User talk:Roux/Archives/2009/June
![]() | 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. |
my application
Thank you for your comment. But this time I accept 2 Admins dismissal. Because they gave me chance last time. But they think premature. Sorry. Most of our misfortune comes from encountered the machine gun. You seem to know I am not racist. I am consoled. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
My rationale.
You said on MFD that you had trouble understanding why I didn't want to attempt to engage the user with a very promotional userpage, well, here's the main rationale:
"I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more
draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation [...] shoot on sight"
-Brad Patrick, WMF
[1] Gigs (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- And none of that precludes asking nicely first. It's a kid, not some corporate marketroid. //roux 17:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know, I admit I was a little bitey. Point taken. Gigs (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Honestly
I was higly impressed with your insight here and I'm really sorry you failed your RFA after having read it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. There's a lot that is broken with Wikipedia, and adopting a much lower tolerance for things like that will start fixing it, fast. This will, of course, never happen. //roux 18:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Good closure, naughty language
Then how about joining me in writing the fucking DYK? Was planning to counter systemic bias by reducing our redlinks about African geography. Tanzania or Egypt? Your choice. DurovaCharge! 20:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fucking, Austria? I'm afraid geography isn't much my interest. //roux 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly
I write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the I-don't-know-what in the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...?
ArbCom remedy
Voting is underway at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision. In part because of "Evidence presented by Caspian blue", the locus of dispute was modified and "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved." You will be surprised to learn that Roux has anything at all to do with this so-called "evidence" at "Tenmei's wikihounding and trolling" and at "Tenmei's ad hominem attacks and disruption during the ArbCom case". I don't think this timeless prose is worth struggling to read, but I mention the links to explain a bit more of the reasons why I'm reaching out to you.
ArbCom findings of fact included:
- 3.2.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution. "... many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case."
ArbCom remedies included:
- 3.3.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution: "Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion."
- 3.3.3 Editors advised: "Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought."
It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; however, I note with regret that "How to disagree without being disagreeable" at User talk:Georgewilliamherbert is cited several times by Caspian blue as evidence of harassment?
If you want to discuss this off-wiki, I'm working on figuring out how to set up an appropriate e-mail address.. -- Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I refuse to get involved in anything where CB is continuing his usual patterns; the only reason I commented on the recent AN/I involving Bukubku (which CB, predictably, took over with the usual behaviour) was because it had gone so far off track I wanted to find Bukubku a final resolution one way or the other. I would suggest someone like User:Durova as someone who is good at helping work things out. In the future, please do not ask me to participate in anything involving CB. //roux 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. Yes, I thought it likely that "no, thanks" would be your answer. However, you were on the list which Caspian blue posted as "evidence;" and I thought that beginning with usernames from this "evidence" section was less likely to garner extravagant complaints ...? I anticipate that others will decline for reasons similar to yours; but who knows? It's a start. In due course, my writing skills can only improve. One way or the other, I need to work on developing the skills neccessary to survive in abrasive situations like Caspian blue contrives again and again.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Japanese_White_Pine%2C_unknown-2007.jpg/90px-Japanese_White_Pine%2C_unknown-2007.jpg)
- To return to the point: May I reach out to you in future in circumstances where there is no taint of Caspian blue? Rather than struggling with minor problems after they have evolved, it might be more effective to ask for help/feedback at the first hint that someone seems not to be understanding my words. --Tenmei (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- As long as CB is not involved. yes. //roux 19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Please accept this small token of appreciation -- a fine example of bonsai. --Tenmei (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Arigato gozaimasu. //roux 19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Please accept this small token of appreciation -- a fine example of bonsai. --Tenmei (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Do Not Delete Please
This is why I moved the article out from the article space. This is part of the WikiProject Outline of Knowledge. We are adding the provinces of Canada to it. It is still a work in progress. Again, I will stress to you this is not in the normal article space so please if you would be so kind as to not abuse the power you have on Wikipedia and remove the deletion tag on it. The article is not harming you, Thanks. Burningview (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article is, however, harming Wikipedia by creating essentially a duplicate of every article. This is utterly, utterly pointless busywork that serves nobody any use, least of all the readers--you know, the people we're here for--who I can guarantee will not be searching for things like Outline of British Columbia. No, they'll search for British Columbia, and they will find this, and they will read about the province, and then click to their hearts' content to find out more specific information. This entire 'outline' project is a waste of time, and the BC one just happens to have been the first to catch my attention. //roux 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- So, I'm speculating that you are an enforcer for a group of wikipedians, that do not like the "Outline" projects, which I believe is in the minority. Is the other "outline" projects next on your hitlist? I disagree with your position; it helps Wikipedia out In my opinion. Burningview (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- 'Enforcer'...? What the...? Grow up. //roux 21:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just want to you to answer my question. Are you going to tag the other "Outline" projects, as you did in my case? Since you stated that you do not agree with the idea of an Outline of Knowledge. You have more influence on wikipedia than I do so you could do that. Burningview (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- 'Enforcer'...? What the...? Grow up. //roux 21:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- So, I'm speculating that you are an enforcer for a group of wikipedians, that do not like the "Outline" projects, which I believe is in the minority. Is the other "outline" projects next on your hitlist? I disagree with your position; it helps Wikipedia out In my opinion. Burningview (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Stubs
My bad sorry about that Rocknroll714 (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Readers...
