading to a layman. While it has a certain meaning to Biologists, it doesn't appear to be used correctly in that context either. As the species is not even native to the continent, the only natural predators would be things that already existed in both areas. The only one I know of is the housecat. Some are similar species that use the Red as food, but they aren't the same as the species that eat Greys in the US. --Marhawkman (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O'Loughlin Again

Dear Fluri Help!

Subsequently Eleland came along and deleted most of your modifications claiming that they were not from authoritative enough sources and that they were disproportionate within the article. Eleland made a unilateral decision about all this and was quite perturbed when I reinstated the article. Eleland proceeded to get into a deletion war, would not entertain discussion prior to making wholesale deletions, and then contacted administration to have the sections struck out. Please check discussion for Admin's response. I do not question anything said by Manning, however it does not appear that he has looked at the sources as thoroughly as Fluri. Also Eleland placed warnings on the article regarding the veracity of the citations.

Admittedly, I have responded vigorously in discussion, but only to protect the material that had already been checked by Fluri. Anyway it appears that Eleland is on a messianic crusade to have it struck off the record. This is somewhat surprising given Eleland's herculean efforts to include material about Israel on the Caterpillar.Inc issue. Clearly Eleland is not the impartial arbiter that he would have us believe under "Ed O'Loughlin" but a bit of an anti-Israel activist himself.

This is perhaps strange considering, and I quote Eleland in the discussion on Caterpillar Inc.: Editors must not remove information about an argument because they personally disagree with the argument. Wikipedia must include all notable points of view which appear in verifiable published sources. Reporting that activists have said something does not imply that the activists are correct. Removing those reports because you think the activists aren't correct contradicts Wikipedia's core policies. Eleland 18:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for considering the situation & is there a case to have the article protected against ideologues like Eleland who apply rules to suit their ends?124.191.92.25 02:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism to Liger by 82.150.99.2

This vandalism appears to have been done by 142.227.229.129 and was reverted by 82.150.99.2. Then 82.150.99.2 accidently undid the reversion so redid it leaving the page clean (all within the space of 5 minutes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.150.99.2 (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. My apologies, then. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Squirrel and MoS

When someone writes 'red squirrel', are they talking about a particular species, or are they talking about a particular squirrel that happens to be red. WP:MoS is illogical in that it allows this ambiguity. The logic of capitalizing a species common name allows the writer to chose their words however they wish, while keeping the meaning clear. One need not write 'a red-colored squirrel' or 'a squirrel with red fur' to distinguish it from the ambiguously phrased 'red squirrel'. One simply uses 'Red Squirrel' for the species and 'red squirrel' otherwise. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite your glibly rational protestations, your point boils down to 1) your feeling that the MoS is wrong and 2) your disdain for what it says. The rest of your comment is simply apologetics for why you feel you can freely ignore the MoS. Fair enough. I suggest, however, that you take up your disagreement with the MoS at the MoS talk page, not by way of reversions of good-faith edits. In my opinion, there is absolutely no excuse for reverting, for stylistic reasons, the good faith efforts of an editor who has made changes that follow the MoS. It is beyond question that your reversion was a stylistic one that had no effect on basic content. Making stylistic reversions based on your dislike for a certain guideline is disruptive and shows disrespect for your fellow editors and for the consensus-building process. As a prolific and long-term editor, I'm certain you appreciate the importance of encouraging users to have respect for the processes of Wikipedia and, also, the relative unimportance of being "right" about some stylistic point. What sort of message do we send to a (relatively new) editor when we tell him, in word and in deed, that it's OK to revert the hard work of others because we disagree with a decision that was taken somewhere; or that it's OK to ignore consensus-based decision-making processes because someone just "doesn't get" your fine skills as a logician? I have very carefully read and re-read, multiple times, WP:REVERT, especially WP:REVERT#When to revert and nowhere in there, in my opinion, can I find justification for a reversion such as you made here. With respect, I think that all editors need to consider the example we set for others. Perhaps you and I differ. I, personally, believe that respect for process and respect for consensus-building are important. Part of that respect is a willingness to work on the guidelines if we think they're wrong -- not ignore them. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a thank you (can we say "Just a ta"?) to Fluri for the heads-up. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good process, with bad logic, leads to bad product. Good logic, with bad process, leads to bad product. Both good process and good logic are needed for good product. Our goal is a good encyclopedia. The creation of MoS was made with good process, but bad logic. Consensus dictates that although the minority has a voice, the majority has the rule. Actually, *true* consensus means there is no change until everyone either agrees with the change or agrees to not stand in the way of the change. I want to stand in the way of the change because it is wrong, but we're not using true consensus, so I get stampeded. So the MoS really wasn't created with either good process or good logic. So yes, I'll disdain the result since it is seriously flawed by both bad logic and bad process. I'm outraged and bitter, and I have no recourse except to violate WP:REVERT and WP:POINT, via WP:IGNORE, so that the best encyclopedia will get created. I don't do it often, and I try to pick the articles I do it on wisely, so that enough folks can see the difference the style makes.

