User talk:Revolving Bugbear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you're here, and you're confused, it's because I changed my username. I was formerly known as Che Nuevara.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Contents 1 Smile! 2 Your Offer 3 Question about a deleted article 4 Editprotect you just carried out is not at all non-controversial "link maintenance" -- please revert until matter is clarified 5 Comment 6 Civility 7 Coaching match found 8 Coaching Page - Prom3th3an

[edit] Smile!

[edit] Your Offer

I'd be happy to work with you on some issues. However, I'd like to know if this can be done through e-mail discussions rather than talking through talk pages. I feel that my words get dissected and twisted, and any slip of the phrase gets misrepresented somewhere down the road as some sort of attack or admission of "bad attitude" or "wrong thinking". I'm tired of my motivations being analyzed and hearing that I should know such-and-such by now, in this esoteric environment that is a whole different world for those of us who only have so much time to devote to it, compared to others who seem to make it their life's work.

I'd certainly like some firmer guidelines from someone objective about when I've edited within policy and when something I plan to write violates some actual rule. I've had mixed signals about a lot of things, and quoting arbitrators seems to get me nowhere, and quoting multiple examples of similar editing on similar articles just gets me told "other crap exists" is no support. I'd like to discuss this in a manner where the very fact that I ask a question or disagree with another editor won't be twisted into "aggression" or "contention" or some other characterization.

I consider you to be honestly trying to help me out here, and I appreciate that, especially considering the work load you give yourself on Wikipedia. Rosencomet (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about a deleted article

An editor just deleted List of occult writers. I don't understand his reasons. The talk page still exists (Talk: List of occult writers), but there was never a deletion proposal nor was the creator (me) of the article ever contacted. Is this proper procedure?Rosencomet (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Evidently this was a mistake, and the editor replaced the article and thanked me for pointing it out. Sorry to bother you on this one. Rosencomet (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editprotect you just carried out is not at all non-controversial "link maintenance" -- please revert until matter is clarified

Hello. Thank you for helping us edit the indefinitely protected due to edit warring international reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. I truly appreciate the effort you have exerted in persuading editors to cooperate and all the administrative tasks the locked article has required of you (and several other administrators).

However, I regret to inform you, that this particular edit was misrepresented, and that it was not non-controversial at all. For one thing, the time elapsed from the timestamp of proposing the edit to you carrying it out was only 32 minutes. And during that time, one other user agreed to it. That user, incidentally, has a user box on his user page, where he proclaims an ideological adherence to Marxism, and the edit entails representing what constitus offcial reaction of the State of Cuba. I trust you immediately see a potential for conflict of interest in that one consent. The user who actually proposed the edit request, neglected to acknowledge, that he is involved in an editorial dispute over what this particular section of the article is to say, and in fact, before the article was locked, removed crucial content, altering what it does say. As that removal was part of the editwarring that locked the article and it itself contitued a repeated revert, you can already see that this is a problematic item, just based on its history, and that is before I address the matter of its content.

Furthermore, the "link maintenance" (this is how the proposer described the edit), in no way meant preserving the sources used, finding replacements for their (broken) links. Entirely new sources were placed, while the old ones were removed. One of hte new sources is in an unidenified language, which I am having a hard time translating into English by means of machine translation. It is vaguely similar to Spanish, but it is not Spanish. I doubt the editor who proposed it can even tell us precisely what it says. You can see the problem that alone raises.

One of the removed sources was in Spanish. At least that can be readily machine translated for simple texts. But that link was broken, and the source is gone. I cannot ascertain what it said. I have been unable to find its web archive. That source was used twice, once as the basis for even including Cuba in the article.

One other replaced source (three superscripts were present in the article before your edit protect; three exist there now as well, but this represents switching two sources for 3 distinctly differnet sources) is not a broken link but a link to a protected source, which says (this is a copy and paste):

You are not authorised to view this resource.

You need to login.

I hope you can see now, that this aledgedly non-controversial editprotect is just bubbling with problems -- as is the items that is being edited. It is, frankly, unsourced. If anything, it should be removed on those grounds alone, not resourced to completely different sources, without anyone -- you in particular -- making sure the editors had a chance to examine the merits of it.

While I was busy examining its merits, you swiftly carried it out. Please revert, and please allow a discussion on the merits of what was in the article to take place. Respectfully, --Mareklug ^talk 21:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

P.s. I have not at all addressed here, that the gist of Cuba being represented in the article is in my considered opinion a case of unjustified, unsourced, unverified original research, that Fidel Castro's journalistic work constitutes the official reaction fo the state of Cuba. This is however precisely what is being claimed on Commons, to represent Cuba on Image:Kosovo_relations.svg and Image:Kosovo_relations.png maps (same graphic, different format). Granted, Fidel Castro's writings are a form of perhaps even influential Cuban reaction, but these should be truthfully portrayed as that. Portraying them as official actions of Cuba's diplomacy -- as is done on Commons maps, and on the talk page in this article on Wikipedia -- is WP:OR, sad to say. But this is just a context-setting postscriptum, to help you understand what you stepped into. The gist of what I am saying is, that the editprotect template was a) used under false pretences and b) executed by you too soon. Best regards, --Mareklug ^talk 21:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for undoing the edit promptly. I do not regret writing it up, because the situation is murky and needs elucidating. And we are agitated, what with unceremonious hurried editprotects recently carried out by another admin -- see talk page for those voices. Best wishes, --Mareklug ^talk 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And neither do I (have a horse in this race). My mount is the donkey of painstakingly correct Wikipedia content. No malice implied. "Standing" as in "a mandate to carry out an editprotect so swiftly". And I make mistakes myself all the time; it's par for the course of doing useful work. As you say, cheers. --Mareklug ^talk 22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

What I meant is because there was no consesus reached on changing "unanimous" to "unoppossed" this gave no AUTHORITY to anyone to A)delete and B)re-write the entry and also add this "Kosovan" flavor. Kosova2008 (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

With all due respect, it's very difficult to be civil with someone who's always opposing your moves, writes an essay response as to why I'm wrong every time, and is generally unpleasant. --Tocino 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coaching match found

I'm pleased to inform you that several strong candidates for Admin coaching have requested a coach and that I've compiled a short list of candidates you can select from in picking a coachee. Or you can visit the Current requests section and pick another prospective coachee. Unisouth (talk · contribs) - 7,651 edits - Est. 1-2 months from RfA Wildthing61476 (talk · contribs) - 9,640 edits - Est. 1-2 months from RfA Undead_warrior (talk · contribs) - 6,232 edits - Est. 3-5 months from RfA You may wish to consult the Coaching methods page for models other coaches have found successful. Malinaccier (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coaching Page - Prom3th3an

Questions Answerd :)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™ |l»  02:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)