User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Taipei address

Hi Born2cycle, just noticed your addition to the Taipei RFC. The address at the bottom of the page is actually the formal address and includes both Taiwan (as the province) and ROC (as the country). If your intention is to support 'Taipei, Taiwan province, Republic of China' then this source is good, however if your intention is to support 'Taipei, Taiwan' then this page from the Taipei government website is probably more explicit in stating that Taipei is the capital of Taiwan. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment

Could you please explain your comment [1]. I may be wrong but it looks like your accusing me of being disruptive by proposing a move.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions warning

Born2cycle, this edit, accusing Noetica of being disruptive by supporting an article move request, is a clear violation of Arbcom's warning that you "must reflect...a higher tolerance for the views of other editors". Further similar edits will result in a block under the authorized discretionary sanctions on article title discussions, broadly construed. If you just give your opinion on moves without editorializing on other editors in the discussion, this won't have to happen.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, please understand, I did not accuse Noetica of being disruptive by supporting a move request. Had I done that, I would agree that would be demonstrating an intolerably low tolerance for the views of other editors. I'm sorry that's how you understood it. I hope nobody else did! --03:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a clarification note to that statement. I hope it helps. I am still a bit baffled as to how it got so misunderstood.

While I have your attention, can you please ask Noetica to stop referring to PMA as my "ally"? He has done it twice now[2] [3]. That is disruptive, a personal attack, and it's patently absurd anyway. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and I will be more careful with my wording. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Stealth edits

I see you have changed two of my comments on the Fort Worth talk page, without any comment or edit summary, making it look as if I typed something that was in fact typed by you. Please do not do this anymore. Neotarf (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't type something to make it look as if it was typed by you; I made minor edits that I didn't think you would mind per WP:REFACTOR. I'm still not sure why you don't want your comment in a proposal discussion tagged as a Comment to distinguish it from !votes, or what you've got against fixed indenting levels. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Fort Worth

See reply on my talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry I reverted your change to Wikipedia talk:Article titles it was just finger trouble on my part, again sorry about that. MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Been there, done that. No harm, no foul. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting back on track

I think we have gotten off onto the wrong foot at AT. I don't think we disagree so much about what to do but more about how to do it. When you make emphatic, absolute statements and respond with counter arguments without acknowledging where we agree, I feel unheard. I doubt that you intend to have that effect and I would appreciate it if you would do what you can to leave more room for my (and others') positions. I will try to do more in that way as well. Improving that page will require a lot of tolerance and compromise to make any significant headway. Joja lozzo 00:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the reaching out. I do realize I often make absolute statements, but, believe it or not, I really try to limit making them to when it's appropriate to make them. Sometimes something is simply true, and, when it is, I say it. In this case, there can be no dispute about how ambiguity is defined when it is clearly defined, because it's defined in almost identical words each time, and never defined any other way. See, there, I did it again, I suppose. Is that a problem?

The other reason I make absolute statements is that, in case I'm wrong, the statement can be easily refuted. Qualified statements are less clear and less amenable to clear communication, because everyone can interpret them any way they want. When a statement is read one way by person A and another way by person B, they're "agreement" about that statement means nothing, not even that they agree. So I intentionally try to use language that is not subject to that problem, but this seems to rub some people the wrong way.

For example, just above I stated, "there can be no dispute about how ambiguity is defined when it is clearly defined, because it's defined in almost identical words each time". If that's not true, then it can be disputed, and you (or whoever disputes) can provide a quote of where (in WP policy/guidelines) ambiguity is defined differently. If there is such a place, I would be the first to want to know about it.

Anyway, thanks for reaching out and trying to understand. I hope this helps, and if you have any suggestions or anything else, please let me know. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I disagree with your approach since I think it creates unnecessary tensions that interfere with obtaining results.

Te following is a not exactly in the same thread but I think that as the AT discussion has proceeded very recently you may be presenting behaviors mentioned in the Arbcom decision. Please don't be drawn into a dispute that gets you sanctioned. I think it's better to back off than get blocked. It's just Wikipedia and probably will still be the same crap when we're dead. :-) Joja lozzo 02:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't know what else to do. Be vague? Feign agreement? I explained very clearly what I was proposing and why. Yet no one, including you, is actually addressing the proposal. The same thing happened with recognizability. I made a simple edit to the policy page, which I was sure was supported by consensus, yet I was reverted, and almost two months went by before finally it was realized the support for the edit was practically unanimous. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Bold only works if the bold one is willing to go back to square one when the edits are reverted. In my view your edits were impulsive and lacked evidence of consensus. Even if we use exactly the same wording two months from now after reaching consensus, the important thing is we will know we have consensus. If we just left your edits there, we could not be sure if it was because there is consensus or because there is confusion and lack of clarity about what it means.

When your bold edits are reverted, instead of going on the offensive, I would encourage you to humbly start at the beginning and explain what you did, word for word. I think the onus is on the bold one to explain the changes and that counter-objections to the reverter's action are unproductive and a weak basis for discussing the edits.

I think you started off on the right foot when you started the "Proposal: Clarification of ambiguity" section on AT talk with a problem description. However, I think that using a link to diffs as the actual proposal may have doomed the effort. We have no text to remind us what it is we are discussing, nothing to anchor the discussion, nothing to refer to, nothing to support.

I don't think it's too late to try again, though I think you'll make the most impact and have the most support by reviewing the earlier efforts we made to update the page, including Tony's chart and other proposals for the goals section and seeing if you can assemble a more inclusive, broader revision. Perhaps your optimum contribution would be to offer leadership in creating such an assembly. Joja lozzo 13:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying what I'm proposing is unclear? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying a link to a diff is a difficult proposal presentation format. The diff is only visible if you leave the proposal page and then it's not broken down into it's parts and there's no specific explanation or justification for any of the parts. At first I didn't even see where the proposal was and then it seemed that you didn't want to bother spelling it all out, that it was easier to just make the changes and hope for the best, and that perhaps that's why you made the edits without a discussion in the first place. I don't think that's the impression you intended but perhaps you can see how it may have come across that way. In my experience, working in policy and guidelines area requires more effort and collaboration than many other areas and success comes when ideas are laid out as carefully and cleanly as possible.

I'm also saying that I'd prefer to see a more general effort rather than piecemeal changes and I think that's the sense of those working with policy. I understand your frustration with the sluggish progress we've made but I don't think we're likely to get where we need to go in any other way. Joja lozzo 00:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh. I thought diffs were the gold standard for showing changes at WP. I explained each one of the three statements I propose changing separately at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Proposal:_Clarification_of_ambiguity.

There are three statements I propose changing. The proposal starts by identifying each one of the three statements, each one indented from a description of it. That's the first 6 lines of the proposal. I then devote a short paragraph to explaining why that's a problem (in short, because the meaning of "ambiguous" is unclear with respect to scope), and then cite existing clarifications of what "ambiguous" means from WP:D as well as WP:AT. Finally, I propose adding similar wording clarifications to each of the three statements in question, and provide the link to the diffs showing the exact wording being proposed.

