User talk:John Quincy Adding Machine/Jan2010
 | This page 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. |
Solstice
Thanks for fixing the template to include the summer solstice! That was a real oversight on my part and I should have thought of that. But I am curious, do people actually celebrate the summer solstice much in your experience? In the northern hemisphere (especially in countries that are reasonably far from the tropics) it seems that people are much more likely to want to celebrate the winter solstice than the summer one because the apparently disappearing sun in winter puts a deep atavistic fear into people, and the ritual of lighting fires (and colored lights) etc etc seems to do something to assuage this panic and gloom. Happy New Year to you anyway!!! Happy New Decade! And enjoy the sun for me, we don't have much of it here right now! Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Fear not
Howdy Happenstance. The only socks I've got, are the ones in my bedroom dresser. EvilDay (a very amateurish attempt, on the stalker's part), is just the latest desperate attempt (by the stalker) to get me blacklisted. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
In the beginning (back in October), the stalker (whose IP range is 166.205.xxx.xxx) was a pain, but not anymore. He/she is more like a jester, now. The more he/she stalks me, more editors become aware of him/her & look out for him/her. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I've made a total of 3 harrassment reports at Wikipedia: Administrators' notice board, in the last few months. Basically, the stalker just want attention. Now that he/she has gotten quite a bit of it today, be on the look out for more desperate attacks on myself. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem. Like a say, the more attention the stalker seeks, the easier he/she is caught. It's his time to waste, not mine. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Metrication in the United States
How about taking it down a notch on Talk:Metrication in the United States? WP:CIVIL is a core policy on Wikipedia and you can be blocked for violating it. Particularly since the issue under discussion there is so trivial, there is no need for the tone you are taking. I happen to agree with you on the substance and I think we can get to some consensus faster if you keep your cool. --agr (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I could by the same token argue that I find being accused of personal attacks seriously uncivil, which I do. That a is a serious accusation, but I chose to laugh rather than rage and fume about it. An editor who came in, refused to debate and then threw baseless accusations around is not conductive to any sort of debate, nor to a speedy establishment of consensus. I think I've been remarkably cool-headed during this debate, I've been as far as I can tell the only editor actively arguing not to edit war on the article. PS: Your contribution to the debate would be welcome. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
My user page
Thanks for the suggestion, and thanks for the compliment. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree that your proposal was in a more appropriate place before the undiscussed move. User talk:Blue-Haired Lawyer#You might be interested... and I touched base on this general issue some time ago with both of us intending to re-engage. One of the difficulties appeared that there wasn't an obvious forum for debate to be all encompassing. On another point, I had considered tagging many of these articles as Wikipedia:Coatrack as so many contain almost no content except this multi-coloured abomination, but really wasn't prepared for the plethora of edit wars it would surely have provoked. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
"I'm not sure who would update the Yemeni passport page"; You are not obligated to find a person who will update the Yemeni Passport. You aren't obligated to be "sure" -who'll do that-. You cannot remove a part of these articles only because you are not sure who will update them. Are they the only articles you are not sure about their update? Are you sure about who'll update the rest, millions of articles? Visa agreements of the passports are NOT getting changed daily! That is not a "What would you like to eat today?" article. I update them as/if/when they differ. I check the "IATA-Visa policies" database daily because of my job. I spent my hours, days on those articles. Please, don't touch them. You are just wasting your time, because A LOT OF people will undo them. Because; Wikipedia users want them. And again because; People like those details. People want those details when they check "X Passport". People look for those details. They're useful information for such articles. What would you put there, otherwise? A list of famous pop singers?! Do Wikipedia users/People visit their wiki passports articles just to see some photos&colour of their passports? Not funny.
--Ozguroot (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi H. I think you may have misunderstood my attempts at housekeeping. The article has become long and rambling (largely due to bulk contributions of one editor) and is not encouraging to new editors. It was certainly not my intention to 'draw a line' under a particular thread.If the debate was 'sectioned' into headings such as
Statement by User Xyz
- Xyz's statement
- responses and discussion on Xxz's statement
it would be much easier to follow and give a quick indication to new eds of others positions and the main points they have raised. As things stand, the page must be extremely intimidating to hitherto uninvolved editors. Just my 2 cents. RashersTierney (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 01:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
minor addition RashersTierney (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Message added 15:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
RashersTierney (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Breaking the 'impasse'
I intend bringing a possible alternative to the Passport discussion in an attempt to move things on in light of debate. A tentative proposal is here. The example is intended for inclusion at the Irish Passport article but its a model that could easily be modified for other Passport articles. Its short, links to the best sources of info and would require minimum maintenance. It would also remove the need for flag icons which seem to attract a disproportionate amount of vandalism and unnecessary conflict. Would welcome your comments. Feel free to modify. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you type in "Visa policy of" in the search box, a number of articles come up where this info. (in whatever form) seems to me more appropriate. RashersTierney (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your removal of the visa-free section in this article. First of all, I do not see how "consensus on Talk:Passport" could possibly be relevant to any article other than Passport itself: none of the editors of the articles about any other passports were made aware of the discussion. Second, because the whole rationale for the removal of visa-free sections was that in some articles (e.g. about the passports of African nations), visa-free sections might be inaccurate or out-of-date. However, I assert that the visa-free part of the Russian passport article is well-maintained and kept up to date, as can be seen from links to reliable sources; if you believe otherwise, please provide evidence. Tetromino (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion was listed at WP:Centralised discussion for almost a month, and was held at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) for a good portion of that time. A consensus was clearly established that these sections are unencyclopaedic and unmanageable. The discussion also determined that the passport articles are an inappropriate place for this type of content, as foreign visa policy is unrelated to the physical passport itself. Rather than focusing on managing the visa-free section, editors' efforts should be directed towards improving information on the passport itself. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- 16 days is not "almost a month". I have a strong suspicion that the discussion was concluded too hastily and that editors who have been keeping visa-free information in particular articles current were not given a chance to voice their opinion. I put together my views in a new section in Talk:Passport. Tetromino (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Passports and WP:ANI
As you may have noticed, I blocked User:Ozguroot to stop the edit war with you. The only reason I didn't block you is that you haven't tried to revert him. I have to run off Wikipedia for an hour. I have posted a comment about this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Passport-related_edit_war, and a request that another admin review my block of Ozguroot and this situation. -- Flyguy649 talk 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am aware, and to be honest I don't know how to deal with Ozguroot - he prides himself on ignorance of policy, has declared an intention to continue edit warring when unblocked and appears to have utterly no intention of acceding to, or even discussing consensus. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The one exception
There appears an issue of WP:OWN at one of the articles. I don't think it will be resolved in the short term. Can we let it go for the moment. Passions are high and the last thing we need right now is another flare-up. Lets try concentrate on the 'histories' problem. Another ed. with a good handle on this has agreed to give his assistance. We have moved on a long way from when people thought this was a zero sum game. Lets try to keep that momentum going. RashersTierney (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- The maps are unacceptable to me, I'm sorry. I only agreed to the compromise under the assumption that is would be implemented in exactly the way suggested and demonstrated (Turkish passport/Visa requirements for Turkish citizens). —what a crazy random happenstance 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
New passport manual of style on talk:passport
I've tried to put a new passport manual of style on Talk:Passport. It provides guidelines for a "visa requirements" section of a passport page, giving guidance for cases where it would either be appropriate or inappropriate to include a map to illustrate the text. I made edits to Serbian passport in an attempt to be constructive and undo the revert war that is unproductively happening there. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)