Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:19, 21 February 2024

This page was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

Welcome!

Hello, Z80Spectrum, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Misplaced Pages articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Misplaced Pages also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome!  Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

ZX Spectrum graphics

Involved in DRN: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Article talk pages should be archived. The good-faith assumption is that you didn't understand when you turned off ClueBot. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if the post above is a question, or an automated post, but I'll try to "answer" in case it is a question.

I have nothing against archiving, but only certain topics. The other editor has explained to me that the ClueBot III is going to AUTOMATICALLY archieve certain post. I then disabled ClueBot III, because it is my opinion that an agreement should be reached first about the list of topics that need archiving. I outlined on the talk page my preferences about the list. I think I have already posted virtually indetical arguments here . Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Z80Spectrum

User:Z80Spectrum, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Z80Spectrum and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Z80Spectrum during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification for file deletions on Wikimedia Commons

{{subst:Wrong license note|Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parrot-with-gradient.png}} Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Accusations and article talk pages

Here you said But you haven't read it, you just rushed in and produced a flood of irrelevant policies in defense of an established editor. No part of that sentence is true, but even if it were true it is not a good use of the article talk page. Please revise or strike the accusation that I am blindly defending anyone.

More generally, I don't see any indication that the other two editors who have replied recently are the least bit confused about the situation. It honestly reads like you are assuming they must be confused because you dislike the answer you received.

Regarding my involvement that section, I've made myself as clear as I know how. Ultimately, I am under no obligation to satisfy you with the answer I provided, and I don't see that further replies regarding those other two sections are going to benefit anyone. I suggest you move on, but in any case please do not ping me again in that section of the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

As you wish. I'm a newbie, so feel free to ignore my pings if I accidentaly ping you.

From my perspective, we can continue that discussion, I don't see why not, if you produce an answer to my question. I don't feel offended. But, if you don't want to, that is OK. Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you are confused again. The text you quoted (green bolded part) wasn't directed against you, but against the replies of Dionysius Miller and Nick Moyes. It is quite obvious. Z80Spectrum (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow, I struggle to think of a worse way to say "Sorry for the accidental @, that wasn't meant to be addressed to you even though I addressed it to you" than "I see that you are confused again." How else did you expect the string "@username" to be interpreted? That's certainly not a Misplaced Pages-unique facet of online communication. WP:CIVIL is policy, FYI. Regardless, my feedback remains the same. I don't see anyone rushing to defend me, I see an outcome that is obvious to everyone except yourself. VQuakr (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly is the meaning of "@" symbol here on WIkipedia. I used the editor user interface, which automatically inserts the "@" symbol. I do understand that you get a ping when the "@" symbol is used, and I did want you to read my reply.

If I was wrong to add the "@" symbol, then I do appologize to you.

The text of the contended paragraph is clear: it is not directed at you, because it is impossible that you didn't read your own WP:SYNTH objection. Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

UGC

Please do not add content cited to blogs and wikis, as you did on Brainfuck. Per WP:UGC, these things are not considered reliable sources on Misplaced Pages. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know that Wikis are not acceptable.

However, you have also removed the source "Morr, Sebastian. "Esoteric Programming Languages." (2015).", which seems to be reliable and well-cited. I copied that source from Esoteric programming language article. So, please, bring back that source and the related citation reference. Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If there was a reliable source mixed in with all the UGC sources in your changes, feel free to go ahead and add it back in. I don't feel like spending the time to analyze all your changes to do it myself. CodeTalker (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines vs. ZX Spectrum graphic modes

I invite @Paradoctor to this discussion, which is a reply to he made.

1. (minor issue) Paradoctor said: That the article split suggestion was reverted together with the rest was infelicitous, but understandable in context. - - - More precise would be: "That the article split suggestion was deleted together with the rest was infelicitous, but understandable in context.". By the way, it took me one month and over 50 posts of arguing to revert that "infelicitous" delete. Just the fact that noone reverted it earlier is, IMO, sufficient to report a few involved editors to WP:ANI. But I didn't do it, I attempted to discuss.
2. (minor issue) Paradoctor said: Dionysius Miller did agree with you that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages.. - - - Well, he said that he agrees, but the rest of his paragraph clearly indicates that he doesn't really agree.
3. (major issue) Paradoctor said: The proper rationale for the removal of the contentious material is quite simply WP:NOTFORUM (policy) / WP:TALK#TOPIC (guideline). Original research, when discussed on talk, is offtopic, as it is general conversation about the article's subject. So citing WP:OR as reason, while technically incorrect, is absolutely in keeping with the spirit of the talk page rules.