...all browse content in different ways, roux. Some will use categories, others navboxes, etc. Some may enjoy these "Outline of" articles - who knows? I don't see how they can be harmful. However, if you truly believe they must be eliminated, I think an RFC would be a better way to go about that. best, –xenotalk 02:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Browsing differently, sure. And yes, I believe an RFC is required on this enormous (and impossible to maintain) duplication of extant articles, categories, and navboxes. Unfortunately I am far too busy with school to compile one, so as usual for Wikipedia nothing will be done. It's a shame to see people otherwise so energetic wasting so much time when they could be building content--another thing I do not unfortunately have much time for--but, well, it's WP. Plus ca change... //roux 06:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikibreak
I think I should as well, I keep on trying.. I'm going to ask for some admin's assistance in this. I need to try and focus on my 3D work.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Since a block is apparently out of the question, I'm using the wikibreak enforcer.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It's his own talk page
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think it's best we leave him alone about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Roux: you claim that my bias is "obvious"; I want to know what you imagine it is. (Others have placed me on both sides of this dispute, so I wonder which fallacy you've chosen.) If you think that people will be more apt to believe a message left by an indef-blocked user than they will be to believe that he's blocked for a good reason, then I disagree with your assessment of human nature. Who will even look at that page, and then become convinced that... what? All admins are scum? What are they going to do, get so mad they burn down Wikipedia? You have not answered the question about actual concrete harm being done; you've simply asserted without justification or explanation that I'm biased, and that his message will somehow be mistaken as gospel by some indeterminate "public"(?). -GTBacchus(talk) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
With the wording fixedI don't remember "Bstone"; I must not have been looking then. I've seen a lot of users banned, though, and I've seen a lot of talk pages left unprotected, despite the blocked user saying nonsense there. I guess I can try to dig up examples, if you like. You say that there's a "logical inconsistency" in letting a banned user complain on the one page left to them. I've got a degree in philosophy, and another in math. I think I know what a "logical inconsistency" looks like. This isn't one, unless a few other assumptions are added. (For example: exhausting the community patience does not imply that he'll never come back. We really do leave the door open a crack. We don't have to shut off his avenue of possibly saying, "what I did was wrong, and I'd like to come back and play by the rules.") If you'd like to break down the logic for me, I'll listen, but remember that I've got very high standards for logical proof. Can you present an airtight argument that "exhausting community patience" clearly implies "protect their talk page"? I don't buy at all that we expect talk page content to be "true and verifiable". I think we treat article space very differently form the rest of the project. We don't claim that statements on talk pages are all true. How on Earth could we have conversations with disagreements in them, if only the true statements are allowed to stand? You, being of sound mind, are entirely convinced that Doug is deceiving us, but I, being of sound mind - just as you are, am not. This is a point about which intelligent people may disagree, it turns out. I believe that Doug is operating honestly according to his honestly held beliefs. I think he's wrong about some stuff, but I don't think he's trying to deceive us. The behavior that we're not indulging is his doing a victory dance on the talk page of a desysopped editor. That's what he was blocked for, and we don't indulge that. On his talk page, he's not naming names, just saying that he was run off by abusive admins. He's welcome to believe that, in my book. I'm an admin, and I don't feel hurt by it. I'm comfortable with it. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The DR ladderI've posted a note at WP:WQA. I think a third person's perspective would be valuable here, and hopefully in line with your desire that I reflect on the situation. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
|
Thank you
For the revert of the personal attack.— Dædαlus Contribs 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. //roux 18:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XIX and XX
The WikiCup Newsletter (last week) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The WikiCup Newsletter (this week) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 22:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.