What's not clear about that? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be justification for any change to policy, and ideally that justification shows consistency with actual practice, and consensus support that that consistency is shown (consistency with what policy says elsewhere is, I think, the easiest justification to show, and that's what this edit is about). What you call "piecemeal" is probably the only choice we have. A significant rewrite that retains consensus support and an accurate reflection of actual practice is probably impossible. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please disengage

I have a couple of requests:

A) I find the personalization of discussion between you and Dick on the AT talk page to be disruptive and I suspect it's the same for many others. I think it slows our progress and distracts from the task. You have valuable contributions to make and I ask you to work harder to keep these personal animosities out of the discussion. My recommendation is to stop responding to any of Dick's posts unless you can do it in a way that is respectful and positive. I will ask the same of him.

B) I find your participation on the AT talk page to be informative and interesting but also overwhelming. I often find myself compelled to respond when I think an element is missing from a discussion and I expect you can tell that from my own level of participation on that page. However, I know that when I respond to most every post it leaves less room for the participation of others and I try to hold back when I can. I would very much appreciate it if you used more restraint in these discussions as well. Joja lozzo 17:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Will you ask the same of Ohconfucius, who recently said, for example, "There seems to be a simple unwillingness from B2C to understand what others have clearly identified as a problem."[4] - an assertion to which I take exception.

I'll try harder to avoid personalizing my commentary with Dick, though I think I avoid actual personal attacks much better than he does. I appreciate the egalitarianism in your approach.

I'll try to limit myself to three comments per day at WP:AT - not counting corrections. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Also not counting replies to posts made on days when I wasn't posting. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Fort Worth

B2C, not an unexpected set of questions. I acknowledge that WP:USPLACE is indeed derivative of WP:AT so my phrasing may have been a bit inaccurate. However, WP:USPLACE is reasonably clear and under it Fort Worth, Texas is the right answer. I am a proponent of broad subject matter naming conventions because, once we have consensus on a naming convention, it eliminates a lot of subjective interpretations. For this particular title, the WP:AT arguments in my mind were less than compelling collectively. For example, one opposer cited WP:PRECISION in favor of Fort Worth. Fort Worth is no more or less precise than Fort Worth, Texas. Both are accurate titles, as would be Fort Worth, Texas, USA. Unnecessary disambiguation was the only other real argument, and it is very subjective. Most of the other opposition was the superfluous consequences that people throw up. If we do this, then what about …..? I always find those arguments useless and I generally dismiss them. Consistency was a wash as you say, since either form is consistent with lots of other similar articles. Thanks for your observations. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree "broad subject matter naming conventions" can eliminate subjective interpretation (and we agree eliminating subjective interpretation is a good thing - though it's not clear that that we have community consensus with us on that), but there is a problem when such a convention conflicts with the general principles at WP:AT. I'm a big proponent of "broad subject matter naming conventions" that are consistent with all (not just "consistency") WP:CRITERIA , as well as WP:D. In particular, "disambiguate only when necessary to disambiguate from other uses" also eliminates subjective interpretation, and follows conciseness better, and so I favor "broad subject matter naming conventions" that are consistent with that even broader principle. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of uneasiness with WP:USPLACE. Other countries have similar guidelines (Australia, and IIRC Britain)(but not Canada), but the naming conventions are often ignored. This should have wider discussion. Neotarf (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#WP:USPLACE. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The AP stylebook thing is one of the weirder aspects. IIRC the arguments against were about disambiguation. But the Canadians have a whole setup for determining which towns/political entities have unique names, we do not. Neotarf (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice

I don't care if it was you or Noetica, but someone better restore my comment at Talk:Collins Street, Melbourne as I wrote it, and quick.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dude... 'tude? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP

Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Trollhunter #Move to Trolljegeren?

In the light of events at WT:RM#Strange move closure? and Talk:Trollhunter#Requested move, the discussion above is established. You can help improve the consensus. --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Need help with a title

Hi, Born2cycle! I am stumped over an article title and I wondered if you have any advice. (I know this is kind of your thing.) The article is José Antonio Aguirre (industrialist). That is absolutely the wrong title; the guy was nothing like an industrialist and I can't imagine how they came up with that name. He was a Californio - a Spaniard who settled in Alta California, became wealthy as a trader, and married into prominent families. Ultimately he was one of the largest landowners in Alta California and left important legacies in San Diego. The title does need to be disambiguated, because of José Antonio Aguirre (politician) and José Antonio Aguirre (boxer). I know that people are usually DABed by their profession, but what was his profession? Land owner? I would like to move the article to José Antonio Aguirre (Californio) or José Antonio Aguirre (San Diego) but I don't know if those are allowable forms of DAB for a person. If you like, please take a look and see what you think. I started a discussion at Talk:José Antonio Aguirre (industrialist) --MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Cinnamon movie poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cinnamon movie poster.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Need help with a title

Hi, Born2cycle! I have been looking at an article whose title needs to be changed IMO. The article is St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral (San Diego, CA). See the talk page where I proposed a couple of possibilities. I would appreciate your opinion what the best title would be. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Check out these RMs

You can check out the RMs I am working on here. Kauffner (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney dog incident

I have modify your edits to the Mitt Romney dog incident to make the language a bit more NPOV. NJ Wine (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

LGTM. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Animal cruelty database

I found a few secondary sources that discuss Mitt Romney's inclusion in animal cruelty databases, so I restored that section to the Mitt Romney dog incident article. 71.251.39.243 (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My addition of the database has been reverted, so I put a request for comment on the talk page for people to state if they believe the animal cruelty registries should be included or not. Talk:Mitt_Romney_dog_incident#Proposed_Change 71.251.38.196 (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on WP:Article titles

Please don't edit war on WP:Article titles. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was supposed to notify you about that EWN report. My apologies for missing that, I should have remembered by now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you went ahead with filing the report. If I had continued reverting despite your warning that would be different. But I didn't. And I'm disappointed you thought I might, though we have a long history of you misunderstanding and misinterpreting my words and actions (always seeing it negatively). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for assist

Hello! You are one of the most active editors at Naming Conventions Guideline. Can you please express your opinion on this issue? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bratislava#Hungarian_and_German_name

Thanks in advance 2001:4BA0:FFF7:12:0:0:0:2 (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

City name in Infobox

Where is the policy for the name shown in the Infobox of a city? Most cities in USA use the format CITY, STATE in their infobox. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's documented, but the convention seems to be to reflect the article title in the info box. See San Francisco, Hollywood, Houston, for examples. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely confused and amazed! Wikipedia seems to want uniformity, but people argue to remove the states from select cities? WTF? This is crazy! Ok, so people have been removing states from certains articles, well ok, but I see absolutely no reasons why the State isn't included at the top of the infobox. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There was years of debate about whether to include the state only when necessary for disambiguation (as in Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine), like how most other topics in WP are handled, including most cities outside of the U.S. (e.g., Paris, London, Nice), or to add the state on all US city article titles, whether it's needed for disambiguation or not. A compromise was reached some years ago to not have the state for cities that are on the AP list. Also, there is no guideline for communities like La Jolla. Like for most topics in WP, those with unique names are often just at the unadorned plain name. This is being uniform with how other articles are typically titled in WP.

