User talk:Neutrality/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hcheney | Adminship

  • Would it be alright if I nominated you for adminship? --H. CHENEY 02:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It would be an honor. Neutrality 03:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I checked your edit count, and it says you are at 750-800 edits, is this correct? I have a gut feeling that is either totally inaccurate, or we happen to have very similar interests because I see your edits (and pictures) everywhere. Some of the more, may I say, elitist members would torpedeo your nomination despite your hard work (especially volunteering for AMA!). I could either nominate you now, or you could tell me when you're near 1500 edits and I would nominate you at that time... Your choice. Best regards --H. CHENEY 04:29, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cutler | Thank you!

Many thanks for your recent support for me as sysop. I think that I'll take some time playing myself in before I go mad! Cutler 12:04, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blankfaze | Quadell's nomination

I encourage you to withdraw your support from User:Quadell. He's not fit. Not at all. See Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Egads! You're right. I will withdraw my support immediately. Neutrality 06:09, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ellsworth | Martin v. Hunter's Lessee

[edit] Mike H | Voting

  • I've been really busy with my television charts. I'm sorry I didn't get to it sooner! Mike H 01:27, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • No problem. ;) Neutrality 01:29, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blankfaze | Merci!

  • Thank you so much for the Barnstar! I'm surprised and very flattered! blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • You deserve it, Blankfaze! Keep up the good work!

[edit] Gdr | Cutting material from talk pages

On Wikipedia:Requests for adminship you wrote:

I do not believe the blanking of the talk page was a violation of wikietiquette. There were suggestions made to improve the article, and I made them; thus, the comments were irrelevant, and I cleaned up the talk page.

Please don't blank talk pages so lightly. It would be much better to add a note saying "now fixed" or "done". Then there's a record of the problem and what was done to fix it. Some problems recur in articles and it's useful to be able to point at a section in the talk page (or one of its archives) and say, "see, we've been over this issue already and we came to such-and-such a conclusion". Gdr 14:38, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

[edit] General Discussion | A question of Wikiquette

Is it considered a breach of Wikiquette or a faux pas to strike out comments of others, even if no longer they no longer apply? For example, on the Featured article candidates page: if a Wikipedian has an objection and it is addressed, is it bad form to strike out the comment without their permission? Neutrality 19:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In that circumstance, I'd say it is OK as it's an indication that the objection has been addressed. Of course the original objector may want to re-raise it, if he thinks it hasn't been! -- Arwel 19:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I struggled with that very same moral tussle on the very same page recently. In the end I decided it was too risky to strike out others' comments even though that would've neatened the page. Even though you have impeccable credentials, there are other editors that don't, so if you go round striking things out perfectly reasonably, it is only a matter of time before they start striking things unreasonably. I prefered to dodge this issue and simply reply directly underneath the original comment making it clear I see the objection as resolved. Then any third party reading the page is left in doubt what the situation is. (i.e. waiting for the original complainant to agree). Pcb21| Pete 00:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If I have made errors, I hope someone will correct them. We do need to be reasonably sure we are not creating reader problems by deleting, and not replacing an error with a different error. I would like to see examples instead of generalities. Neil

Personally, I (mildly!) dislike it when others strike out what I've written on WP:FAC, even when I agree that the objection has been resolved — it is a bit daft, but I do find it slightly irksome...what one person thinks is a fix might not be satisfactory to another, so I think a safer way to indicate that the objection has been addressed is to simply add a reply to that effect. That way you can avoid presuming someone else's opinion, but still document the fix. Having said that, I think it's fine to provisionally change the article back to "uncontested" (if appropriate), to raise the visibility of the article to other editors. — Matt 14:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Neutrality, I moved the above from the village pump as it was time to archive it and I didn't know if you'd seen the replies yet. Angela. 23:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Angela. Neutrality 04:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hcheney | Comment

Thanks for you comment at User:Hcheney/Govern. Do you have any suggestions or additions? --H. CHENEY 01:31, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VeryVerily | FOX News

