User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Born2cycle. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

I thought you’d be interested in this:

Number of daily hits at Talk:Yoghurt in November: a median value of about 25

Number of daily hits at Talk:Yoghurt so far in December: a median value of 288.

There is interest in the precedent being made there. Greg L (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I think half of those are from me. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the stats here.

• Number of edits in December so far: 387
• Highest number of edits in a full month: 373 (May 2007)
• Top 50 editors:

1. Born2cycle (291 edits)
2. Danielfolsom (112)
3. Ka445 (108)
4. Derek Ross (101)

(for comparison I'm in joint 27th place with 16 edits). If you had opted in, then stats at [1] would show whether talk:Yoghurt was in your top 5 most edited pages for the talk:namespace. You don't have to opt in, and I'm not asking you to, I'm just letting you know stats would be available there if you are interested. It does show that you're most frequently contributed to namespace is talk (39% of edits), but your graph is actually quite balanced. Must more than mine [2] (4.74% talk, my most contributed to talk page is [[talk:List of London Underground Stations with 26 edits]). Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My efforts paid off. It wasn't easy, and did take a lot of talk page discussion to accomplish, but that issue is finally resolved. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Central Notices. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Since I asked you to comment on your revert you have comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles so I guess that you missed it. Please see the first section on the talk page called "Ambiguous or inaccurate" -- PBS (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

But if I did you'd get one for this. I sincerely appreciate the principled consistency on your part, even when the result is an inconsistency in titling. I don't think the world is ready for another yogurt fight. 28bytes (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Like And thanks. I'm a big proponent of principle-based consistency (assuming the principles are good ones!). That, by the way, is why I support Ron Paul for President of the United States. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I was glancing at some of the RMs on the bottom of the RM log and it's now pretty obvious why you started the discussion about non-admin closures at WT:RM. I sympathise with being reverted simply because you're not an admin, especially when that particular discussion is clearly "no consensus", leaning "not moved". Anyway, eventually an admin will come along and close it and it's a near certainty that the close will be the same as yours, so the end result will be the same. I still don't feel the guidelines about NACs should be changed – instead editors need to be educated that reverting a closure only because it was from a non-admin is counter-productive. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it; thanks for letting me know. How better to educate editors that "reverting a closure only because it was from a non-admin is counter-productive" than to explicitly say so in the WP:RM instruction section about non-admin closures? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be OK with adding something along the lines of "non-admin closures should not be reverted only because they are from a non-admin" to the guideline. But I still feel that someone makes a NAC and someone else reverts saying "I think you misread the consensus", then it should be left to an admin to close. Jenks24 (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, a controversial read of consensus should definitely go to an admin. Been there, done that. ;-) --Born2cycle (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help with my block. User:Dolovis gave me a “Purple Star” here on my talk page to help make my owie feel better. Greg L (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Marchmont Observatory. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is open again. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Portal talk:Current events/Sports. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember. Looking at it afresh, I would suggest that both forms of recognizability are valuable, but that unnecessary disambiguation rarely - not never - helps with either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Recognizability to experts would, for example, lead to using Latin names for species; biologists will all know them. Do you, in particular, want to go there? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course I don't want to go there, but that's exactly why it says those familiar (and not necessarily expert)... --Born2cycle (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's let people speak for themselves, instead of you stacking the argument with selected quotes. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