As for the info box name, I checked, almost without exception every city or community article that does not have the state in its title, also does not have it in the name in the info box. There were a few exceptions, which I fixed. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked a few and noticed they matched too, but that wasn't my point. My point is that if the state is removed from the article name, then why must it be removed from the top line of the infobox? Yes, I know they usually match in most articles, but not always. Assuming there are over 30,000 cities and towns in the USA that use the format CITY, STATE at the top of the infobox, then why should a tiny number of big cities be excluded from this format? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two ways to do it. Method 1 (if you will) is to use "name, state" for the infobox name regardless of the article title. Method 2 is for the infobox name to be consistent with whatever is the title for the article. Both are reasonable approaches. If we look only at articles that have "name, state" for their titles, we can't tell which method is used. But for articles that have just a unique name (without ", state") as their title, most follow Method 2.

To be consistent, I suggest that we always use Method 2. Please note that the state the city is in is consistently listed a bit lower down in the infobox. Really, it's redundant to put the state in the infobox name per Method 1.

Actually, there is a Method 3 which I would favor - and that is to use only the city name in the infobox name field. After all, the name of the city is, well, just the name of the city, not the cityname, statename. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

After reading Talk:Allied_Gardens,_San_Diego, I understand there is a big mess in LA and SD, but still La Jolla doesn't even follow the same naming approach as other SD communities, which is very silly and more along the lines of smug. Technically, all the LA and SD communities are just a carved out part of the official larger city, and the infoboxes should include their parent city name, but it looks like this dead horse has already been beat to death per the previous link. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Per the infobox name discusion, there are far too many name overlaps in the USA to use Method 3. If you want to get picky, then every state has their legal name for cities, like "City of XYZ". I can see how sub-communities of a larger official city needs to be treated differently, but still don't understand why ALL cities shouldn't follow the COMMON Post Office method, especially in the top of the infobox. I'm not sure what else to say at this point, because I'm confused about why the state shouldn't be included. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

These discussions have been going on since the early days of WP. Really, it's about two perspectives. The tree view, if you will, and the forest view.

The tree view typifies those who do a lot of work on US city articles. They naturally want to see consistency in naming across those articles, and so favor always specifying the state, whether the name of the city is unique or not. They see the relatively few articles that don't have the state name in their title as being aberrations, perhaps even smug aberrations.

The forest view is a broader perspective perhaps held more typically by those with experience with a wide range of article titles, conventions and naming policy and guidelines. It recognizes the widespread convention that applies to most WP article titles, including the titles most articles about cities: disambiguate only when necessary due to conflicts with other uses of that name on WP. While US city articles are not the only exception to this rule, they are arguably the most prominent. These folks see the convention to disambiguate US city article titles with the state name, even those with unique names, as being an aberration, perhaps even a smug aberration.

But all that has always had to do with article titles, where uniqueness is required for technical reasons (no two articles can have the same title). Here we're talking about infobox names, where no such requirement exists. The names at the top of the infoboxes for Portland, Maine and Portland, Oregon can both be Portland - there is no technical reason that prevents us from doing that. I mean, we have dozens of articles about people named John Smith, but the article titles for each are all disambiguated, either with a middle name or initial, or with parenthetic disambiguation, as in John Smith (American football). But the name at the top of the info boxes for each of these (of the ones that have biographical info boxes) are all John Smith. There's no reason to add (American football) (or whatever) to the name in the infobox name as there is in the article title. Similarly, for US city names, there is no reason to add the state name to the infobox title as there is in the titles for those that do not have unique names. And, for articles about communities, there is certainly no reason to add the disambiguation information (be it encompassing city name, state name, or both) to the name field in the info box. It can easily be just the name of the community... and why not? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for a very descriptive response. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing my City of Oklahoma City inconsistency! I sincerely appreciate the time you took to make the change. Your rapid change helped me learn. Joe (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

New template

I created a new template for listing old move discussions: {{Oldmoves}}, since I missed having it during the Cote d'Ivoire and other debates. Please take a look and tweak/change/improve. I've added it to a few articles Talk:Queen_Victoria, Talk:Ivory_Coast, Talk:Cần_Thơ as a pilot so you can see what it looks like; if you like it, you can add it to other articles on your list. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Title No Consensus

Template:Title No Consensus has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Robofish (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your help getting that move request listed! Chrisrus (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Beverly Hills

B2C, unfortunately, I think the time to reopen the RM has passed, and doing so now would not be good practice. I suspect had you asked within a few days of closing, your request would have been honored. On points 2 and 3 in your comments, they are noted. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong

Greetings, allow me to cite you a passage from WP:LEAD:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

As it was, the lead only summarized the last portion of the article. That's not how leads work. This is supposed to be a balanced article, so the lead should summarize his entire life, including events that happened before he was stripped of his titles. All leads should work that way. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't justify saying he won the Tour - we don't do that for any other athletes whose titles were stripped. See Floyd Landis. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It says "He won the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times but was later stripped of those titles by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)." For years, he was considered the winner, and now he's not. How is that inaccurate? Several other articles are structured similarily, for example, Ben Johnson (sprinter). -- 22:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop wasting our time. That's not what it said in the revision I reverted which is when you brought this to my page. In that revision there was no mention of any stripping until the last paragraph in the lead. That's why I reverted it with comment, "The wins were stripped.". --Born2cycle (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Outrage!

Two and a half months and still no drama?!?! And people can still find that page??? Shocking!
Or maybe not... :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2012; 20:59 (UTC)

Oh, the horror! (thanks!) --Born2cycle (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Dicklyon has moved it unilaterally without going through RM, presumably after seeing this. I've started a discussion about it at the talk and noted it at WT:RM, but I probably should not be the one to revert. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, if one is to stick with the technicalities (and as an admin I have to), the move back to the overdisambiguated title is warranted. Which only supports the fact that the root of the problem is USPLACE, and that's what needs to be fixed. I understand that you believe in changes that originate at the bottom and make their way to the top, and while normally it is a prudent approach, I don't think that's the right one in this situation. USPLACE flies in the way of a number of higher-level guidelines and policies, and the only reason why it is still in place is because it is bolstered by the activism of a vocal group of supporters while most other editors simply don't care. Ever noticed how it is always, always the same half a dozen people every single time USPLACE is mentioned? Cleveland Heights is a case in point—I expected the activists to show up, but to do so within less than twelve hours, based solely on a partially obfuscated tip on your talk page? Wow! I am impressed (and not in a good way). What USPLACE needs is a thorough review by the community at large, not a gazillion of scattered debates across dozens of pages, which suck everyone's time and achieve little. Win or lose, at least the result will be something to refer back to. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 30, 2012; 18:26 (UTC)

I'm too involved in the issue to start such an RFC. You? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The attention was brought by B2C's centralized announcement/ invitation here. Otherwise, my revert of the unilateral against-guideline move would have passed quietly. Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Dicklyon: noted. B2C: not in the foreseeable future, sorry.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 30, 2012; 18:56 (UTC)

I'm working on a USPLACE RFC here. Kauffner (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Bicycle law in California for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bicycle law in California is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle law in California (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Move request pertaining to Ivory Coast sub-articles

It has been proposed that Rugby union in the Ivory Coast be moved to Rugby union in Ivory Coast. This move request will have far-reaching implications for all sub-articles and categories involving the Ivory Coast. The discussion is located here.