So, basically we have to discuss the issue no. 3.

• a) I beleive that your understanding of WP:NOTFORUM (policy) is incorrect. For better understanding, please re-read it.
• b) I beleive that your understanding of WP:TALK#TOPIC (guideline) is incorrect. For better understanding, please re-read it.
• c) I think we should first concentrate on discussing WP:OR.

About WP:OR. It clearly states: This policy does not apply to talk pages . How much more explicit do you want it to be? Besides that, your interpretation is against the spirit of Misplaced Pages rules, because of the following: if talk page material is allowed to be removed because it is allegedly WP:OR, then it becomes hard to discuss whether it in fact is WP:OR or not. So, the poster gets caught in a problem of circular definition of Misplaced Pages rules.

The essential and central problem of all Misplaced Pages rules, and especially ones on the WP:TPG is: the rules are circular, vague and imprecise. This allows experienced editors to "hammer down" newcomers, because it allows them to re-interpret the vague rules of Misplaced Pages. As a consequence, Misplaced Pages is not really guided by any rules, but by groups of people who interpret the rules as they please, and against the stated spirit of Misplaced Pages.

Besides, weren't you in a camp that was against deleting posts unless they are terribly against the rules? But now, you are suddenly singing a different song. How come? Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Telling someone "please re-read it" isn't a helpful way to present your case, it is far more likely to annoy than to make progress. A quote of the section that you think needs further clarification would be much better.

Re your mention at : WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:IMAGEOR are all sections of the same policy. The diff you linked was specifically about synthesis of images being used or considered for use in article space. I oppose their use in the article, not their mere mention in talk space. Your accusation about applying those policies to talk page material is inaccurate. More generally, the purpose of talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article. Extended sections that are based on original research are pointless since they can't be used for article content. Noting this does not mean someone is applying WP:OR to a talk page. VQuakr (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I'll skip your first point, for the time being, just to shorten the answer.

VQuakr said: I oppose their use in the article, not their mere mention in talk space. Your accusation about applying those policies to talk page material is inaccurate..

However, the | entire topic is about the talk page content that was deleted, not about article content. We can't discuss article content before talk page content is restored. You are right that you didn't explicitly say whether you are talking about talk page material or about article content. So, you got me confused about that, so I asked you 4 times in a row to clarify what you mean, but you refused. You could have clarified it earler, why did you wait until now? So now you claim that you didn't explicitly said it. Well, true, but it doesn't look like a fair discussion to me. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

So I asked you 4 times in a row... you got a very clear answer, you just didn't like it. Big difference, and I don't appreciate the accusation that I somehow am telling you anything different now than I did then. To repeat (yet again!) my original reply in that section: I think those conversations are moot, since they are discussions about "simulating output" in a way that isn't compatible with WP:SYNTH. There is therefore no article content to discuss. VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you that you are telling something different now than before. In fact, it is my view that you also got confused, as I have stated in this post.

The problem is that you refused to clarify what you mean, which ruined the entire discussion. That was not nice of you, and neither is your accusation now that "I didn't like it", and a similar accusation that you made before. The truth is that you were not clear about what you mean, and you refused to clarify when explicitly asked.

Also, about your claim "Your accusation about applying those policies to talk page material is inaccurate.", well, that accusation is about people CONFUSING policies that apply only to articles, with policies that should apply to talk pages. So, perhaps you were thinking about article content, but you made it look very confusing, even after several attempts of mine to clear it up. In that sense, my example on WP:TPG is right on the spot. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that you refused to clarify... no, that's not true either. Since you can't seem to get through the first sentence without spouting easily-disproved untruths, your opinion on whether I or anyone else is confused or not isn't worth the electrons inconvenienced to express it. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to explain it in a simpler way. The situation that Misplaced Pages is facing is much like the Orwell's Animal Farm.

In Animal Farm, the animals start with a clear and nice constitution. But, over the time, the constitution gets perverted by apparetntly small changes of text, which, in effect, turn every rule of the constitution into the exact opposite.

