| Revision as of 05:34, 15 August 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,942 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Ca2james/Archive 2) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:55, 16 August 2015 edit undoOllie231213 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,829 edits →More organised discussion needed: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
| :{{u|Ricky8168}}, thanks for making those changes. I've reverted one of the editors who reverted your changes and will keep an eye on the page. I'd like to avoid a fight on this issue but sadly, I don't think that's going to happen. I wish ArbCom hadn't the discretionary sanctions in this project area. I'm going to start work on ]. ] (]) 01:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC) | :{{u|Ricky8168}}, thanks for making those changes. I've reverted one of the editors who reverted your changes and will keep an eye on the page. I'd like to avoid a fight on this issue but sadly, I don't think that's going to happen. I wish ArbCom hadn't the discretionary sanctions in this project area. I'm going to start work on ]. ] (]) 01:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :: Reverted. Admins agree that you're wrong <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | :: Reverted. Admins agree that you're wrong <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| == More organised discussion needed == | |||
| James, | |||
| I feel that a more organised discussion about the issues surrounding the WOP project and the solutions to them is needed. Currently it's a manic free-for-all which has lead to edit-warring and people being potentially topic banned. I also feel the need to clear up a few misconceptions that other editors have about the goal that I and others have when it comes to editing these articles. I'm not pro-GRG, I'm pro-age validation. There's a difference. I think it's important that a scientific subject is treated with a high level of consideration for factual accuracy. Some of the current proposals - such as to create lists of the oldest people with a mixture of verified and unverified cases - is like mixing information about evolution and creationism. | |||
| I understand that your viewpoints are different, so I think the best thing is to try and form compromises which are in-line with Wiki policy. For example, I think ], as it currently is, is fine even if the "pending" and "unverified" cases are mixed because then it's at least clear to the reader that "these cases are considered genuine by a major international body" and "these cases are only claims and have not been verified". I don't think that's much to ask. | |||
| I'm also going to propose that we remove some rather unnecessary list articles like ] and trim down certain other lists to "top 100 oldest" or whatever. | |||
| In the meantime, I think everyone should take a brief "cool down period" and resume discussing these issues in a more organised manner. | |||
| --] (]) 00:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:55, 16 August 2015
| [REDACTED] | This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ca2james. |
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Abuse of Coin
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks,
Proposal
Are you open to collaborating with me to improve the following article: Peter_Wilmshurst? Atsme 22:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sure! I'm unfamiliar with him so I'll need to do some research, but I'd be happy to work with you to improve the article. Just one thing: if we disagree on something, can we both agree to try to see where the other is coming from and to work to find some way forward? Ca2james (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would have been agreeable and was actually looking forward to such a collaboration but your behavior on Kombucha has given me a change of heart. Can't say I didn't try. And please spare me the BS about over and over and over because it works both ways. I wouldn't have to repeat myself if others would simply WP:HEAR. Atsme 14:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have addressed the statements you made at Kombucha several times but you continue dismiss my explanations as if I'd said nothing; instead of refuting mine or others' responses, you keep repeating your statrements (which is pretty much the definition of WP:IDHT). I asked above that we agree to try to see each other's viewpoints when we disagree, and since it appears that you're unwilling to do that, I'm not open to working with you on Peter Wilmshurst. Good luck with the article. Ca2james (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would have been agreeable and was actually looking forward to such a collaboration but your behavior on Kombucha has given me a change of heart. Can't say I didn't try. And please spare me the BS about over and over and over because it works both ways. I wouldn't have to repeat myself if others would simply WP:HEAR. Atsme 14:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
My RfA
|
Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) |
- Thanks, Rich! When I'm back to eating solid food (I'm sick right now), I'll enjoy it. I hope that you're able to get those restrictions lifted because then it will be easier for me and others to support your next RfA. Good luck! Ca2james (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of forestry journals
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of forestry journals. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Amy Hughes
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Amy Hughes. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The Pirate Bay
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Pirate Bay. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject World's Oldest People
I suggest picking an article and starting on that. I'm starting on List of oldest living people as I imagine that would be the center of the firestorm (pending cases must be removed and merging the "other cases" with other reliable sources that aren't verified by the GRG is everything at once). Most of those editors won't care about what RSN or anything here says and I suspect this won't be resolved until we go back to ARBCOM and get serious procedures to work with, and the ability to sanction with teeth as every discussion and report at ANI and other places ends up a madhouse of arguments about how amazing the GRG is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ricky8168, thanks for making those changes. I've reverted one of the editors who reverted your changes and will keep an eye on the page. I'd like to avoid a fight on this issue but sadly, I don't think that's going to happen. I wish ArbCom hadn't rescinded the discretionary sanctions in this project area. I'm going to start work on List of supercentenarians who died in 2015. Ca2james (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Reverted. Admins agree that you're wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
More organised discussion needed
James,
I feel that a more organised discussion about the issues surrounding the WOP project and the solutions to them is needed. Currently it's a manic free-for-all which has lead to edit-warring and people being potentially topic banned. I also feel the need to clear up a few misconceptions that other editors have about the goal that I and others have when it comes to editing these articles. I'm not pro-GRG, I'm pro-age validation. There's a difference. I think it's important that a scientific subject is treated with a high level of consideration for factual accuracy. Some of the current proposals - such as to create lists of the oldest people with a mixture of verified and unverified cases - is like mixing information about evolution and creationism.
I understand that your viewpoints are different, so I think the best thing is to try and form compromises which are in-line with Wiki policy. For example, I think List of oldest living people, as it currently is, is fine even if the "pending" and "unverified" cases are mixed because then it's at least clear to the reader that "these cases are considered genuine by a major international body" and "these cases are only claims and have not been verified". I don't think that's much to ask.
I'm also going to propose that we remove some rather unnecessary list articles like List of supercentenarians who died in 2015 and trim down certain other lists to "top 100 oldest" or whatever.
In the meantime, I think everyone should take a brief "cool down period" and resume discussing these issues in a more organised manner.