– Fayenatic London 15:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong

I am trying to pare the article to make it compliant with WP rules. I remind you not only of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, but also the 3RR, which you are in danger of breaking.LedRush (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Supreme facepalm of destiny --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is that facepalm copyrighted or can I borrow it? Dimspace (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Beats me. I just looked to see if there was a template named facepalm, and this is what I found. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I have been waiting for an excuse to drop by and say hello for a long time, and today is it:

I know very little about naming convention policy and I have gotten myself into this situation. Any help you can offer there regarding naming conventions would be appreciated.

Also, if you remember how we first met you may be interested to find out that another criticism page of a Canadian company is being proposed for deletion. Hope to see you there Ottawahitech (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael Mastro move request

Hey B2C, just a very minor heads-up here. Another IP asked about the capitalization of the move request. I left a reply and adjusted the request to reflect MOS:CT (which applies because WP:NCCAPS refers to MOS:CT for details on composition titles). Best, --87.79.111.52 (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

edited your post

[5] I'm reasonably confident that was what you meant? NE Ent 22:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed! Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A goal: naming stability at Wikipedia

Sorry, posted a reply under your essay rather than here, by mistake. LittleBen (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Supernatural article title

Hello. You changed your vote on the move request for Supernatural here after comparing article views, but the articles you were comparing were incorrect. Please see my response on the talk page. Thanks. Ω phois 23:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem

Your proposed rename of Papier-mâché is counter purpose to stemming the torrent of page name disputes you decry on your user page. As said on that talk page, language is a dynamic utility that doesn't conform to rigidly delineated categories. Why transliterate instead of translate? There is no answer- because fashion and habitat don't consider reason. "English" is a mongrel language- with as much as 60% of French origin, transliterated by custom and time- not by convention. Predicating a page rename on perceived "naturalness" is nothing more than attaching a "reason" conceit to a proffered personal preference- and the arguments made on your user page seem to be little more than transparent justification. Ultimately, the best guidelines are poor substitutes for good judgement and clear apprehension of our own motives.Mavigogun (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this a violation of FOC?

A link to this request is posted at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution#Is this a violation of FOC?

I'm biased since I'm the target, so I'm looking for an objective opinion, before I take further action, preferably from someone who doesn't know me or User:MelanieN, but understands and appreciates the purpose and applicability of WP:FOC.

I know it's not major violation, but thinking in terms of nipping problems in the bud, is this comment a violation of WP:FOC? Discussion about it, and my request that the comment be edited to comply with FOC, is here. Am I asking too much?

Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See my response at WP:DR. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Good spot

Being a UK resident, I completely overlooked that I'd used the UK English spelling of offenses on the Lance Armstrong page when US English is required. My bad. Thanks for spotting and amending. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

About your note on my talk page

Hi, Born2cycle. Thank you for your note on my talk page. And thanks for taking the trouble to copy-and-paste all of my contributions to the current discussion. That makes it easy for me to review my own postings there - and convenient for anyone else who wants to evaluate them.
But let me explain why I posted the reminder of your past problems into the discussion. I was hoping it might encourage you to review the promises you made, just a year ago, under threat of a topic ban:

You've gotten my attention. I promise to change in the following ways: 1) Comment less and less often on RM discussions in which I'm involved (I presume the number of RM discussions in which I'm involved is not the problem), especially when engaged in a dispute. 2) I will be more agreeable and less disagreeable. 3) If I must disagree, I'll try to find something positive to say first, or at least be apologetic about disagreeing. 4) I'll be more careful how I word things to make it less likely for me to be misinterpreted, which I know occurs often. For example, when I refer to policy I'll be more careful about presenting it in a way that is conveyed as being positive and productive rather than combative. 5) I'll look for signs from others, especially those who have taken the time to commented here, to let me know how I'm doing. 6) I will continue to welcome, and will encourage even more, specific suggestions on what I could do to improve my disposition in all discussions in which I'm involved. 7) I will not think, believe, convey or say that just because I'm not violating the letter of any policy or guideline does not mean there is no problem to address. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you review your own posts in the current topic to see if you are living up to these promises - or if you are continuing the kind of behavior that brought you to AN in the first place a year ago. (Hint: A number of people in the discussion, other than myself, have spoken to you about your attitude and tone.) Also, I wanted to remind you that the proposal for a topic ban was not formally overturned; it was merely "suspended as Born2cycle has agreed to change his editing pattern." --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Melanie. These reminders about personal behavior are much more effective and productive when made on user talk pages, than on article/policy talk pages. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk)

On topics and titles

[This is a continuation of a discussion from Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Does_the_recognizability_criterion_favor_.22City.22_or_.22City.2C_Region.22.3F_Or_is_it_a_wash.3F]

To be clear my argument is simple and short, contained entirely in the paragraph that starts "The emphasis is mine". You addressed that?

I confess I don't understand what you're getting at here:

You assume that "the topic" is the specific place in question, such as "McLouth", and very few people in the United States are likely ever to have heard of it. But "the topic" may also be broader: places in the United States, or in Kansas.

Yes, for an article entitled McLouth I assume the article topic is the town named McLouth. Of course. How might the topic be broader, and why are you putting "the topic" in quotes? How can the topic of McLouth be "places in the United States, or in Kansas"? I mean, McLouth would be a very wrong title for an article whose topic is "places in the United States". Not following. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I made it quite clear. You feel the topic, in the context of titling principles, must be the specific town and nothing else. I am suggesting that the topic, for these purposes, can be more general than a town of 800 people in Kansas. It's a town in Kansas, so make that clear by adding a single word to the title. Bang -- it's then immediately clear what the topic is: a place in Kansas. Omnedon (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The topic of an article is what the article is about regardless of its title, so I still don't know what you mean by me feeling the topic "must be the specific town and nothing else". Of course. What else could the topic be? The topic is "the specific town and nothing else" regardless of whether its title is McLouth, McLouth, Kansas, McLouth, Kansas, United States, City of McLouth, or anything else. Changing the title does not affect the WP:SCOPE of the topic.

I think what you're really talking about, again, is how recognizable the topic of an article is from its title, especially to people unfamiliar with the topic (in this case, to people unfamiliar with the city of McLouth; people who don't know it's a city in the state of Kansas). You're saying such people are better served by McLouth, Kansas than by McLouth because the longer form clearly conveys to such people that the topic of the article is a place in Kansas (people familiar with McLouth already know it's a city in Kansas, so adding the state, for a city with a unique name like this one, tells them nothing they don't already know).

