User talk:Waggers/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of my talk page. Please don't edit this page; instead, please post new message on my main talk page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

Contents 1 Wayne Palmer 2 James Dicks 3 Removed discussion 4 Brewery poll 5 "differ from"

[edit] Wayne Palmer

The President stuff about Wayne Plamer is bull. and I would like you to change it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.40.109 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 July 2006 BST

Here is my response. Waggers 16:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Dicks

That is not nonsence it is taken directly from whoisjamesdicks.com. Wikip[edia should not be used to bad mouth other teachers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.30.194 (talk • contribs) 18:19 BST, 14 July 2006

Here is my response. Waggers 17:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed discussion

The initial post below was moved here from an archived discussion. Waggers 18:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Note also, for reference: Waggers made personal attacks during the course of the conversation, including calling my argument "pathetic". My "inflamatory replies" consisted of my laughing at his hypocrisy, given that his user page claims he strictly condemns all personal attacks. Note further, that despite my repeated requests, Waggers failed to ever provide a reference for his statement seen above that "'Different from' is acceptable everywhere." Don't believe me? See the conversation for yourself [1] HalfDome 03:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's take these one at a time. Firstly, a personal attack is, by definition, an attack on a person. There is a difference between attacking a person and attacking an argument;

Absolutely. Telling someone that their argument is flawed because of such and such or that their claim has holes, etc., are completely attacks on an argument. Telling someone their argument is pathetic or stupid or idiotic, etc., says little about what might be wrong with the argument but very much provides a characterization of the individual's abilities in forming that argument. I am a bit amazed that you would not consider such things to be a personal attack, but I suppose I could imagine some atypical way of thinking about such claim that would provide no such characterization. I still, however, consider labeling them as personal attacks to be highly reasonable. 24.59.124.238 05:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry if you took offense at my wording, especially if you took it personally. As I've made clear, that was not the intention. Waggers 10:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

clearly HalfDome doesn't know the difference between me calling his/her argument pathetic and me calling him/her pathetic. The latter would constitute a personal attack. The former, while perhaps not civil (but I'll come to that later), is not a personal attack. Waggers 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have carefully read the Wikipedia personal attack policy now. It strikes me as being rather weak, and while I could see how a case could be made that you violated the policy, I honestly think it would be a fairly difficult case to make, given the wording of the policy. That stated, I will make not claims that you violated Wikipedia's personal attack policy, but I still think I am fully justified in saying descriptively that you made a personal attack, and I have trouble doubting that a vast majority of people would consider calling someone's argument pathetic to be a personal attack. As such, I could see how we might be talking apples and oranges. If you are talking about Wikipedia's exact policy and I am talking about descriptive usage of the term, we would definitely not be able to agree on how to describe what exactly occurted. I do think you are right in suggesting that you broke the Wikipedia civility policy. I enjoy the education I just got about what exactly these policies mean. Thank you for pointing them out. 24.59.124.238 05:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Obviously different people will interpret words and phrases in different ways - in fact, the edit that we're arguing about demonstrates that, too. As a result, I think that the established Wikipedia policies and guidance notes should be our point of reference, not our own backgrounds or interpretations. Naturally, this isn't always easy to achieve and I appreciate that you've found it difficult. I don't hold that against you. Waggers 10:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Secondly the inflammatory nature of the replies is fairly clear. Halfdome called me a liar and a hypocrite, without any evidence to back up these claims.

I can find no instance in any of my comments of me exactly calling you either a liar or a hypocrite. I did state that "As best as I can tell, you lie" which is absolutely a true statement. You said multiple things that were not true including "Clearly you're not reading what I've written" and "So you admit that you're just out to provoke an argument" and, in fact, the statement you just made that "Halfdome called me a liar and a hypocrite." We could get into all the fun little technicalities of when saying something that is not true is in fact a lie, but the truth does remain that as best as I can tell, you do lie, which is all that I stated. And of course, I plainly stated the evidence that I had regarding your lying, by pointing out the falsehood of one of these statements.