They already spoke for themselves... it's disruptive and rude to make everyone comment on the same issue/question again less than 24 hours after they just commented. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. I started the RFC to follow up on the suggestion of having a bit of deliberation. Selecting quotes out of an argument is in no way going to help that process. And there's no rush. They can comment tomorrow, or after Christmas, or not at all. Not everyone is on your time scale. Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Normal practice is to put the rfc template at the top of an existing discussion, if discussion is already ongoing. You chose to start a new section with a new discussion, thus requiring everyone who already commented to comment again in order to be part of that rfc discussion. That's disruptive and unfair. I rectified the error. No problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The was no error. The existing discussion needed to be set aside so we could have a proper RFC. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Why did it have to be set aside? It was active and ongoing, and had about a dozen participants already. You use the rfc tag to bring in more people. The only reason to put it aside is if it's not going your way. In fact, if you agree, we can still delete the new section and put the rfc template on the original discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It was way too nasty and hasty to get to a point. Nobody was listening. You apparently concluded the same yourself when you decided to hide part of it. It wasn't clear what the options were, what the reasons were for the change before, who had some considerations to advance, etc., due to the huge pile of rushed text including your own 24 posts, from before anyone had a chance to even know what issues to examine. By starting a new RFC and inviting deliberative comments on the options I had hoped that we could end up exposing the issues and talking about them. But you've stacked it with old reactions, making that impossible. So I despair of a chance for a production RFC if you don't back off and retract your speaking for others. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, just in case, I'm notifying each of the editors I quoted on their talk pages. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We're going around in circles. The earlier discussion had a noisy irrelevant part, but that was rectified by hiding it, which is also standard practice. What remains is mostly constructive commentary. All the editors I quoted have all been notified and invited to edit/delete whatever. My previous points stand about it being rude and disruptive to require them to comment again. It's ridiculous that this even has to be discussed, the standard practice being so obvious from the earliest days of WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

So let's break the circle. Noetica has now reverted again your insertion of your "best of" selections of others into the RFC section. Let them speak for themselves. And he restored the text you hid, since you selected your favorite part to keep there, too (a part where you had previously noted that "This section is now something like three pages long, and none of you three who are reverting the change have said a single substantive thing about the change" so it's unlikely you kept it for its substantive comments (nobody had had a chance to make any substantive comments yet, pretty much, since we were still objecting to your unilateral pushy process). And then you quoted some of the most outrageous and non-responsive comments, like "It is ridiculous to suggest that titles need to be recognisable to those totally unfamiliar with the subject." Yes, that would be ridiculous, but nobody has made any such suggestion. If you look at the discussion that led to the change, it was fairly rational; sure the result is questionable, so let's question it, not just keep ranting to get our way. Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I welcome rational discourse there. Noetica in particular just blathered another whole big paragraph of nothing relevant to the discussion. Instead of chastising for not asking questions, how about answering the questions I do ask (like those I posed at the bottom of the page after DGG's long comment)?

I hid as big a section as I could without hiding anything substantive. I did not intentionally leave anything out. I suppose I could have gone through and make smaller hides too, but, frankly, I didn't think of that. Would you, Tony and Noetica agree to keep all the irrelevant cruft hidden if we did that? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed compromise on the quoting issue: "Kotniski said, "We don't expect titles to be recognizable to people who have no familiarity with the subject at all". EdChem said, "..." PBS said, "..." Kai445 said, "..." So I think they supported this. Signed, Born2Cycle [time date]". Born2Cycle gets to quote other editors, and others wouldn't ordinarily object to being quoted in a way that doesn't look as if they are repeating their previous opinion. Any objections? Art LaPella (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be much better than inserting the selected and refactored quotes under the signatures of others. But what's the rush? Give them a day or two, and if they fail to come in with some thoughts, and B2C still feels a need to shore up his position, he can quote them at that time. His process is just too abusive of the attempt at a neutral RFC. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's great that you have attempted to solve this, Art. But I think the discussion is beyond redemption, like most discussions at that talkpage. RFCs should not be exercises in leveraging opinion to one's own ends; they should be about open, fresh consideration of issues that were not resolved by other means. We've seen some excellent examples like that at WT:MOS, where the climate has improved dramatically. WT:TITLE is way too chaotic and ideology-driven. It has not caught up or matured. Now, I know you like to find parallels and equalities when such an observation is made. I know that MOS has had problems, and that many will surely persist. But we have nothing like this sort of zealotry there nowadays. People have come to see the virtue of patience, balance, and true compromise. Let's hope that attitude spreads.

(Do people have lives, beyond all this? I have to get on with mine.)