For very important reasons, we try to make article titles recognizable to people already familiar with the given article topic. For very important reasons, there is no goal, not in practice nor documented in policy or guidelines, to make titles recognizable to people unfamiliar with their respective topics. If you still don't understand and appreciate why these reasons are very important, my tireless efforts to explain have obviously failed, miserably. So, I urge you to review the unanimous results of this poll regarding this very issue. To understand how related and applicable it is to this discussion, please read all the comments, like this one:

1 [including the "to someone familiar with" clause]. As I understand it, #2 would say we should use Matagami (town in Quebec) instead of Matagami, because someone might otherwise think that Matagami is a Japanese name. Because of that, I vote for #1. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is very close to what you're saying: We should use McLouth, Kansas because someone might otherwise not know that McLouth is a city in Kansas.

I'm interested in knowing what you think about that.

In addition, every time this point is raised, I ask why we should be concerned about this problem only for US places. And nobody ever answers. After all, there are myriads of articles on WP with titles that could be improved in this manner - to make their topics recognizable to people unfamiliar with their topics, by adding more descriptive information to their titles. Why treat titles of US places differently from all other articles on WP with regard to this issue (improving recognizability of the topic via the title to people unfamiliar with the topic)? Why don't the very good reasons to not do this for all our titles also apply to titles of articles about US places? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There really is no answer for why we should be concerned with this ONLY for US cities. It's just that it's so simple, easy, uniform, familiar, and still concise to fix the problem on US cities. It will take more work to improve recognizabilty more generally; sometimes it's easy, like Big –> Big (film); other times harder. Your effort to ensure that we put zero value on recognizability outside the inner circle of people who are already familiar with a topic is the problem, not the solution. Dicklyon (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. We agree, there is no reason to treat titles of US Places differently.

So, despite the unanimous results of that poll, and the commentary (such as the one I quoted above) that made people's reasoning clear, you still don't understand and appreciate the problems with expanding the goal of making our titles recognizable to those familiar with the respective topics, to those who are unfamiliar with the topics? Don't you see the can of worms that is opened by such a shift in the recognizability goal? Because of the current limited scope on recognizability, most articles have only one reasonable potential title - whatever the name of the topic is, no matter how obscure the topic may be to the public at large. Only when a topic's name conflicts with other uses (such as with Big), or when a topic doesn't have one obvious most common name, is there even a question as to what the title should be. Thus the vast, vast majority of our titles are stable.

If we expand the scope of recognizability to strive to make titles recognizable to everyone, not just those familiar with the topics, the title of almost every single article ceases to be stable! After all, in terms of improving a title by making it more recognizable to people unfamiliar with the article's topic, this applies to all but the relatively few topics that have universal recognizability among people.

Do me a favor. Click on SPECIAL:RANDOM ten times in a row, and tell me how many of those 10 titles could not be improved in terms of recognizability for those unfamiliar with each topic. Heck, I'll just do it. The random article is on the left, some ideas of how it could be improved in terms of recognizability for those unfamiliar is on the right.

Well, that's five. Hopefully enough to make the "can of worms" point. Five out of five, 100% of this admittedly small sample, could not only be improved in terms of recognizability for the unfamiliar, but there are multiple reasonable choices for each with which most could be improved. If you think this is an atypical sample for some reason, I urge you to run your own test. See how many random articles you can find that cannot be improved in terms of recognizability to those unfamiliar with the topics, and with multiple reasonable choices.

The RM backlog is already big enough, thank you very much. The effect of expanding the recognizability scope beyond the "those familiar" limit would be an unmitigated disaster. Suddenly almost every single one of our articles, which are now at stable titles (like the 5 above), would no longer be stable, and subject to "improvement" in terms of making them more recognizable to the unfamiliar. Do you see what I'm getting at? That's why this is so important, and for everyone to understand. This understanding needs to spread. What I see instead is the opposite, that more and more people are seeking more descriptive titles, apparently without realizing the ramifications of what will happen if the limit is expanded formally (which it must once we have enough "exceptions" to establish a change in practice). That's why I'm so concerned.

That's why I feel so strongly about keeping the lid on this can of worms shut. And bringing all place names in compliance with the limited scope of recognizability would go a long way towards make sure that can of worms is sealed tightly. Does that make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that does not make sense, though it may be a coherent rationale for your paranoia about title stability. My attempt to find out if anyone agreed with your approach of putting zero value on recognizability for persons not already familiar with the topic did not reveal anyone who agreed with you. That's the part you've neglected to remember. As for your random examples, I don't see many of those straw-man suggestions doing anything for recognizability; random extra info is not what we're talking about. But including state with city does make them much more clearly recognizable to many of our readers who are familiar with cities and states, but maybe not with the particular one in question. And no, I have not agreed that "there is no reason to treat titles of US Places differently." I have only said that there is no reason to limit improved recognizability to only US places. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Donji Mosti →Donji Mosti, Croatia is a very good idea. I would have thought Donji Mosti would be more likely misrecognized as a person name; making it recognizable by most readers as a place name is a good thing. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your intent is not about adding "random extra info" to article titles. But what is "random extra info"? And what is "helpful for recognizability"? More importantly, who decides? All of my examples could be supported with reasonable arguments. I wouldn't do it. You wouldn't do it. But without mentioning any names, somebody could. And would, once the floodgates were opened. My point is that the only thing keeping other people from proposing adding what we see as "random extra info" and they see as "helpful for recognizability" in endless proposals involving countless articles is the limited scope restriction on recognizability, the very thing you seek to, well, weaken. And that's why I seek to strengthen it.

Seriously, if we did, for example, remove the "to those familiar" clause from recognizability, what would be the policy based argument against, say moving Joe Skeen to Joe Skeen, New Mexico Congressman, served 1980-2003? Folks could use Omnedon's argument about this still being concise, as it's short and informative. Joe Skeen is an obscure figure - almost nobody has ever heard of him. This makes it obvious, from the title, why he's notable. Sure we could argue against and the decision would be made "by consensus", but the point is there is no reasonable argument to be made today in support of moving that article, and the vast majority of our articles, because of the recognizability scope limit. Removing that limit totally opens the can of worms. Of course that's not what you want. But what makes you think that wouldn't happen?

How is it paranoia? There are already examples of proposals for "more descriptive" titles despite the existence of the recognizability scope limit, and they thankfully usually get quickly shut down because of the scope limit. But without it, what would stop it? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you want policy to encode a titling algorithm so tightly that you can always find a policy-based argument to kill any silly title proposal. I just think that approach is lame and unneeded. Policy says to consider the 5 criteria and pick a good title. It works well when we do that. It works less well, in my opinion, when you try to make conciseness trump recognizability and precision. You end up with many titles being unrecognizable or imprecise, when one more word would make them great useful titles. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Given redirects and the way people search for articles (e.g., mostly via Google), the benefit of changing most titles is nominal. So, yes, my goal is to at least retain, and hopefully increase, title stability. I'm certainly against anything that destabilizes the vast majority of our titles, well over 99%, which are currently stable, which weakening recognizability by expanding its scope beyond "those familiar" does.