I maintain that the statements I made are true, but we're getting into relativism here. Your accusation that I lied is, as you say based on your interpretation of my words ("as best as I can tell") and not on hard evidence. Similarly, my accusations that you have called me a liar and a hypocrite, that your intention was to provoke an argument, and that you hadn't properly read what I wrote, are all based on my interpretation of the posts you made here. Hopefully we can agree that in fact neither of us intentionally lied, but that there was a mutual misunderstanding in how we interpreted one another's posts. Waggers 10:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm being anal and completely logic-based here, but the fact is that the truth value of each of those three statements is false. The first point was whether I had read what you had written (there was no mention of "properly" in the original statement). I did, in fact, read it. I could not have written the response that I did if I had not read it. Moreover, even if you suspected that I had not read it, you could not have been certain that I did not read it, but the statement you made indicated such certainty, particularly with the word "clearly". Second, I was definitely getting irritated and I responded in accordance with that. I wouldn't say that I was out to "provoke an argument", but that could be somewhat debatable depending on how that phrase is defined. More important, though, is that I was not just out to provoke an argument, that is, I had goals aside from that. Specifically, dealing with the wording in the article. Third, I can't say much else other than to note that in all the words that I have typed to you, none of them call you either a liar or a hypocrite. Given the falseness to each of these statements, I think I had good reason to suspect lying on your part (although it might depend on how lying is then defined), but I never accused you of it, I just said that my guess is that you were doing so.

I am, at this point, feeling pretty darn assured that the false statements were not intentional, and as such the discussion of them is getting a little pointless. Still, it might have been easier if you had said that you thought I had not read it or that it seemed I was out to provoke something, rather than stating each like definite fact. Although, maybe that is just a weird pet peeve of mine. 24.59.124.238 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

On multiple instances, I did point out hypocrisy that I perceived from you, and I evidenced this by pointing out the apparent incongruity between your condemnation of personal attacks and your use of them. Thanks to the education I just received from you, I can recognize that no hypocrisy would have existed if your condemnation was intended solely toward violations of Wikipedia's personal attack policy. But what I understood you to mean at the time did provide me reason to use the term. 24.59.124.238 05:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we've covered this above - essentially, your perception of what I wrote and what I actually meant are two different things. Waggers 10:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps more interestingly, in this edit, Halfdome claimed, without any evidence, that I hadn't read his/her writings carefully. Yet when I put the same suggestion to him/her in my reply (that he/she hadn't read my comments carefully), Halfdome claimed this was a personal attack. The fact that he/she has the nerve to then call me a hypocrite is just laughable. Waggers 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is where I think you are definitely having trouble understanding, and you will have to be careful in noting what exactly each of us said. I stated that "I think you did not read what I wrote carefully". That is absolutely a true statement. After I read your response, it struck me that you said things that did not fit with what I had written before, which made me suspect that you had not read it carefully. And that is exactly what I stated -- something that is completely true -- and I correspondingly encouraged you to read it again, mainly so that I would not have to type those points up again myself.

Since this is fundamentally an argument over a single word, I didn't think it necessary to respond to every single point you made. We both have far more constructive things to spend our time on. So I tried to respond to the underlying issues, not necessarily to the points you explicitly raised. Waggers 10:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, well, I don't see how it matters if it is one word or two words or twenty words. The difference in the actual meaning of the words has got to be the real issue. But, yes, more constructive things to do... 24.59.124.238 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You, on the other hand, said "Clearly you're not reading what I've written". That is absolutely a false statement. Not only did I read it, but I read it carefully. Saying statements that are not true about someone and that are negative toward them I do find to fit the description of a personal attack, although of course I have to now concede that would seem to not violate Wikipedia's personal attack policy. Still though, I said something that was true and you said something that was false. You trying to claim hypocrisy out of that situation is, I think, the only thing that is laughable. 24.59.124.238 05:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see the difference between "I think you did not read what I wrote carefully" (which you maintain is true and I believe otherwise) and "Clearly you're not reading what I've written" (which you maintain is false, and I was led to beleive otherwise by your replies). As I've made clear above, there seems to have been a misunderstanding. Apportioning blame for it would not be constructive. Waggers 10:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You believing otherwise technically means that you believe that I did not think that you did not read what I wrote carefully. I did think that. I don't know what else I can do to demonstrate it to you. There are at least two distinct differences between each of those sentences, namely, the "think" part and the "carefully" part, which both change the meaning. But, yeah, I'm burning out on being anal about this, so I'll have to just leave it at that without more discussion. 24.59.124.238 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally for this section, the references. Anyone with a basic understanding of logic (and perhaps some philosophy) will understand that proving that something doesn't exist is pretty much impossible. In this case, Halfdome is asking me to prove that there is no grammar dictionary anywhere in the world that says "different from" is not acceptable. I haven't done that because it's an impossible task.