Noetica^Tea? 03:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. I started the discussion on this topic. Dozens have participated, and then one of these guys, who didn't like the way it was going, decided to make it an rfc. But instead of marking the existing discussion with the rfc template, they conveniently started a new section, apparently to divert attention from the discussion going contrary to their views. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My RFC specifically called attention to that out-of-control discussion in which it was impossible to discern that the issues were. I made it a subsection specifically to keep it with that discussion. You're the one who started selectively hiding parts of the prior discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it really considered abusive to quote others on a talk page? I have always felt free to quote others whenever that would help make my point. I would think there would be a place for Born2cycle's opinion, where he is free to quote others on any day he prefers, and a place for Dicklyon's opinion (whether Noetica stays or not), where Dicklyon can explain why Born2cycle's quotes are misleading. Art LaPella (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, of course not. But to add the comments of others into an RFC, looking like their responses, rather than waiting for them as requested, was obnoxious in the extreme, and subverted what I felt was a pretty good attempt to getting to a resolution civilly. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• looking like their responses - I did the exact opposite of that. I put their words in quotes and Italics, and then I attributed them without dates using template:User. Please AGF.
• rather than waiting for them as requested - I've address this at least twice already. The discussion was less than 24 hours old, and you started a blank new RFC section - why should everyone have to comment again. I thought summarizing their views on the topic, that they just expressed in a section multiple said was difficult to navigate, was helpful and fair; expecting them to comment is unfair. I did also notify them of my actions, and, when, for example, LtPowers commented on the RFC, I removed the quote of his I had put in there. I'm really try to be fair and reasonable. Please try to see that. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, my vanity drives me to believe my compromise solves all that, although I haven't studied it all. "But to add the comments of others into an RFC, looking like their responses, rather than waiting for them as requested, was obnoxious in the extreme" – so make it an explicit quote by Born2cycle; then it won't look like their responses repeated in a new context. I don't think Born2cycle expressed an objection to the compromise either. So back to the RfC? Art LaPella (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

See what I did. Is that better? I have to step out for a while, but let me know and I'll check in later. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that resolves my objection on the quoting issue. Art LaPella (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Like. I look forward working with you again, Art. Any time you need another pair of eyes or some kind of help some where, let me know. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:DASHBot. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You have thrice reverted the removal of your quoting of other editors; sure, they'll probably block us all for edit warring, but please consider the advice above and just let others speak for themselves. Dicklyon (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Restoring my OWN comments (comprised of quotes of others) to a TALK page falls under 3RR? Good luck with that. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how your removal of my comments on an article talk page fall under any one of these cases: Wikipedia:Talk#Others.27_comments. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have now asked for feedback at WP:AN/I, complaining about you there (Wikipedia:AN/I#Born2cycle.2C_3RR.2C_RFC.2C_etc.). Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like what is needed is an user RFC against one or all of these editors; I will be happy to endorse one. You may want to wait until the next episode (if this note does not persuade them to avoid one); it may be difficult to distinguish your refactoring from Noetica's refactoring. JCScaliger (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I'm probably going to start a record of incidents for now. WP:TE can be a lot of work to prove, but I think it's definitely there in this case, for all 3 of them. From unilateral moves, to creating stub articles to justify moves, to proposals that are repeatedly rejected to distracting behavior when things are going their way, it's all there. Just have to document it. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is largely bullshit; I'm not in general a huge fan of your editing (in particular summarizing debates) but do not see the problem here. pablo 00:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Nor, as you know, am I. Nevertheless the following diffs, while dated, may help show some long-standing patterns of behavior:

• And PS, you might like me sometimes, as you imply, but I don't ever like you.
  • [3] spelling correction.
• poor, deluded fool
• sabotage
• dirty hands
• anarchist
• I treat your entries with contempt.
• Is it only when it suits you?
  • Please examine your behaviour
    • Dear Finell, I do examine my behaviour, every day — as I do my stools. Both are fine, thanks for asking.

      [4] copyedit.

      • precisely the right amount of information to get my point across
        • PLEASE be civil
• I have no compunction about being rude to you, Anderson,
  • Well, please don't use your own ignorance as a new benchmark for WP.
    • How else could he have said that
• ANI report
• hysterical