Well, that's what is happening on Misplaced Pages. To solve the situation, you must not only think in terms of current rules and their ambigous wording, but in terms of the overall effect that they will have on Misplaced Pages.

I mean, really, if WP:OR is banned from talk pages, how can any substantial argument be made there? If Misplaced Pages continues on such a path, eventually it will require all additions to talk pages to also be cited and from "reliable sources". How is that in accordance with the original spirit of Misplaced Pages?

I was just trying to improve quality of images on ZX Spectrum graphic modes page, a completely irrelevant page, and I got hammered down immediately with a flood of suspicious rules. It's that simple. Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot to ping @Paradoctor, the previous comment of mine was mainly addressing him. Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR is banned from talk pages, how can any substantial argument be made there?

WP:OR: Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research. On Misplaced Pages, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.

There is nothing to discuss. OR doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages.

The only thing that may occasionally be legitimate to discuss is whether some text is OR or not. But that is then a a question about whether the published source the text comes from is reliable, i. e. source criticism.

There is no such question in your case, as what you wrote is not even from a published source. Paradoctor (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I am talking about drawing precise limits: how many grains make a heap?

If every argument on talk pages is branded as WP:OR, even things so simple that they may be WP:CALC, then how can any substantial argument be made on talk pages without being immediately deleted?

Talk pages are for discussions, and all discussions necessarily involve some amount of original research, as a part of the argument. Are we going to draw the line so strict that any substantial argument is going to be branded as WP:OR or WP:NOTFORUM or WP:TALK#TOPIC? Even when WP:OR explicitly says otherwise, and even when my reading of WP:TALK is the opposite of yours (I can explain it in detail, but I'm cutting it for brevity). Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I really don't think that poll has any chance of success as a consensus building tool; too convoluted. Please expedite striking your characterization of my position as what you wrote isn't accurate. More generally, we're not a rule-based organization and it isn't realistic that our policies and guidelines will contain precise examples of every possible situation. VQuakr (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that what I wrote is an accurate summary of your position. If you like, I suggest that you write your summary, in case that I misrepresented you.

I think that the poll is very necessary, and that the results will be very helpful. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If every argument on talk pages is branded as WP:OR I have explained to you twice now that citing WP:OR alone as a reason for removal, while technically insufficient, is substantially correct, because discussing OR on talk automatically violates WP:TALK#TOPIC.

all discussions necessarily involve some amount of original research Flat out wrong. Discussing whether a source is reliable is not WP:OR. Discussing how, or if, this or that policy or guideline applies to an edit is not OR.

WP:NOR makes OR easy to identify: Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. What is not explicitly stated is that the material is intended to influence article content. Therefore, an editor who, say, is gathering evidence about the edits of a problem user is not doing original research, even if their work is not a reliable source for article content. Paradoctor (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation.

As I understand you now, your opinion is that my posts did not violate WP:OR, but other editors quoted WP:OR instead of quoting WP:TALK#TOPIC as rationales for deleting talk page material that I wrote. In my opinion, that is still the evidence of confusion, and the reason more to clarify WP:TPO. That is why my examples on talk page of WP:TPG are valid, and that is why I initially opened this topic on my talk page.

You said: citing WP:OR alone as a reason for removal, while technically insufficient, is substantially correct, because discussing OR on talk automatically violates WP:TALK#TOPIC..

I beg to differ substantially.

First. I can find no support of your claim in any Misplaced Pages policy. I think that your interpretation is not only mistaken, but also baseless. I think that WP:TALK#TOPIC together with WP:OR clearly supports an interpretation opposite of yours.

Second. WP:TALK#topic states in entirety:

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archiving or removal.

I interpret it as following: and that I wrote are in the perfect harmony with the quoted WP:TALK#TOPIC. They are discussing how to improve the article, more precisely, how to improve the quality of the article's images. The quality of images cannot be improved if the methods of generating the article's images cannot be discussed on the article's talk page.

The deleted discussion is not a discussion about articles subject (the subject are the graphics modes), but about article content (images in the article are content).

Frankly, I can't see your side of the argument at all. You will have to explain it to me in more detail. I think you are completely mistaken. Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Vote on WP:TPG (about "delete" action justifications)

I invite everybody interested in the problem of talk page material deletions to vote on the poll here.

@User:Robert McClenon Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)