BTW, WP:BIRD isn't the only set of articles following the species name capitalization. WP:CETA also does, as does the project I created: WP:PRIM. No one has argued that these projects should bow to MoS. MoS is a style guide not a rulebook. When logic and style clash, logic should prevail. When enough of these clashes have been made, the stylebook should be changed to reflect the prevailing practice, not just the opinion of the ignorant. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As you know, we've talked about some of these things before. Again, in my opinion, you're confusing consensus with unanimity. The OED defines consensus as "general agreement" from the Latin for "agreement". Contrast this with the OED definition of unanimous which is "full agreement" from the Latin for "one mind". We need, I think, to disabuse ourselves of any notion that Wikipedia is about, ever was about, could be about, or should be about unanimity. As you will recall, I quoted from WP:CONSENSUS and I pointed you to an ArbCom decision that clearly stated that unanimity, as theoretically laudable as it may superficially appear, is not a workable goal toward which we should strive. And that's a good thing, too, I might add. In that direction lies chaos. You know better than most of us, here, I'm sure, what the cost would be if we couldn't make changes but for unanimity. Can you imagine if a single naysayer could block an RfA, say, or the adoption of new policy or the inclusion of a reference in an article? Yet you seem, somehow, to long for a situation where everyone must "agree to not stand in the way of change" to a guideline. By your own admission, your position is an extreme minority position, else how could you be "stampeded", as you put it. Were your position as persuasively logical as you seem to imply, other editors would flock to support you when the issue is discussed in the appropriate venue and there would simply be no possibility of your being stampeded. And then, by your own admission, in a spirit of outrage and bitterness, you engage in disruptive behaviour to make a POINT. Do you not see that this almost certainly engenders latent but attendant damages to the community? If a newcomer here did what you have just now admitted to doing, he would be speedily dressed down by an admin, and rightly so. In your defence, you say that you're motivated by making the encyclopedia better. I agree that those are your motivations and I applaud you for being well motivated. I am only suggesting that there are consequences to "violat[ing] WP:REVERT and WP:POINT, via WP:IGNORE" and that those consequences also need enter our calculus. I'm merely asking that you consider whether such behaviour, on the part of an established editor, sets the desired example for newer editors. Do those (perhaps unintended but real) consequences also make the encyclopedia better? After all, this encyclopedia is more than just a bunch of articles. It's also about a community of volunteers and about our responsibilities, individually and collectively, to support and foster the harmonious operation of that community. In the absence of such cooperation, there is no venue for people to expand and maintain and otherwise work on this encyclopedia and I fear it will be destined to live fast and die young, as it were. Anyway, thanks for your kind tone and, as always, it's a pleasure when you take the time to provide your ideas and opinions. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 19:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hard spaces again

Things are moving along at our page concerning hard spaces. I hope you will join in again now, as we approach a crucial vote.

Best wishes to you.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)