I note you did not address anything I said above, in explaining why I'm concerned about expanding the scope of recognizability in terms of unintended consequences and widespread title destability, etc. You didn't answer any of my questions. It makes me wonder if you even read it and earnestly thought about it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, case in point. Talk:National_Pension_Scheme#Requested_move_2. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Good riddance

Just saying. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

To what does this refer? Omnedon (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's referring to the elimination of certain caustic behavior on WP. And, no, I will not be more specific. That would be engaging in that kind of behavior. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Certain caustic behavior"? From whom? If you are unwilling to say more, why even say this much? Omnedon (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

People reading this on my talk page either know what I'm talking or they don't. If they do, then they also now know how I feel about it, and nothing else needs to be said. If they don't, then it really doesn't matter. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I repeat: It's a reference to the elimination of certain caustic behavior on WP. It is not a reference to the departure of anyone; it's not a reference to anyone at all. It's about behavior. That's really really important. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Then whose behavior? References to behavior must refer to some editor or group of editors; how was this behavior "eliminated"? Omnedon (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but who doesn't matter (THAT'S THE POINT!) and is inappropriate to mention here. As you know, the behavior was eliminated by an administrator warning users engaged in caustic behavior to not do it any more or they will face more severe sanction, and, at least one of them chose to respond by leaving WP. Choosing to stay and not engage in the problematic behavior any more would have been just as effective, so it's not the leaving per se that is the cause of the elimination, but the warning. Regardless, good riddance to the behavior. For the record, I welcome this user, and any other who has engaged in this behavior, back to WP should they change their mind, but the caustic behavior is not welcome. I should add that insisting on openly identifying who is being discussed here is also suggestive of this kind of caustic behavior. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a good time to propose articles for primary topic status? Kauffner (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
It's always a good time when the topic is primary but the title is disambiguated. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

Born2Cycle: I felt I should raise here my concerns about what I see as unhelpful and disruptive behavior on your part in recent and ongoing Wikipedia discussions; I refer in particular to your tendency in RMs and RfCs to be lengthily argumentative and dismissive with those who take positions contrary to your own. I know such concerns have already been voiced a number of times in recent weeks and months, both by myself and by other involved editors (particularly in the geographic names forum), but I hoped it would be helpful to address it directly here.

In the current placename RfC your repeated and lengthy posts dominated the discussion to the point of filibustering (as several editors noted), with a number of entire lengthy sections opened by you either to verbosely repeat or elaborate your positions or to dissect the positions of other specific editors; the result was a disruption of productive and inclusive debate, which has now seemingly ground to a complete halt. It should also be noted that similar concerns were also raised in the preceding RfC. Your contributions elsewhere (as in the National Pension Scheme RM where you're increasingly focused on debating my support in particular) suggest a continuation of this behavior.

To be clear, you are of course welcome to engage in debate and to voice your views; however, being overly zealous or vocal in questioning the validity of others' positions (particularly in RfCs which are meant to freely solicit others' views) chills debate and can be disruptive – as the geographic names forum in particular amply demonstrates. I don't expect you to agree with other editors in these forums, but I do ask that you respect the existence of reasonable opposing views. Editors contributing in good faith to an RfC or RM shouldn't face being drowned out, nor face having their statements persistently pursued or dismissed, and I'd ask you to please keep this in mind. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of your concerns, again. I note that it's people who are involved in disagreements with me who seem to be most concerned with my commentary. I also note that at the US place RfC, I intentionally started separated sections on specific issues, and even hatting discussions which seemed to have come to an end (that effort was reverted), all to avoid cluttering up the survey area. Also, since I stopped commenting there, all discussion seems to have come to a halt.

I have additional points to make at National Pension Scheme RM. You're free to respond, or not, as always. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

B2c. just so you know: I was on the verge of taking you to ANI, to report an ongoing pattern of tendentious editing in violation of your promises of a year ago, until you heeded advice to "take a breather" from the US place RFC discussion. (As you noted above (apparently without irony), when you stopped participating in that discussion all the "controversy" went away and it became a simple RfC.) I shelved the idea of ANI when you stopped editing at that discussion, but it appears that you have not changed your tactics at other discussions. (I didn't follow you around to see what else you were doing.) I am still open to the possibility of taking your editing behavior to the community for discussion and possible solutions - and if Huw or others think I should proceed, I will consider it. Word to the wise. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Born2cycle: It's disappointing that you do not appear to acknowledge that your actions are disruptive, and instead insinuate that the concerns that have been raised by various editors relate instead to disagreements with your position. Without a clear recognition that such behavior is inappropriate and a clear commitment to avoid it in the future, I fear the pattern may simply continue to repeat. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Melanie overtly tried to disrupt that RfC at WP:PLACE, and riddled the discussion with arguments for ending the discussion (before it even started), and offered almost nothing substantive about the proposal itself. While Melanie was trying to do that, Huw and a few others, including myself, were engaged in what I thought was mostly relatively thoughtful and productive discussion. How any of that amounted to me being disruptive, I honestly don't know. What, exactly, was disrupted? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You repeated this question at the AN discussion. I will respond here, to avoid cluttering that discussion. My response is: Huw explained above, with admirable clarity and brevity, exactly what is disruptive about your "lengthily argumentative and dismissive" style. The fact that you are still asking "what is the problem?" was the final straw that impelled me to post the AN discussion. As I said below, "your responses here indicate that you have no idea why so many people have a problem with your approach to editing. Since Huw explained the problem so clearly, I'm afraid this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and no amount of private discussion is going to avail." --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What Huw claimed above was that the result of my alleged "filibustering" "was a disruption of productive and inclusive debate, which has now seemingly ground to a complete halt.".

The "productive and inclusive debate" to which he refers is the discussion that you tried repeatedly to squelch, starting before I even participated.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

So, according to you, what I supposedly "disrupted" was the productive discussion you unquestionably tried repeatedly to end. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The debate was not very productive, largely because at every turn we were faced with demands to refute your detailed arguments point-by-point, and with your tendency to be dismissive and borderline insulting. As far as Melanie is concerned, she simply pointed out to the proposer that a similar RfC had just been closed, and specifically asked if the request could be rephrased. That's not squelching debate. But the proposer did not respond. Omnedon (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue that the discussion there was productive. Unfortunately it was not, but I tried my very best to make it productive; if I failed, it was not intentional. If you want to blame me, fine, but I'll just add that lack of productivity is not an uncommon characteristic for WP discussions, or for discussions among any group of humans trying to find consensus in a sea of disparate opinions. Go no further than looking at the politics of any democratically elected government for ample examples, from a home owner's association, to a city council, the state capital, and of course the federal government of any nation. Thank you for recognizing that I did not cross the line of being insulting, as often occurs in such discussions, much less that I violated any WP policies or guidelines, like WP:NPA.

