User talk:RobertMfromLI/Archives/2011/May

Microsoft OS/2 coffee cup image

I have an old Microsoft OS/2 coffee cup and was wondering if a photo of it could be used for the OS/2 article:

Microsoft_OS/2_coffee_cup.jpg

For the caption: "my company spent a few thousand dollars on Microsoft OS/2 SDK's and all we ended up with were these coffee cups"

Rcgldr (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... as interesting and anecdotal as it would be, I'm not sure of the relevance to the article itself. I think that'd be the first thing I'd concern myself with. Most editors seem to be against cramming unnecessary pictures in articles - in some cases, to an extent I severely disagree with (like the removal of the gallery on the Brooklyn Bridge page). Now, as for the caption, as humorous as I think it is, I suspect Wikipedia isn't the place for such humor (which is actually mentioned in the Five Pillars and elsewhere).

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

you've got mail

— kwami (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Responded via email... :-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I give permission for both of you to create a mailing list and contact me so we can discuss issues together (if Robert also agrees). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But of course. Kwamikagami, if you know how, please do so. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk page post

Thanks for your post, any help and advice you can give would be most welcome . Mtking (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Practice greater self control

My time is valuable, and I don't appreciate your side-tracking discussions at ANI with irrelevant asides. Please control yourself in the future.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if you think I sidetracked it - but I did not bring up irrelevant userboxes as my defense, did I? And thus prompt my response on that matter. I suspect you need to post this message on the person's page who did so. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, with White Shadow's help (followed after my last post by Dayewalker), you can hopefully see that what I was trying to achieve was ending the unrelated tangents. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought

You are describing a passive aggressive pathology, which is much worse than just plain attacks. There are a few drama addicted individuals that seem to use this methodology frequently.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah... hadn't thought about it that way, especially as this exact issue has been brought up in multiple ani's concerning that particular editor in the past. It was not so much my conclusion, as the conclusion of numerous others multiple numerous ani's. It was thought, with such specific care in choosing wording that allowed wikilawyering out of consequences, that some intentional effort was involved. I guess I could have provided numerous diffs to support previous conclusions, but that seemed like it would be wonton attacking when various people involved in this ani are aware of previous circumstances. Now, as for my opinion on repercussions for such, or the meaning of such - as I said, I wish to raise none, as I am not in a position (nor do I want to be) to decide whether or not actions should be taken on intent, as opposed to no actions because someone is able to successfully thinly skirt by the issue via creative wording that only leaves implications that can be denied. Especially, as on a personal note, if such were directed at me, I'd find it amusing - as I think he found my responses. Hope that clarifies, and interested in your further thoughts on the matter. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm anti-civility on principle around here, mainly because I think it's capriciously applied in many cases. Inexperienced admins and editors misconstrue passive aggressive comments as "civil", and don't understand the aggressive response to it by more sane editors. I keep pointing out this to admins, but I just gave up. The Wikipedia article on it isn't the worst medical article I've read around here. My observations of these passive aggressive editors is that they're trying to obstruct the project, and are highly manipulative. I've actually described some as having all the manifestations of narcissistic personality disorder by having an obsessive need to be at the center of attention. There are a few editors that love the AN/I process because it puts them right at the center of attention. But it's purely manipulative. Just watch some of the editors in contentious articles. Some are actually doing work, and others are trying to block that work, rarely from editing, but mostly from manipulating people into their position and/or goading uncivility out of an editor that opposes their POV. It's getting bad around this place, almost unhealthy. The passive-aggressive editors are very good at their pathology. And it's clear some think this is a good place to cause trouble with little consequence. There's an editor that spends 90% of his time editing policy and making long-winded speeches about how important he is to the project. He's been blocked 13 or 14 times, but keeps coming back with the same miserable behavior. We let him come back. We let the editor in question keep returning to AN/I. Cut 'em off. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely anti-incivility as well (I presume that's what your first sentence was intended to read?). Though personally, I could care less about incivility being directed at me, I do care and see it as a big issue for keeping new editors, or even experienced ones. In the decade I've been editing here, I've seen a lot of editors leave because of such. So, like everything community based, it's (IMHO) within reason to expect civility of how people treat each other. With a reading of previous events of this nature, and taking that into context with my statement, I suspect you can see the direction I was going - I think there is a deeper seated issue to deal with, as I suspect you're saying above. But again, I simply chose to remind those involved of previous occurrences so they could come to their own conclusions. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I'm anti-civility. I think it's so subjective, and is used by some very incompetent admins in an ineffective and punitive manner. Let's take the case at hand, TT's comment. From a purely English standpoint, it's pretty innocuous. But if you toss in intent, context, and previous behavior, a professional could interpret what was written as a lot more sinister than the mere words. There are maybe 2 admins that I know who could make that call, but neither will for good reason. So if I responded to TT by saying "cut out the fucking passive aggressive bullshit", I'd be considered the uncivil (I can't find out if it's incivil or uncivil...not germane) editor. Although you state that it's important to keep new editors, I think it's substantially more critical to the project to keep experienced editors. What we are missing is that the civil POV editors (let's define that as those who appear to be civil, but are aggressively pushing a POV, especially fringe theories) are pushing out the less civil, but science and medical editors. It's manipulative and sad. To this day, and after thoroughly reading the dramafest, I have no clue why {[User|William M. Connolley}} was defrocked, despite being one of the leading academics in the field. That his Ph.D., publications, and years of research required him to treat boneheaded POV pushing editors with anything but contempt is beyond me. The conclusion of this process is that Wikipedia is worse for it. We give too much undue weight (one of my favorite Wikipedia terms) to civility which is totally subjective, and too little weight to boneheaded POV pushers, where the fringe pushing is quite clear.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... while from a perspective as it applies to how people treat me, I personally agree with you, I've also learned that one cannot ever seemingly convince others that "them's just mere words". I've tried that numerous times. Sadly, it doesn't work. But, it's not just new editors who get pushed by the wayside because of such behavior. There are (were) valued contributors here since the dark days of Wikipedia's beginnings, who've been lost due to such things (while my account is recent, I've been anon editing since the first /. post about this place till registering this account). During the mid 2000's, we lost a lot of such editors (which you probably remember).

