User talk:Polar Deluge/Archive

Welcome!

Hello, Polar Deluge, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move[edit]

I am not sure if you can move an article which is currently under AfD debate... Intangible 14:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you can. So nothing to see here... Intangible 14:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LGR[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to tell you that reverted the redirect to the WP:LIST talk page. I just feel that this essay is entirely different from WP:LIST in that it sets out actual rules, and therefore we should light up that dark corner rather than put it on another page. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 17:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying, but please don't redirect to that page, and please don't make controversial moves as such because a consensus has not been reached, and it may be seen as leading to WP:3RR. If you want to post certain materials on WP:LIST, that's fine, but also remember that WP:LGR is my creation and I have the right to hold a discussion there and propose my own ideas. I personally think that WP:LGR is almost perfect, and I want the principles to stay together rather than be tossed into the mix and therefore ruined. AdamBiswanger1 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are already in the mix, and were already being discussed seperately before you created your page. I've found 2 discussions so far that 2 of your issues duplicate. You are holding independent discussions on things that are already being discussed elsewhere. It's needless duplication of effort and will also create confusion, especially if conflicting consensuses are reached in seperate discussions. You should come inside from the cold and join the larger group. --Polar Deluge 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MoS page moves[edit]

Do you think you could fix the double redirects after each move instead of en masse at the end? --Usgnus 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty good with en-mass. --Polar Deluge 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal. Just thought I'd ask. --Usgnus 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the en mass isn't too en mass. :-) --Polar Deluge 14:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for moving all of these Wikipedia:Manual of Style pages? Where is the discussion about this? —Centrx→talk • 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are minor moves which follow the Wikipedia namespace naming convention. The page names are virtually the same, except now they are subpages of the master page they belong to, which takes advantage of the Wikipedia namespace's backlink feature. I'm in the process of fixing the double redirects now. --Polar Deluge 15:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For changes of this magnitude, you should always bring it up on the relevant discussion page first, in this case Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Even assuming subpages are appropriate, other issues like having parentheses in the name of the subpage, which is non-standard, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/(dates and numbers), could have been brought up and resolved. Also, the many archives of these pages are still under the old name and need relinking. —Centrx→talk • 15:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The parentheses were retained because they were in the original titles, and to differentiate the pages from subpages that are drafts. --Polar Deluge 15:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely should have discussed a change like this first. What "Wikipedia namespace naming convention" are you referring to? In general sub-pages are deprecated (and at the least are confusing). The MOS parenthetical subpages have been around for a long time. older ≠ wiser 15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages are used throughout Wikipedia for active hierarchical systems (all portals are based on this, Reference Desk, XfD, RfX, most Wikipedia namespace departments, archiving, many user pages, etc., etc.). Even the main help page utilizes subpage structure, even though the backlinks had to be retrofitted by hand since the help namespace does not support the backlink feature! The subpage freature shows parentage, and provides a convenient link to the parent. These moves are obvious straight-forward minor adjustments to the MOS. --Polar Deluge 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not a bad idea to use sub-pages here, but having both "/" and the parentheses doesn't look as good as it should. Imo both Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/disambiguation pages are good, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/(disambiguation pages) isn't. And yeah, you should have discussed an en masse change like this first. --Zoz (t) 16:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. --Polar Deluge 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is sought at List of German-language philosophers[edit]

Hi there. I see you have a 'thing' for lists. I've been trying to instigate, participate in, and orchestrate a useful discussion at this list. I think we could really use more voices in determining explicit inclusion criteria. Your input would be much appreciated. Thanks! Universitytruth 22:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. See the talk page of that list, and scroll down to 3.10. That will save you a lot of time. Thanks, Universitytruth 22:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification[edit]

Request granted. Following can be disregarded or struck through.--Anthony Krupp 05:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline (section 10), you state that I have done four things: (1) "You are skipping the most important step of the process of creating guidelines: that of building consensus." (2) "You are trying to apply the process in reverse: requiring the building of consensus to remove the changes you've made to the guideline page." (3) "...you keep going straight to the guideline page with your changes" and (4) "you keep violating WP:POV." You also claim that "[y]our actions will not survive the scrutiny of several administrators." Given that I have made one edit to the guideline page, I am especially unsure what to do with your third claim that I "keep going straight to the guideline page." And I am sure that several administrators might also have that question.

Please refer to evidence for your claims, so that I may better understand them. You may do so here, on my talk page, or if you wish, on the List guideline talk page. I have replied to you here, rather than on the List guideline talk page, because this issue is not relevant to the work of discussing list guidelines. I am still willing to assume good faith in your case, but am perplexed by your accusations. Waiting, --Anthony Krupp 04:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A simple case of mistaken identity. A typo. I've corrected the name to whom the post is directed. Thanks for pointing out my error. --Polar Deluge 05:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I assume then that you'll address this on Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline. (From your contributions page, I don't see that you've already corrected the name.) No hard feelings, if you leave a comment there. Best,--Anthony Krupp 05:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in another window as we speak. No worries. --Polar Deluge 05:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. See you on the Talk page.--Anthony Krupp 05:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, see you there. --Polar Deluge 05:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we understand each other. See you in the discussion.--Anthony Krupp 21:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable consensus-building[edit]

Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject...

It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Nearly every editor believes that his (or her) position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may also be reasonable. But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities.

--Anthony Krupp 13:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to a particular case of eccentricity? Or is your statement purely hypothetical? --Polar Deluge 06:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; I wasn't watching your page. To be honest, I don't even remember! Too much else going on the last few days. I'll see you on the list talk page, I hope. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 23:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion sought at WP:LIST talk[edit]

I've made a proposal here, and am seeking feedback. Best,--Anthony Krupp 14:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as you'll see, I just now did remove all three new paragraphs (though in two steps). I hope you'll comment on the new proposals (one of them mine). Best,--Anthony Krupp 16:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested[edit]

At Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline#Criteria Thanks! --Anthony Krupp 23:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

opinion[edit]

As an editor of Lists of topics, I'd like your opinion at Topics redesign. Thanks. --gatoatigrado 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]