I don't want to talk about other users here, except I'll say she went much further than simply pointing out to the proposer that a similar RfC had just been closed. See User talk:MelanieN#Disruptive editing at WT:PLACE RfC proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't recognize what you claim. In fact, this is yet another case of others' words being twisted to your own purpose. I feel you were insulting, though not blatantly; and as for violating policies, for one example, I do feel you failed to assume good faith on the part of other editors. Please do not attribute statements to me that I did not make. As for Melanie, I was referring to the statement that she made after the RfC was posted, but before the first "support" vote (yours). Posting everything she said in that discussion to her own talk page was, in my opinion, questionable. Omnedon (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We can go back and forth about whether a given comment is insulting or not. All I can say is I never said anything to anyone in that discussion that was intentionally insulting; if it came off that way it was entirely unintentional, and I apologize if you or anyone else was insulted by anything I said. Without knowing what specific statements you're talking about, I really can't explain any more.

I also categorically deny failing to assume good faith about anyone there. I have no reason to believe that anyone there was not acting in good faith, and nothing I said should have indicated otherwise, unless it was misunderstood. Again, if it was misunderstood, I apologize, and, due to lack of specificity, I can't explain further at this time. If you want to give me a specific example, I'd be happy to explain further.

As to posting Melanie's comment to her talk page, the facts are the facts. It was a way I could substantiate my point: how low the ratio of substance to quantity was in her contributions to that discussion. When I accuse others of engaging in problematic behavior, I like to be clear about what exactly I'm talking about. Is that a problem? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In this specific case -- yes, in my opinion, it is a problem. An RfC on this had just concluded after an extremely lengthy discussion. She and others (including me) attempted to point this out, rather than go through the whole thing again. That is not "problematic behavior". Omnedon (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there no limit to how many times it can be pointed out, along with repeatedly commenting about editors rather than the substance of the RfC, before it becomes "problematic behavior"? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It was pointed out by multiple editors, not just Melanie, and it was repeatedly dismissed or ignored. As for commenting on editors, you have a tendency to do that -- such as talking about how editors will realize how silly their positions are, or referring to small-mindedness, to name but two examples. Honestly, I do believe you have good intentions and wish to improve the encyclopedia, as most of us do. But in the face of the current AN discussion, I am not sure how this thread is helping. If anything it is emphasizing the fact that you either don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge, the problem. It's not a new one -- witness last year's AN discussion in which you said, "You've gotten my attention" and listed seven ways you would change. Omnedon (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And I did as I promised. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm not denying that there is a problem. I'm denying that I have engaged in behavior that violates any written policy or guideline. That's why, at the ANI discussion, I have proposed updating the relevant policy (presumably WP:DE) to improve/clarify it in this area, and have stated that I would abide by that, of course. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You've gotten my attention. I promise to change in the following ways: 1) Comment less and less often on RM discussions in which I'm involved (I presume the number of RM discussions in which I'm involved is not the problem), especially when engaged in a dispute. 2) I will be more agreeable and less disagreeable. 3) If I must disagree, I'll try to find something positive to say first, or at least be apologetic about disagreeing. 4) I'll be more careful how I word things to make it less likely for me to be misinterpreted, which I know occurs often. For example, when I refer to policy I'll be more careful about presenting it in a way that is conveyed as being positive and productive rather than combative. 5) I'll look for signs from others, especially those who have taken the time to commented here, to let me know how I'm doing. 6) I will continue to welcome, and will encourage even more, specific suggestions on what I could do to improve my disposition in all discussions in which I'm involved. 7) I will not think, believe, convey or say that just because I'm not violating the letter of any policy or guideline does not mean there is no problem to address. Thank you.
— Born2cycle

Given the past two RfCs related to WP:USPLACE, in which you contributed far more than any other editor, and seemed to be rather combative throughout, I have to question whether you have indeed done as you promised. Omnedon (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. We apparently have different interpretations of "combative" which to me implies a tendency to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. I know that it is not the case for me. While I do express disagreement, of course, it's not in order to disagree. Rather, it's more like I'm doing here - I explain my views, and why I hold them. I'm also always very open to learning the views of others, and, in particular, the reasons they hold them. To me that's not combative, and it is, or at least strives to be, productive, whether I'm doing it, or someone else is. Going beyond just telling each other what our positions are, by delving into the reasons that underly them, can sometimes be a path to consensus, perhaps the only path in some cases. I believe all of my comments are consistent with pursuing this approach. If you can find examples to the contrary, I would appreciate it. But please don't bring up the "hobglobins of little minds" remark again; that was intended as a light-hearted joke in response to someone else's clever quip. It went over like a dead balloon, apparently, but that's what it was supposed to be. Anyway, thank you again for sharing your views and explaining them to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask what exactly is being disrupted when one is accused of being disruptive. What exactly is being disrupted by my behavior? I mean, what exactly are people being disrupted from doing by my behavior? In her "answer", Melanie merely referred to Huw's original statement, who claimed "disruption of productive and inclusive debate", suggesting that there would have been "productive and inclusive debate" if not for my involvement. And the evidence for that is what? When I bow out, there is virtually no more discussion? So, then, how was my involvement disruptive? That's not an answer. And the response of "filibustering" by Omnedon is not an answer to this question either - it's simply labeling the behavior that is allegedly disruptive in a derogatory way, without basis; it does not identify what is being disrupted.

When I accuse others of being disruptive, I try to point that out so that question does not even need to be asked. For example, last month I accused MelanieN (talk · contribs) of disruptive editing. I backed up the claim with a copy/paste of all her posts to the discussion in question, and explained the disruption stemmed from "the alarmingly low presence of constructive comments conducive to building the encyclopedia among them", after quoting the definition of disruptive editing at WP:DE that is stated in those terms. To her credit, she stopped making those disruptive comments, though a few weeks later she started an AN about me, which also is arguably disruptive, if indeed the accusation of me engaging in tendentious editing turns out to be baseless.