Technically, it is not philosophically impossible. There are a finite number of physical objects on the planet that meet the classification of being a book. Find the set of all books that are grammar dictionaries. Take each of those dictionaries and check for the acceptability of "different from". If all indicate acceptability, then you are set. I won't deny however, that such a task would be quite difficult.

Regardless, though, that is not what I was asking for anyhow. What I was looking for was a reference. And you repeatedly did not provide one. 24.59.124.238 05:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you were asking for one reference, but a reference to what? You were still asking for proof that "different from" is universally acceptable. Either that means me trawling through every grammar dictionary ever written for the English language, which you admit would be difficult (and I believe would be a waste of time), or find a reference to someone else that had carried out that difficult and laborious task. Waggers 10:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitive proof of the universal acceptability of "different from" would have been the best that you could have provided. But, in no place is that what I asked for. The reference I asked for was just like asking for a reference for anything else; some authoritative source that I could look up myself (webpage, book, etc.) that affirmed what you were claiming. 24.59.124.238 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What I can do, is point out that every grammar dictionary I have seen, including those for "American English", says "different from" IS acceptable.

There! Finally, you actually give some information to support your claim that "'Different from' is acceptable everywhere". Now why couldn't you have said that way back instead of getting all defensive and starting this whole mess?

Er - I haven't given any extra information there! You asked for a reference it was impossible (or rediculously difficult) to give. I still haven't given it, because I can't. Waggers 10:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You did state to me that I should look in American grammar dictionaries, but not once did you state that every grammar dictionary that you have seen has it that way. I find that to be very good evidence supporting your point, and it is quite helpful for me to know that. 24.59.124.238 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My next question then is (and would have been), can the use of "different than" versus "different from" vary depending on the context? The article is about an area of economics, and within the discipline, "different from" sounds very non-standard, and I verified that with other economists.

I know a few economists myself, and have never heard them use "different than" but I have heard them use "different from" (and "different to", but that's another matter!). So I'm not convinced at all that "different than" is a specific piece of economics jargon, used univerally in the field of economics.Waggers 10:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that economists who you are familiar with would use "different from" in this context, while those who I am familiar with find that to sound strange. So, it seems that since either way sounds strange to some group of people, then I think that your suggestion of finding an alternative wording is best. Let me think for a second... How does replacing "be different than" with "differ from" sound to you? (I am kinda puzzled by why "be different from" sounds strange to me while "differ from" does not, but it does anyhow.) 24.59.124.238 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'll stop there for now. I'll try to work on the rest of this tomorrow, but if possible I'd like to return to a normal consensus-building Wikipedia discussion, like I had wanted way back when, to see what we can agree on for how to make this article fully conform to the standards of Wikipedia.

That's fine, that's what I've been after from the beginning, too! But I must admit I found it difficult when the very first post accused me of doing something I hadn't done: "imposing British English" when I was actually changing a local form to a universal form of English. Waggers 10:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it just didn't seem very universal to me. Plus I was a little annoyed at the repeated identical changes to the page, and not explaining in the discussion, as I requested in one of my edit summaries. 24.59.124.238 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me note also that I've decided that I very much need to withdraw the statement that I made earlier attacking your ethics. I still definitely feel disgust at you saying things about me that were not true, but given the effort that you must have taken to type all this up for explanatory purposes and such, I no longer feel I can stand by that attack.

Cheers, 24.59.124.238 05:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats' cool. I think the argument got far too heated, which is why I felt the need to remove it, lock it, and start again if need be. Waggers 10:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I maintain my view that, as it was HalfDome who originally raised the issue of "different from" not being a universal form of English, the onus is on him/her to provide evidence to back up this claim. Needless to say, none has been forthcoming. Waggers 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