I also agree that POV pushers are an issue too - especially in fields where there may not be enough experts (or people who've done sufficient unbiased Wiki-researching) to "combat" such situations. I suspect both are manipulative in their own fashion. Perhaps POV pushing is far more dangerous than incivility, but it's not exactly something I've done a study on. ;-) It is, otoh, most definitely dangerous to the mission of Wikipedia. I wonder if it should be dealt with as a separate issue, with perhaps (where needed) an "experts board" for certain article categories where POV complaints can be registered? (or some form of addressing the issue other than seldom used warning templates). On that note, I am far more likely to drop a warning for POV pushing than incivility. As a matter of fact, I usually leave issues of civility to the editor or may - or may not - have been offended to deal with (except in the case of really blatant asshattery towards a new or semi-new editor who has no idea how to deal with such - but even then, I usually try a polite "Let's keep it civil" note). Otherwise, I wont presume to know what offends who, because as you've noted, it's rather subjective.

I've got no clue on how to deal with the first issue (civility - hence I usually stay away, except as in this case, to bring up the relevant points that some newcomers to that discussion may not have been aware of). And as for the second issue (POV pushing)... not sure... a task force or project members who can be entrusted to prevent such while not pushing a POV of their own? I'm open for ideas, and would back any sensible idea presented at VP or elsewhere. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Criticism of science

Robert: Good ideas on this page. I contacted the original individuals on their talk pages asking for a new look and to update their views on this issue. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks. Had to run out before I had the chance. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Danceking

DK didn't remove the message: Roux removed it, along with his personal attacks on a few other pages. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the message I left says any such thing... (oh, wait, SoV knows how to check diffs and histories... drat!). All I can say in my defense is I'm hours behind on my next cup of coffee. :-/ Thanks for catching that. -R ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Harold Camping

Hi Robert, regarding this edit: [1] I wasn't aware of the etiquette, and won't do it again. I promise to grit my teetch and bear it next time. :) Liberal Classic (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

LoL, no probs. Just figured I'd hit the undo button before someone else saw it and dropped a warning template on your talk page. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, I will fix indents on talk pages to improve readability. Is this OK, or should I avoid doing this? Thanks, Liberal Classic (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sakes, I meant to write "teeth". /facepalm Liberal Classic (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Refactoring others' talk page comments is usually very frowned upon, but in the case of fixing indents, I usually will judge whether I want to do it based on the editor. But even in those situations, there's reasons not to, for instance, if someone hits an edit conflict, they will resubmit but not re-indent, thus to help show it was an edit conflict and/or in response to a comment a couple comments up. That's especially important on boards like AN/I and elsewhere. The few times I do, I usually also leave a note - but it's very rare. Indenting isn't as big of an issue though.

In this particular case, especially since the editor in question was writing borderline attacks, it's always prudent to not touch the comments at all - not for indenting, spelling, grammer, punctuation, moving, etc. It makes it easier, without having to dig through diffs, to see what they wrote - as well as doesnt get other people digging through your diffs to ensure you didnt try to change the meaning of what the other editor wrote (gotta remember, the only way they can do that is by comparing the diffs to see what's changed). The whole set of guidelines and polices on it are here. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain. It makes good sense to me now. Slightly different topic, but I found your above conversation [2] above with OrangeMarlin on civility and passive-agressive editors very interesting. I've noticed this a lot. There are many editors who are almost unfailingly polite while pushing their POV. When called into question, they act like an aggrieved party. They write voluminous amounts of text about how they work towards consensus and respect other editors positions, but never seem to give an inch. Oh, and how they love the arbitration process. Liberal Classic (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Biggest problem is it works so many ways that there's no way to determine if an editor is just being polite or if they are politely trying to push a POV. Just like there's no way solely based on attitude to determine if an editor is simply obnoxious or trying to push a POV based on it. I think the easiest way to avoid POV pushing is to simply minimize edits to articles one is interested in. For instance, besides Iron Maiden and Star Trek related stuff, virtually everything else I touch are simply things that have popped up on my patrolling of Recent Changes looking for vandalism (such as Rapture, Harold Camping, atheism, Muhammed, Jesus and a vast & wide variety of other religious articles, bands, artists and so on). But, in my case, it's not even really a claim I need to make... a simple search through my contributions would always end up pointing out a clearcut vandalism revert or an AN/I issue raised, followed by me trying to keep the article in it's proper state.