While not everyone may agree with me about Melanie's behavior being disruptive at WT:PLACE, I don't think anyone can be unclear about why I believed Melanie's behavior to be disruptive. I'm only asking for the same type of explanation from those who accuse me of being disruptive. Is that too much? If, after a week of no substantive answer, is it unreasonable to conclude that the claim of disruption is without basis? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Examples have been pointed out to you again and again, but you refuse to accept them. The "little minds" statement a "joke"? It was in no way phrased with humor. As for the term "filibustering", I actually don't tend to like that term myself, as it has political overtones. Rather, I would describe what I have seen in the last two RfCs at WP:PLACE by saying that you comment and comment and comment in great detail, far more than any other contributor, then demand that your points be refuted in equal detail or else you claim a victory by default. If your behavior was not disruptive, do you think that it would be so stated by so many contributors at the AN discussion? Is every one of them absolutely wrong? Are you, in fact, looking for signs of how you are doing? They are there for you to see throughout the RfCs and the AN discussion. At one time you acknowledged that there is a problem here; you seem now to be denying that. Omnedon (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your complaint about the term "filibustering" is interesting, because when that was introduced into the RfC, you then ended several of your own statements with calls for the other side to stop filibustering. You are also clearly dismissive of other editors, though you claim otherwise. One example of this is your request that the RfC be closed in favor of your side, even in the face of votes that did not favor your side. That's dismissive of those with whom you disagree. Omnedon (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As for a specific answer to the disruptiveness issue, this was clearly stated at the AN. 'He is the very definition of a tendentious editor as described at WP:Consensus#Tendentious editing: "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process."' I realize you claim that your pursuit is not continuous, but what would you call it, then, when you are the primary contributor to one RfC, and when another one opens a few weeks later, you continue to be the primary contributor? Omnedon (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, again, the "little minds" comment was a joke. No joke is funny if it requires explanation, and this one obviously fell flat, but apparently an explanation is required to show it was a joke (with better adherence to WP:AGF, I suggest I would not have to go to these lengths to defend myself, but this silly quip has been claimed to be problematic one too many times]. For reference, here is the diff. In response to a comment of mine, in which I asked "why people here are so insistent on keeping an exceptional inconsistent convention", Jayron32 wrote: "Did anyone just see a Hobgoblin run through here?". At first I wasn't sure what he meant, so I clicked on the link he had made, to Self-Reliance, where of course I saw and was reminded of the famous quotation, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Clearly the implied reference was to me, or to anyone who advocated consistency here, as having the hobgoblin of foolish consistency in our little minds. It made me chuckle, and I thought I'd respond in kind by applying the same logic in reverse, so I wrote: "Perfect! Indeed, blind conformance with the City, State convention was the hobgloblin of the little minds of those who supported it even for cities like San Francisco and Chicago, and remains for those who continue to support it for cities with unique names". I chuckled at that too, but apparently no one else did. I thought at least Jayron would, to whom it was directed. Anyway, the joke fell flat, but it was a joke none-the-less, and I said nothing about anyone that was not first clearly implied about me and others. I did not have a problem with what Jayron32 said, yet you have a problem with what I said, which is essentially the same thing. Why is that?

You write: "you comment and comment and comment in great detail, far more than any other contributor, TRUE, and thank you, then demand that your points be refuted in equal detail or else you claim a victory by default. What? I never demand anything (how could I? based on what?), much less that in particular, nor have I ever claimed "victory" in any ongoing discussion, much less by default. I don't even think in those terms.

If your behavior was not disruptive, do you think that it would be so stated by so many contributors at the AN discussion? I don't know. But I do know that Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, and that if I ever accused anyone of being disruptive, and they asked that I identify what exactly was disrupted, I would identify what that was, or retract my accusation, no matter how many others piled on along with me.

Filibustering is using discussion to avoid decision-making. That's exactly what Melanie did, overtly. She commented and commented and commented, not about the proposal, but about how the proposal needs to be closed. That is the epitome of filibustering. And it's disruptive. What exactly is it disrupting? [See, this is how that question is answered.] The ability of others to engage in substantive discussion about that proposal.

When someone suggests that certain arguments be dismissed for lacking substance, that's being dismissive of those arguments, not of those who made those arguments. This is essentially what WP:JDLI states: "Consensus is determined not by the percentage of the participants in support or opposed to a given position, but by the quality of the arguments posted, evaluated in terms of how well they are based in policy, guidelines and conventions." Now, reasonable people can disagree about whether certain arguments are substantive or not, but please do not conflate advocacy for dismissing arguments for lack of substance with dismissing the people who put forward those allegedly vacuous arguments.

Yes, to be continuous, the allegedly problematic behavior would have to continue after the first RfC was closed. But it continued only after someone else, previously uninvolved, started another RfC. So, I still see no answer. Let me put it this way (please fill in the blanks): ______________________________ was disrupted by B2C's behavior. It was disrupted because _____________________

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

-

I will add that I still acknowledge a problem with my behavior. But, like an alcoholic who doesn't beat his wife, children or drive drunk, that doesn't mean I've broken any laws. I post too much. But it's not a sanctionable problem, not something that is prohibited in writing in any policy or guideline. I repeat my offer to collaborate on updating WP:DE to document the specific type of behavior that should be prohibited, presuming we can get consensus on wording it in an objective way that others believe is fair. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) " If, after a week of no substantive answer, is it unreasonable to conclude that the claim of disruption is without basis?" Thank you for this; it's a great example of your approach to debate, which is to reject all responses, and then claim that since no one has responded TO YOUR SATISFACTION, you have carried the day. In fact there have been numerous substantive answers to your question, including Huw's description above of your style as "lengthily argumentative and dismissive with those who take positions contrary to your own". At the AN discussion there are also numerous specifics about why your approach is disruptive, for example: "B2C's usual mode is essentially filibustering, and generally acting on the assumption that if his voluminous points are not all refuted to his satisfaction, then he should get his way. The energy he pours into titles and related policy therefore requires a greater effort from others to try to restrain him." (--Dicklyon), " it is very difficult to have productive discussions with B2C, and this is a longstanding problem involving many editors." (--Omnedon), "willing to overwhelm Wikipedia with his feelings on matters of article titles, especially as it relates to U.S. placenames, until through sheer power of will, he can discourage participation from others rather than change consensus." (--Jayron), "B2C getting involved in a topic tends to limit participation by others. Add to that the lengthy discussions and many editors find it impossible follow and comprehend. That can create a case where decisions are made without many really understanding the discussion. Or maybe a better comment is most editors don't have the time to read a novel to make decisions." (--Vegaswikian), etc. Those are all solid, specific illustrations of disruption. In addition Omnedon above cites policy about "the continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal"; to claim that your aggressive pursuit of your goals is not "continuous" because you don't start the discussions is disingenous to say the least. So there are a bunch of answers to your question. The fact that you reject them does not mean the question has not been answered. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I just saw this: "I never demand anything". ROFL! How many times in this very discussion, and again at the AN page, have you demanded an answer to your question about exactly - EXACTLY! - what is disruptive about your behavior? --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Melanie, if you think any of those opinions answer my question, I give up. If nobody read and nobody replied to anything and everything I said in either of those RfCs, nothing would have changed. All reading of and responses to my posts and questions are entirely voluntary, by anyone who is interested. I should not blamed for anyone's inability to refrain from reading or responding to my posts.

Are you demanding an answer to your "How many times..." question? I presume not. When I ask questions, they're not demands either. They're never demands. Anyway, the answer to your question is, of course, zero times. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

How's this for being demanding and dismissive and assuming bad faith, all at once? There are other examples of your demands, but let's start with this one. Omnedon (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I fail as the most exemplary WP editor of all time, and I'm realizing that some of my comments are taken more seriously than I intend them to be taken. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I still maintain that if one is going to claim that a given proposal will lead to something like confusion and disagreement, that it's not unreasonable for someone else who finds the claim to be dubious, to request (not demand!) that an example be provided to illustrate what is meant by that, and to state that if no such example is provided, that the claim will be difficult to accept, and that continuing to assume good faith will become more difficult. After all, if someone makes such a claim in good faith, shouldn't they be able and willing to easily provide several examples demonstrating what they're talking about, much less just the one being requested?

Why is it so terrible to point this out? How do we develop understanding and consensus if we refuse to satisfy such basic requests about the various claims, upon which our arguments are based, that we all makes in these discussions? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)