He has a history of recklessly changing hundreds of articles in Wikipedia without verifying whether "different from" would not be common in the context of the article's topic for the region in which the first author resides. Alas, my attempts to help Wikipedia by calling his attention to the matter resulted in amazing defensiveness and stubbornness on his part that I was sad to see appear in the Wikipedia community. HalfDome 03:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, ridiculous and groundless claims. Wikipedia's advice to editors is to be bold - so claims that I've been "reckless" carry very little weight. As I've made clear above, and on my user page, I have made many attempts to verify that "different from" is an acceptable form. Previous discussions on this matter in my talk page archive also demonstrate that I have collaborated with other users in verifying and agreeing a universal standard for this phrase.Waggers 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I think all that would happen here is that we would end up in a discussion of definitions of "bold" and "reckless", which I think I am going to attempt to avoid. 24.59.124.238 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A secondary point here is that WP:MOS lists that a universal form of English should be used above the "first author" clause. In other words, the first author's locality only matters if a universal form of English cannot be found. It's also worth noting that HalfDome's claim to be the first significant author of the article in question are actually based on IP address edits, not as a logged in user. So the validity of his/her claims could be called into question - but as I've made clear above, the first significant author is not relevant in this case as there is a universal standard that can be applied. Waggers 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thirdly and finally, anyone with a decent grasp of English can usually come up with synonyms for most common phrases. So instead of arguing over "different from" and the incorrect "different than", words such as "not the same as", "dissimilar to", etc. could be used. But rather than trying to find a compromise, or a source for his/her claims that "different than" is acceptable and "different from" is not, HalfDome has instead decided to devote his/her time to preventing other users from going about their business on Wikipedia. Waggers 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Something I forgot to mention to counter the "reckless" argument even more, is that I have refrained from making any "different than" to "different from" edits since HalfDome's post, while I wait for him/her to prevent his/her evidence that "different from" is not a unversally accepted form of English. It's been well over a week and no such evidence has been forthcoming. I can only assume therefore that it doesn't exist, and so I will resume my cleanup operations in due course. Waggers 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One final thing to point out is that he added that talk page policy after he deleted our conversation.HalfDome 03:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in the notes I've added to my welcome page that isn't either common sense, or covered by formal Wikipedia policy elsewhere. So while I hadn't added the instructions to my welcome note at the time that HalfDome was so busy being uncivil to me, there's no reason to think that they didn't already apply.

We seem to have covered almost all of Wikipedia's basic policies, except for Assume Good Faith. All of HalfDome's posts on this page have done the opposite. It seems that no matter what I do or say, HalfDome is intent on twisting my words and posting uncivil, inflammatory comments here. Waggers 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that I have not twisted anything, and have instead took your words exactly as they were stated (but perhaps too exactly). And I think it is fair to say that there have been some instances where you have not assumed good faith as well; in particular, the time that you assumed I was threatening you when instead I was really trying to postpone the start of a revert war. That was probably the biggest thing early on that really ticked me off. 24.59.124.238 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Waggers has attempted censorship by deleting the above comments. Thus far, the censorship has been reverted two times. HalfDome 03:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing uncivil and inflammatory comments is not a form of censorship, it is an act of Cleanup. There is no need for uncivil behaviour or inflammatory comments, and they will not be tolerated on my user page. If you can't respond in a civil and dignified way, don't respond at all. Waggers 19:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the second time I removed HalfDome's comments, I made it clear that he/she was welcome to post them as a new thread, but that the old discussion should remain unedited. Since he/she can post anything he/she likes in a new thread (as long as it's within the realms of civility), the claim that I have attempted censorship holds no ground at all. Waggers 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The real problem that I am having with what is there now is that I think that it completely, unfairly does not represent my "side" of what occurred. The comment that I added, and that I have restored multiple times, was intended to provide the other side of what happened. I am not going to add my comments back in this time (please take this as a sign of good will and not as a threat) but perhaps could there be a little more neutral wording such as just that the conversation got heated or something like that?

Best, 24.59.124.238 06:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good. I'll make that change. Sorry I haven't been around to see your replies lately - a bit busy with other things. Waggers 11:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! I see you've already made the change. That's cool. Waggers 11:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brewery poll

Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [2] SilkTork 11:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "differ from"

Hi Waggers. I went ahead and made the two changes I mentioned in my last comments. "Be different than" in the Dynamic inconsistency article is now replaced by "differ from". And I tried to make the discussion closing reason be more neutral with respect to each of our thoughts as to what happened.

Cheers, HalfDome 02:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is my reply. Waggers 11:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad that phrasing sounds good to you too. (Yeah, I've been busy also.)

All the best, HalfDome 13:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)