8Fnagaton

• Fnagaton, can you clarify what the good work remark means?" - It means good work by Nakon in reading the edit history and finding something suspicious about a new user being created that immediately does the same edits as Tony1 who was at his 3RR limit. You see when warned about 3RR Tony1 replied with this uncivil edit. Also note the uncivil reply. Then note the "get a life" uncivil edit comment. It's clear the user is angry, perhaps angry enough to create an extra account.Fnagaton 23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no idea whether this suggestion is correct. But users do tend to appear suddenly to support whatever one of these editors want; and Tony has defended himself against an accusation of sockpuppetry here (search on sock), when I hadn't made one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Template talk:E
• Your "rah rah" attitude makes me want to puke.
• Tony, tone it down
  • nope
• Edit summaries are a chance to be rude or humorous [sic]. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_97#Mon-Khmer
• hore-whipped.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Persondata. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

B2c, it has been very hard to converge on improvements at WP:AT in recent months, due to your ownership issues there. Since you came back in September, you've made over 300 edits to WP:AT and its talk page; this is more than 15% of your total edits. You've made about 20% (200 of 1000) of the most recent edits at WT:AT; in some topics you've dominated with over 40% of the comments. Your focus on controlling and rewriting this guideine is very disruptive, and disrespectful of the efforts of other editors. As you know, I particularly disliked the way you unilaterally restored a never-discussed provision, five times, over the objections of several editors, and then stacked the RFC in your favor to shut down any possibility of open discussion and exploration. That's what I was referring to when I said that if you want to see what disruptive behavior looks like, compare the relative quiet in titling discussions during your month away to what has been going on before and after with your leadership/ownership. Dicklyon (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between number of edits and ownership. What matters is the content of what is said, not the frequency. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I tend to make a lot of errors and so probably almost half of my edits are corrections/clarifications of previous edits. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Representation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

B2C, interesting observation, but no cigar. RMs are not competitions. Far too often editors invoke so-called harm to WP in AfDs, content disputes and indeed RM discussions. I think I close RMs fairly, judging consensus (or lack there of) based on the content of the discussion. You well know that I have strong opinions about our titling policy, but those opinions don't cloud my RM closes. When its clear there isn't a consensus about a title change and the current title is not inconsistent with our current titling policy, the invocation that the current title does no harm to WP isn't unreasonable. I fully understand that those editors wanting to change the title of any given article, think, however obtusely, that the current title does harm WP, otherwise they wouldn't be spending energy trying to change it. What you have to judge, is not the statement the current title does no harm to WP, but instead judge whether or not I closed the RM fairly. If you believe I haven't then challenge the result of the close, not the statement that the current title is OK.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

B2C, send me a Wikipedia email. I'd like to send you something off-wiki. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I can't help but feeling that this page is inappropriate, even for a user page. I have therefore nominated it for deletion. Regards, Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:How to improve image quality. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Born2cycle/blackkite, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Born2cycle/blackkite and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Born2cycle/blackkite 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We appear to have a clear case WP:SNOW going at both MFDs. If you would care to take the high road at this point, just slap {{db-user}} on the pages and they will be deleted and the discussions closed in short order. Your choice of course, just thought I'd point that out. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:POLA. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe your persistence in this argument despite numerous failures in the past did a disservice to the site and to your fellow editors. You were right though, it WAS inevitable, because of exactly what ENGVAR is meant to protect from: linguistic / cultural hegemony. (I mean really, eight years in one form without consensus to move and you think RETAIN applies because the article existed for a few months with the other spelling? Did RETAIN even exist then?) The only way you could have won the RIGHT way is if you'd suggested that DESPITE ENGVAR and RETAIN that it should be renamed to promote peace and harmony... (ie: IAR) Too bad that doesn't seem to be something you're interested in. (I'm aware of my hypocrisy here :D) - BalthCat (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If the issue here was "linguistic / cultural hegemony", then we would see it at other articles, but for the most part we don't, which indicates there was something else going on at this article. And there was, as indicated by the numerous arguments in favour of Yogurt that were summarized there, as contrasted to the dearth of arguments that favoured Yoghurt. If anything, it was the insistence by many over the years that this was merely a hegemony case that prolonged it and dramatised it unnecessarily.

Because of that imbalance, I don't believe any of us could stop all the new people that would naturally keep showing up at that page seeking a rename; the best we could do is maintain the current situation, which was a torrent of expressed discord persisting for nine years. I saw no reason to believe that it would let up, ever. If anything, it was getting worse.