I just really found your behavior at FOX hard to understand unless you either wanted a fight or were pushing a POV. Simple neutrality concerns dictate using neutral words like "X claims" or "X alleges" or "X states" instead of "X discovers" or "X found" when controversial assertions are being made. Furthermore, it is desirable and often necessary to give dissenting counterpoints. I can only assume you disagree with both of these points since you reverted the entirety of my edits. And while I too see the value in not dwelling on what's passed, I don't see how you could not expect reverting me left and right to risk creating animosity. A poll might be interesting, but too often they degenerate into simple ideological head counts, and we both know how that would turn out - so don't expect me to consider such an approach binding. VV[[]] 06:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As for the adminship thing, even if you were the best user ever I would support a longer wait time; the flood of users makes me too nervous. (Well, maybe I'd make an exception for the best ever.) VV[[]] 06:14, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"... found that viewers of FOX News were more likely to hold misconceptions than viewers of any other network", based on a few home-cooked criteria? Come on that's not neutral at all. I'm glad you're not opposed to the Coulter paragraph - be careful what you revert (e.g., I didn't revert your changes to the beginning of the article). As for your objection to claim in the FAIR section, I in fact tried changing it to ... report states... [1], but you kept reverting anyway. Well, I'm going to take time away from Wikipedia now, we'll see how this looks later. VV[[]] 06:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now that the "cooling-off period" has been in effect for a bit, I want to take this opportunity to give a more detailed response as to my impressions of what occurred, since we appear to perceive it very differently, and clearing up this misunderstanding may help considerably.
I am certainly dissatisfied with how the FOX News article is presented. It is weighted very heavily with a nonstop litany of attacks, as opposed to simple factual information about the station; even the personalities section seems a veiled attack unlike what is found at (e.g.) CBS. But moreover many of those attacks were presented rather uncritically, without context as to the partisanship of the critics or any sort of rebuttal. So the best I thought I could do without deleting what may well be frivolous partisan criticisms, was provide such context in the text itself.
(Note this has little to do with my feelings about FOX, which I don't have much opinion on due to simple lack of familiarity (I have only caught bits and pieces of its programming). If anything, the few occasions I've seen it it did strike me as unprofessional and biased, although whether this is better than professional and biased is another matter.)
So, I put some time into making careful edits which I thought improved this considerably, including doing mild (Google-based) research on counterpoints and crafting the Coulter paragraph in as neutral language as I could muster. I regarded it as a solid set of changes, and I still do.
So, you can imagine my surprise when you revert my edits - everything, all of them - without any comment as to why. You may not, but I see this as a fairly unfriendly and aggressive action. I had not only made the NPOV edits in question but fixed other random errors, such as the broken ''. So, I try again, tweaking the wording to make it more assuredly neutral, but you keep reverting. At this point my conclusion is that you are spoiling for a fight (and, by the way, I was happy to oblige; I've largely given up on the supposed "community resolution" techniques after past experience).
Now perhaps this reflects my own lack of imagination, but I still don't know what else to think. You did not propose any alternative at all, you did not even acknowledge any of my edits as valid, you simply reverted them all on sight, no matter how many changes I made. Again, I see this as extremely uncooperative and rude, and I can't see why you don't.
You then later said you did not even notice the Coulter paragraph. In my view, this almost reflects worse on you. You did not even look at the edits you were undoing! To me, this seems extremely disrespectful. I look at every change before evaluating what to do. You will notice when I restored my edits I did not revert your considerable rewrite of the daily schedule, but incorporated it in the new version. You never made any such effort, nor could you since you did not it seems even look at what you were doing.
I hope this clarifies my perceptions. I was surprised by your friendly overtures since your editing behavior seemed hateful and mean-spirited, but because of them I am trying to AssumeGoodFaith and am writing this reply. Perhaps you can clarify your perceptions for me.
Regards, VV 04:39, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cecropia | Quadell's nomination

  • Hi Neutrality,
Since you expressed your concern and changed your vote because of it, I would like you note that Jimbo Wales has given his opinion on the matter of the Khalid bin Mahfouz issues and Quadell's role in it. You may see this information at [VfA]. I would be grateful if you would read the material and see if it changes your opinion on the nomination. Thanks, Cecropia | Talk 20:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
P.S. What a great chance to exhibit your neutrality! ;-)
  • It does. I have changed my vote to support. Thanks. Neutrality 21:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Angela | American spelling

  • Hi, please try to avoid changing British English spelling to American English unless you are changing it to make the article consistent, and the original author wrote in American English. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling for further details. Thanks. Angela. 00:02, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Baas | Sorry

  • Sorry for the accusatory/defaming wording of the summary statement on the history for GWB. I imagine you just didn't see the previous summary statement, or realize that the para was being discussed on talk. Kevin Baas 04:10, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)
    • What is your problem with my edit and what are your specific reasons for revertion? Neutrality 04:40, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • As my intention was not to offend, I apologized for my imprudent tone on the edit summary. I reiterate this apology. I reverted because the disputed paragraph is being dealt with democratically on the talk page, and to have someone unilaterally bypass that process frustrates the cooperative efforts of those involved in the discussion. It was nothing personal - I actually liked your edits. I would like to see them suggested as an alternative on the talk page. I brought it to the talk page because it has proved unstable. Kevin Baas 09:21, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

[edit] Get-back-world-respect | Adminship

From what I remember I would support your adminship, if I had not just seen that you are only here for two months. Also note that my user name may drive "childlovers" and U.S. conservatives against you, cf. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Get-back-world-respect. Get-back-world-respect 07:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Pir | Adminship

I didn't notice all the fuss about my vote on RfA until just now, that's why I didn't respond. Since the vote is closed now I can't do that anymore. Sorry to vote against you, but I think I had good reasons. Firstly the reasons which were already stated above my vote which I didn't feel were necessary to repeat. Secondly I was very much put off by the enthusiasm you expressed for banning trolls in the trolling poll: Q2(should trolls be banned): "YES, YES, YES. Neutrality 05:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)" and Q3(is trolling a significant problem) "Of course. These people have NO interest in building a serious encyclopedia and should be permanently exiled. Neutrality 05:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)". Banning is a very bad way of dealing with this problem and it will probably lead to a witch hunt against people who regularly dissent. Your comments didn't inspire much trust in your abilities to responsibly exercise power and I thought you need some more experience at Wikipedia before you are ready for this. The job of admin is (theoretically) a house-keeping task, it is not to be authoritarian. "This hould be no big deal"(Jimbo). I'm sure that a few more months at Wikipedia will help you to see my point of view. I was reluctant to voice my concerns because it is not very nice to express distrust publicly. Please understand my comments here as constructive criticism - if I'm satisfied that my concern is unfounded by the next time you're nominated (and given your many excellent contributions to Wikipedia) I will certainly vote for you. pir 10:28, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One more thing. A lot of people seem to think that becoming an admin is like a reward, and that the poll is like a popularity contest or a vote on how good a Wikipedian one is. This is of course completely wrong. It is simply a vote on whether people think that someone would fulfill the admin task well. Personally I thought you had not quite enough experience yet, and this will probably change in the future. I hope you can understand the point I made that admins should not be authoritarian.So don't be discouraged by my vote, on the contrary. From what I have seen (and I did have a closer look at your edit history) you are an excellent contributor. pir 16:34, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)