Bad faith nom or not, there are delete !voters there, early close is not appropriate. Let it run its course. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- As someone who voted in the discussion, you should not be either closing or reopening it. Please note that I said no issues with re-nominating, I wanted to generate a discussion without the continuation of the grudge by Damiens.rf. Please re-close and re-nom if you feel so strongly; I shall be re-closing it otherwise. //roux 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Don't be ridiculous, there are so many other opinions on that MfD the motives of the nom mean little. ViridaeTalk 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- No need to be rude. //roux 02:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Don't be ridiculous, there are so many other opinions on that MfD the motives of the nom mean little. ViridaeTalk 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
AfD
Your opinion would be appreciated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Rock (event). Fences&Windows 01:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
For the revert of the personal attack.— Dædαlus Contribs 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. //roux 18:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XIX and XX
The WikiCup Newsletter (last week) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The WikiCup Newsletter (this week) | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 22:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.
Bad faith nom or not, there are delete !voters there, early close is not appropriate. Let it run its course. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- As someone who voted in the discussion, you should not be either closing or reopening it. Please note that I said no issues with re-nominating, I wanted to generate a discussion without the continuation of the grudge by Damiens.rf. Please re-close and re-nom if you feel so strongly; I shall be re-closing it otherwise. //roux 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Don't be ridiculous, there are so many other opinions on that MfD the motives of the nom mean little. ViridaeTalk 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- No need to be rude. //roux 02:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Don't be ridiculous, there are so many other opinions on that MfD the motives of the nom mean little. ViridaeTalk 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
AfD
Your opinion would be appreciated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Rock (event). Fences&Windows 01:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Consensus at Talk:Bible translations by language
You made two edits[2][3] which are at odds with previous Talk consensus and a notice on the article's edit screen[4].
The consensus is discussed on the larger article's Talk page:
Following discussion on the 'Talk' page in June 2008, it is intended to split this article into separate articles, one per language, usually called "Bible translations (Language)" (substitute 'Language'). Eventually this article will reduce towards a list of pointers to such articles.
1. Starting a new language? Could you do so at such a page, please? The only change you would make to this page would be in the index immediately following. See, for instance, "Bible translations (Apache)".
2. Editing an existing language? Could you consider splitting it out into a separate article?
I've no intention of beginning an Edit war with you. It would be best for you to either correct your own actions or explain yourself on the relevant Talk page(s).--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have resplied. In addition, I suggest you revisit your combative attitude. "It would be best for you to either correct..." give me a break. Ask nicely next time, got it? //roux 21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XXI
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.
^_^
Come on IRC again sometime. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 17:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Meetare! Naa, I'm done with IRC and the petty tyrants who run the place. I do use MSN and Facebook though... //roux 17:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Meetare"? Lol, do you remember who I am? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously, Shappypants. I call lots of people 'mister'; you're 'MEEEEEEETAAAAARE!' :P //roux 18:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Meetare"? Lol, do you remember who I am? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
ACC
I don't wish to be annoying, but you account privs no longer include account creator. Without knowing why, how, whatever, you should probably change your userpage. I have no idea of the circumstances, but at least one person found that out (me). Just to point that out. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 19:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd forgotten it was on there, actually. Ta. //roux 19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Nicholas' arms
Why are they better on the right side of the page than the left? -- Evertype·✆ 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Three reasons: one, left-aligned images can cause ugly formatting issues depending on screen resolution, two, humans (who read L-R) find it easier to read when all text is aligned the same on the left (the opposite obtains for R-L scripts), three, MOS (which in many cases I abhor due to its general ignorance of basic design and layout principles) calls for images to 'face' the text (which is not a bad idea, so long as it doesn't mess with points one and two); the crest 'faces' left. //roux 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I like the last part. Nice that the bird looks inward. By the way I like the Daily Kitten. I have one on my own arms... -- Evertype·✆ 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- The daily kitten is from User:Raul654. Bonus points for using tenne in your (hopefully to be granted one day) arms; nobody uses it anymore. (Though