On the other hand, now that it has been moved back to its original name (where it originally existed for a year, not just a "few months"), there really is no legitimate argument for anyone to use to move it again. And, so, persistent peace has ensued, as I predicted it would. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:IRC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rick Santorum. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The proposal you made 14 November 2011 at Talk:Taiwan#Requested_move has been made again at Talk:Taiwan_(disambiguation)#Move_request. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back from the blackout. I'll be brief; I noticed the AN thread that GTBacchus started. He's a good admin, and it will be a shame if we lose him. Are you willing to make some adjustments to your approach that would enable you and him to coexist more peacefully? 28bytes (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. In fact, I've been asking for people to help me figure out with what it is I need to do (e.g., see User_talk:Sphilbrick#Advice.3F). Also, I feel that there is nothing I can say on those two threads GTB started (on his talk page as well as the AN one) that will help, so I'm staying out of it.

I can't imagine allowing someone else's behavior to affect me the way GTB has apparently allowed my behavior to affect him, so it's hard for me to comprehend what I could have done, much less what I actually did to cause this. As I keep saying over and over, if someone has a problem with my behavior, please tell me what it is.

I do know that GTB was annoyed with my efforts at Talk:Yogurt, and at Talk:Sega Genesis. He felt we (but especially me - I don't think he asked anyone else to back off) should leave things alone in both cases, while I felt both situations, despite their contentious histories, could be resolved by Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching consensus through discussion, and that's what happened (or seems to have; only time will tell for sure). At Talk:Yogurt in particular he fought for years to keep it at "Yoghurt". I'm actually proud of what I did there, especially all the time and research I put into documenting the 8 year long history of the squabble in a separate file; I think that was instrumental in getting people to see the reality of the situation, and how to resolve it. At SG I think I was instrumental as well, in helping everyone see that it was really a close call, that it didn't matter which one we chose, but that the compromise solution was not a good option. Could he be thinking of these situations as me winning and him losing, as opposed to recognizing and appreciating that consensus was finally reached, and that's why he's so upset? If so, I don't know see how I could be blamed for that. If it's not that, what is it?

Now, before I hit Save page here, the advice from A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs) is that I ask myself, "Is this likely to ease tensions or escalate tensions?". Frankly, because I don't know what's causing the tension, and I don't know if this will ease, escalate or be neutral. My inclination is that it's neutral, but I pretty much always feel that way about my posts, and apparently my assessment is often off. Oh well, this is the best I can do. Any suggestions/insight? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, and your openness to discuss this. I do have some thoughts and suggestions on this, but as it's late here I will save them for tomorrow. In the meantime I think your instincts for staying out of the AN thread are sound; there are just some pairs of editors who don't mesh well for whatever reason, and in such cases it's better for them to give each other space. I'll talk again with you soon. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There's is no way to know if this is why GTB did it, but now he's left something for others to point to as "evidence" that my behavior has caused good editors to leave. I only suggest that as a possibility since his recent break, plus these two comments [5] [6], saying:

Actually, my off-Wikipedia life is quite happy just now. Grad school is perking up after a slow semester, a large check is expected next month, and the love life is better than it's been in... well, I guess ever. Maybe that makes it easier to get out of here. I've got plenty else to live for; no point hanging onto a hobby that stopped being fun. I had a really good run here, and all things must pass. Don't worry about Tony, he's got a life outside of GTBacchus.

...

Lol! Sorry 'bout that. :D This actually feels really good right now. The bridge exploding was a moment of pain, but now that river's flowing again, and it feels right. This is for real.

indicate he had good reason to leave WP that had nothing to do with me. He could have simply said that and left, but instead he chose to slam someone on his way out. How gallant. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, your insistance in behaving like an officious prick hasn't helped. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"Nothing to do with you" is wrong, Born2cycle. Life off-Wikipedia is good, and Wikipedia is no longer fun. You have nothing to do with why my off-Wikipedia-life is good, and you have nothing to do with the fact that it's better to pursue rewarding pastimes than those that are no longer fun. You are, however, precisely why Wikipedia is no longer fun for me. I don't wish to be around your attitude, so I'm choosing the light over the darkness. I'll enjoy my decision; you enjoy your life.