Camping's article is a good case on just such a thing. I'm sure you've noted people on both sides of the fence on it... "He's a scammer" or "We can't hurt his feelings/cant point out he's failed or in error" - both of which are invalid points of view and biases. His feelings, and our opinions, equally don't matter. But as you've also noted (and as I think we agreed upon), people try to use that as license for driving a point home so many times that it becomes POV pushing... such as "FAILED prophecy #1, which when it FAILED, he revised it to this one that FAILED... then created this FAILED prophecy" <- there's no reason for that either. Though it's true, it's still (in my opinion) POV pushing. There should be context and non-POV reasons for using the word - without excessive, unnecessary reiterations, such as "when the events failed to happen, Camping revised his prediction..." (even that, I'm not too sure of the wording).

The biggest issue is, any time someone has a feeling about something in the article(s), they need to stop and evaluate whether it's their POV they are pushing, or whether it's simply external relevant information, as citable via reliable sources. It's a tough thing to do at times, and though I think I'm good at such, I still primarily work on articles I have little to no interest in. For instance, an article I helped to raise to GA (Reviewed Good Article) status is on a musician I'd barely ever heard of or given any thought. That article was brought to my attention by an adoptee, and was in the middle of various edit wars, copyvio issues and other things. He and I managed GA status though. I think people can probably find their best efforts may coincide with articles they've got minimal interest (or at least no emotional interest) in - unless they can detach themselves from their feelings and opinions. Now, I guess you could call this a "wall of text", but I always tend to ramble. And, it's tough in dealing with things like Camping's article where there are so many new contributors who haven't even read (much less understand) Wikipedia's Guidelines - explaining such, since they haven't read such, always ends up leading to excessive verbosity. Take you for instance: of the newer editors there, you're one of the couple who's willing to dig into guidelines to understand them, and willing to work collaboratively towards consensus; but even so, have you read through WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:BIAS, WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:OPINION, WP:VERIFY, WP:ESSAY, WP:QUOTE, WP:FIVE, WP:MOS, and WP:CITE? There are probably a half dozen others that anyone working on a BLP should read before starting such work as well. Now... you're jumping in and learning what you need to as you go along, so no big deal there; but that article (and many more) are going to be battlegrounds by those who haven't read any of them, yet keep arguing with no understanding of such guidelines, and no interest in learning. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 14:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Hi

Following your post, ant advice on how to deal with NanaRobins and his alter ego Rainman64 would be helpful. 22:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC) (Mtking)

Hi, I'm digging though it all now. I'll get back to you soon. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to look at this ? Mtking (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

SAU

Thanks for your comments. bW 05:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me?

I am not blocked, I am not a vandal, please cease making false accusations. 86.183.62.57 (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you log in then? Or should I request an SPI? Please advise which. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Who do you think I am? 86.183.62.57 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you are sidestepping the question with an answer I shall not provide until SPI, and then, only privately to the checkuser (no, I will not violate your privacy publicly). Would you please be so kind as to log in to participate on that highly contentious page? Or should I request an SPI? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm also happy with a reasonable reason why you are trying to hide your account identity while editing that contentious page - I didnt propose that, because after reviewing everything, I cannot see such a reason as existing, but I could be wrong. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been led to believe you think I am Anglo Pyramidologist. [3] that is where I disagreed with him using a previous dynamic IP. O Fenian (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be incorrect (the AP thing). I knew who you were - though I did mistake the blocking part with AP and a couple other editors (for which I apologize). Which is why I also knew better that you know the infobox is part of the article. Your style of writing is pretty distinct. So, c'mon, the article is rather contentious, something (as I alluded to above) you are well aware of. By creating the appearance that you're hiding behind your IP (as opposed to editing logged in) isn't going to help matters. As for your content change itself, don't care, don't know, not my area of expertise... but trying to split the guidelines in such a way to avoid them isn't going to make things better on that article. Now... if you need help to keep things sane on that article, I'd be glad to help. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The British National Party Page that you recently reverted on has been protected for a week while the disputed on the page are resolved. It would be much appreciated if you could contribute your opinion as a recent editor to try and resolve the matter, Thanks User:U6j65 (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.142.38 (talk)