there are some very weird Canadian arms involving copper, teal, and a shade I can only think of as puce). Question though, shouldn't your boar be ..langued gules as you are defining how he is armed and unguled? //roux 19:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- He changes every day? Squeeeeee! Tenné is important, actually, because I need orange to go with the green quill to highlight my connection with Ireland! Puce in arms? I shudder. Apparently there are rules that an animal's tongue need not be blazoned specifically if it is proper.. or if he is one of certain species, I forget. -- Evertype·✆ 19:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- On this last point I was reminded of a long discussion I had a year ago that I didn't want to dredge up just then because dinner had been set on the table. when I made the comment above. The rules for lions and some other are sometimes disputed. "It is not necessary to mention that a lion is 'armed and langued' in the blazon when tongue and claws are emblazoned in gules, but whenever any other colour is introduced for the purpose it is better that it should be specified" ((Fox-Davies & Brooke-Little p. 135); "The board, like the lion, is usually described as armed and langued, but this is not necessary when the tusks are represented in their own colour and when the tongue is gules. It will, however, be very frequently found that the tusks are or. The 'armed', however, does not include the hoofs, and if these are to be of any colour different from that of the animal, it must be blazoned 'unguled' of such and such a tincture" (ibid. p. 151). -- Evertype·✆ 13:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- He changes every day? Squeeeeee! Tenné is important, actually, because I need orange to go with the green quill to highlight my connection with Ireland! Puce in arms? I shudder. Apparently there are rules that an animal's tongue need not be blazoned specifically if it is proper.. or if he is one of certain species, I forget. -- Evertype·✆ 19:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- The daily kitten is from User:Raul654. Bonus points for using tenne in your (hopefully to be granted one day) arms; nobody uses it anymore. (Though there are some very weird Canadian arms involving copper, teal, and a shade I can only think of as puce). Question though, shouldn't your boar be ..langued gules as you are defining how he is armed and unguled? //roux 19:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I like the last part. Nice that the bird looks inward. By the way I like the Daily Kitten. I have one on my own arms... -- Evertype·✆ 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
RE: BOO
Wah! I do, I'll email you the address if you like.
Sure thing, doing now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm well - a little worried over exam results but they're not until the start of August and there's nothing I can do to change them now :) As for the summer - it's ridiculously hot here too. I think today in London it was 29'C at times and we got something close to 21. Now for a Scotsman that's like being on an open fire with a snowsuit on. :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, exams were in May, we get the results in August... unfortunately I'll be in Denmark then so the wait will be even longer :/ I've lived in Australia before - I know heat :P I remember when we got off the plane (in January might I add) it was 40+ and it was like hitting a wall. I mean, from 1 under to 40 over... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Cool is the word ;) Haha, never been to USA full stop so can imagine the shock... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's me off for the night so... good night :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Cool is the word ;) Haha, never been to USA full stop so can imagine the shock... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, exams were in May, we get the results in August... unfortunately I'll be in Denmark then so the wait will be even longer :/ I've lived in Australia before - I know heat :P I remember when we got off the plane (in January might I add) it was 40+ and it was like hitting a wall. I mean, from 1 under to 40 over... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Peer review limits
The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well I didn't much see the point of adding one, waiting 24h, and adding the other. Seemed like a bit of a waste of time. Thanks though. → ROUX ₪ 04:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed the "except for Roux" section in the PR instructions ;-) Seriously, there are over 20 peer reviews in the backlog and have been for several days - spreading them out in time helps reduce the backlog. Both articles are similar in topic (Canadian heraldry) and seem unlikely to attract two different reviewers on the same day anyway - hope I'm wrong on that. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm aware.. but again: there's not a lot of difference doing it both at once or adding one yesterday and one today; at the end of 24 hours both articles are still there. If I were putting three or four up, I'd understand the concern. → ROUX ₪ 12:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed the "except for Roux" section in the PR instructions ;-) Seriously, there are over 20 peer reviews in the backlog and have been for several days - spreading them out in time helps reduce the backlog. Both articles are similar in topic (Canadian heraldry) and seem unlikely to attract two different reviewers on the same day anyway - hope I'm wrong on that. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Verifiability
(I'd rather talk to you personally.) WP:NONENG is part of WP:V? You'll actually have a source for whatever you're trying to say - the original. We normally don't have any problem when translating articles as to requiring sources that confirm the translation is correct. I mean, there are lots of pages translated from other-language Wikipedias. Are you sure you're not misinterpreting this? I mean, I've done work translating pages from German to English, and there you've got to credit the page you took it from (for plagurism purposes) but you don't need a source saying your translation's correct. WP:TRANSLATE flies against this. I think you've got it wrong. We can get a 3O on this as it's just a policy point if you want (not a heraldry one). Take this example, just so we're clear:
If the German text said (in German) "The coat of arms is ermine.[1]" with a German ref, then you could have the English page say "The coat of arms is ermine.[1] and use the same source. That way, it's verifiable, albeit with a foreign language source, which is as we know, not preferred but allowed. No ref need for the translation itself. Am I mistaken? - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 14:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, you can throw out the word "translation". If you use my earlier example, the German State Constitution defines the coat of arms of Lower Saxony. All we have to do is to say "The coat of arms of Lower Saxony shows [this]" and then use the original law as a foreign-language source. Simples. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 14:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- No no, I guess I didn't write clearly. What I meant was that WP:V trumps every other policy, modulated slightly by consensus, and subject to BLP concerns. That we allow amateur translations of often complex text is worrisome. → ROUX ₪ 14:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think I see. I think when you said "This translation must be cited to a reliable source", you didn't mean a source that said it was a correct translation, just one that backed up its meaning, like "The coat of arms is ermine.[1]" - where the source said something like "The coat of arms is ermine" in a foreign language. Have I got you right this time? - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, your change in proposal doesn't reflect that view. If you're happy to go with my amendment to your version of my proposal, good. I've had hour after hour of this. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 15:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Something like that, yes. But we should be conservative; "The coat of arms is ermine" (in German) hey that rhymes should not be translated as erminois, because then that requires further explanation. And while yes the meaning is the same, it's (as you pointed out) unnecessarily technical to do so, particularly when there is no source stating such. In an ideal world, there should be a sourced translation--as in someone else (an expert) translated the original text. If there isn't one, the translation provided by an editor should be as literally word-for-word as possible while still remaining grammatically correct English, so as to avoid any concerns about interpretation. The change to the proposal is not what I actually want--all material on Wikipedia should be sourced, and translations doubly so because of the potential for errors, POV-pushing, etc--but it was as close as I could get to E's desire to throw unverifiable information into any article about foreign-language coats of arms as I could without compromising how desperately we need to improve sourcing across the entire project. → ROUX ₪ 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- No no, I guess I didn't write clearly. What I meant was that WP:V trumps every other policy, modulated slightly by consensus, and subject to BLP concerns. That we allow amateur translations of often complex text is worrisome. → ROUX ₪ 14:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XXII
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 21:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Nothing important, just...
...thank you! You truly intend to have a positive relationship with me. I was criticizing one of your comments (with no intention to write anything) when I saw a sentence which immediately changed my mind. Again, thank you. It's not important what I am talking about; it just means a lot to me. Good luck! :) Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Pursuivant barnstar
LMAO! I love it! So you want to fix it up to provide a grant of arms text like that and subst the recipient's username into it? Way to raise the bar Roux! That's sure to put a smile on any heraldry buff's face. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Style guide for foreign blazons
I just want to thank you for your invaluable contributions to the discussion at WT:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Style guide for foreign blazons. Even when consensus seems impossible, it is the contributions of all of us that keeps the discussion moving forward, and as long as we all keep WP:COOL and stay on task, consensus is almost inevitable. Each of us has helped to keep this discussion more collegial than most and yield a high quality result. I have little doubt that whatever style guide we end up with will be a fair-minded, comprehensive guide that will serve our editors (and more importantly, our readers) well. At this point, we each agree on some points and disagree on other points with one another, but we all agree on our interest passion for the topic and our esteem of the history and traditions of heraldry, including the rules of blazonry. I would like to ask each of you to consider the particular relevance of systemic bias on this discussion, since we are crafting a style guide specifically for dealing with interlingual/international sources. In view of the historical and linguistic background of English and French heraldry, I think it may be the most appropriate solution to recommend Anglo-Norman blazons for French, British, Irish, Canadian, American, Australian, New Zealand and South African coat armory (other than French, most of these are likely provided in Anglo-Norman in published sources anyway), while recommending Modern English plaintext translations of other blazons. The point of emphasis is that these should be translations of verifiable blazons, not "sight blazons". If we all agree on that point, that is one more step toward consensus, but if you have any genuine reservations, I would love to hear them. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hope we can keep the discussion moving forward. I don't think there is all that much that we really disagree on, but you seem to be so hung up on a particular worry over WP:OR that I don't see you even trying to discuss anything else. I think we should all remember that we are only writing a mere style guide - something to give editors some direction in how to present foreign language blazons in a way that is clear, concise, and consistent - and we should let WP:OR cover OR and WP:V cover verifiability. I'm really not at all concerned with our style guide ensuring compliance with policies. That's not what a style guide is. Its purpose is to recommend a method for presenting the information in a cohesive style. Nothing more. Let's let policy be policy and get back to writing a style guide. I don't disagree with you at all about the importance of verifiability (or WP's shortcomings in practice), but that is something to be discussed at WT:Verifiability, not at our style guide discussion. Do you see how Quixotic this verifiability crusade of yours is becoming? I'm sorry if any of that came across as less than civil. I don't mean it in any other way than as one friend and peer to another. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but it makes no sense to have a style guide that explicitly contravenes V and OR. → ROUX ₪ 07:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have not seen anything in that discussion that specifically contravenes policy. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but it makes no sense to have a style guide that explicitly contravenes V and OR. → ROUX ₪ 07:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Best of luck
Pity, but I'm not going to argue with you if that's how you feel. Best of luck with whatever else you choose to do. Maybe in six months you could reconsider, but at least until then... - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 09:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- The history is such that no, six months will not make a difference. → ROUX ₪ 18:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't
Roux, please don't do this. I really do value your contributions to the project, I just disagree with you on the relevance of WP:OR to Anglo-Norman blazons to the exclusion of all other blazons. That's hardly a breaking issue in my thinking. Please, take a wikibreak, blow off some steam, and I will try to hold off the discussion and await your return before declaring any premature consensus. We do need you, we just need to find a way to get over this one sticking point. Please, for goodness' sake, don't leave the project. You're far too good an editor to be pushed aside over this one little issue. I hope you didn't take any of my comments as a personal attack, and please don't be too put off by Evertype's comments. Some of them were a bit harsh, as were some of yours. Just go, take a break, and I really hope you will always feel welcome to come back and contribute more. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes Roux can speak for himself, but I think a) we should let people make up their own minds and b) it's not just that - recurring problems with another editor in another subject that I'm not going to mention. Real life has to take priority, let people do what they will. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I will let Roux make up his own mind, but I really don't want him to go away feeling unwanted or excluded. I suspected there was more to it than that discussion (there usually is), but I can't just watch him leave the project without saying anything. I've seen some of his valuable H&V contributions and I have no doubt there is much more where that came from, once he has had a chance to recharge his batteries. I just hope he's not gone for good. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have left WP:WPHV, not Wikipedia. Evertype's insults have proved that I am not wanted there, so you lot can carry on amongst yourselves. For myself, I shall do very odd things like using sources and not engaging in original research or misleading readers into believing that random translations are authoritative. I don't particularly understand what the objection to using sources is, but since you lot appear to be happy to enshrine it in the WPHV style guidelines, I have zero interest in participating. → ROUX ₪ 18:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I will let Roux make up his own mind, but I really don't want him to go away feeling unwanted or excluded. I suspected there was more to it than that discussion (there usually is), but I can't just watch him leave the project without saying anything. I've seen some of his valuable H&V contributions and I have no doubt there is much more where that came from, once he has had a chance to recharge his batteries. I just hope he's not gone for good. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
What?!
We've had so much quarells over that article! You can't leave now when we managed to co-work! Who is going to fix my grammar? :) Anyway, I haven't noticed his contributions to the article. The page history doesn't contain his edits. How is he becoming involved? Surtsicna (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- He has become involved on the talkpage. Seeing as talkpages are where most of his insanity occurs, I cannot sit here waiting, knowing he's going to start it up all over again. → ROUX ₪ 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Look, I understand your concerns for the user. I know that I should NOT have behaved in that way but, after a series of bad days, I was unable to control my actions. I have, of course, apologised to the user- in person- and wish to apologise to wikipedia in its entirety. I do hope that my actions are forgiven by you and the wiki community. I am sorry for wasting your time. Now I must contemplate what to do about my page that is up for deletion... --Jefuab (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)