This is the last post you'll get from me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You know whose job it is to keep it fun for you? Yours. If you're not having fun, then you have failed, not me. Putting the responsibility on someone else to make any aspect of your life "fun" is, well, irresponsible, and a recipe for disaster. I suggest you keep that in mind especially outside of WP where it really matters. On that note, good luck to you in all your endeavors. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC) let's try that again --Born2cycle (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry my actions made WP less fun for you and others. For better or for worse, that's probably because I never thought about making it fun for others. I figured I would take care of myself, and others would take of themselves. So, my tendency has been to disassociate and just focus on the content and arguments without regard as to how others might be affected. I thought as long as I remained civil and didn't attack anyone personally, there was no problem; there could be no problem. But I've realized it is not okay. My main goal now is to be much more hesitant to disagree, to avoid it altogether as much as possible. We'll see how it goes, and then go from there.

Thanks for all you've done. I hope you change your mind about leaving and decide to stay. Anyway, WP is always just a few key strokes away. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

When I posted here yesterday it was because it seemed to me a topic ban proposal would be heading your way eventually, and I was hoping to offer some suggestions that might prevent that from happening. Unfortunately it seems such a proposal was made not too long after I posted here, so it seems I was too late to help, and for that I apologize. 28bytes (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You have nothing to apologize for. I appreciate that you were trying to help. If you have any advice for me now that it's under way, please let me know. What I'm learning is that my interpretation of what finding consensus through discussion means seems to differ from what it means to many others. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban of you from requested moves is being discussed at WP:AN. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Unless you think GTBacchus is simply crazy then there's on ongoing problem. You've received a lot of feedback over the years about your activities regarding article names, but I get the feeling you've discounted all of it.   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he's crazy. A problem, and a problem worthy of a topic ban, are two different things. I'm hoping the ban does not occur, of course, but I will change my behavior to be less tenacious. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How will you change? I suggest you make a clear declaration on the AN thread.   Will Beback  talk  01:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: I'd be happy to change my input if you show a sincere and non-legalistic response to the AN thread and to GTBacchus' concerns.   Will Beback  talk  01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Like  Done I took your suggestion and saved it before I saw this second comment. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You might start showing your new attitude by reviewing your confrontational responses to GTBacchus above and elsewhere, which seem to assert that it's his fault and that you'd done absolutely nothing wrong.   Will Beback  talk  01:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (web). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please consider deciding not to respond to Greg. This is advice I'm not sure I could take myself, because I don't really care if editors call me names, but accusing me of lying is a big deal. That said, I don't think a response will solve the issue - and I don't think failure to respond will be viewed as acceptance that the claim is correct by all readers.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this 100%. 28bytes (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ditto that. Show that you've taken on board the criticisms and changed your editing style to be less disruptive -- that's the only response that is truly required. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! Yeah, the accusations of lying and deception really hurt. I just spent an hour preparing a response for Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Born2cycle/dicklyon; glad I noticed your advice before I hit save. FWIW, I've stored what I was going to say at User:Born2cycle/misc. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Might it be helpful if someone else would read that and maybe find some way to help Greg see that I was acting in good faith and not lying or being deceptive? Just an idea. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please let it sit there. I'm pointedly not going to look at it now, let's see if this will blow over. You've gotten a lot of advice lately, here's one more piece, unfortunately, form personal experience. Someone is accused of behavior X. Whether or not you think the complaint is fully justified, the person vows to refrain from anything that could be considered X. A day from now, a week from now, a month from now, and maybe even a year from now, someone will disagree with you, and throw in for good measure, "no surprise, after all, you're the person who does X". Do NOT retort, "Haven't you been paying attention, I haven't done X since 19 Jan". It isn't their job to monitor your behavior on a daily basis and keep track of changes. Better to say nothing, or possibly, self-deprecatingly respond "ouch, yes, I know that reputation. I've tried to be better since 19 January." A decent person will consider that maybe you have changed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite often it's better just to let people be wrong on the Internet. I think this is one of those times. 28bytes (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Born2cycle—I assume you're aware you're being discussed at User:Greg L/sandbox already, but I wanted to make sure, just in case. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for it. It's true that I've been accused of tendentious editing by many people in the past, and I've always been perplexed by that. Overly tenacious? Yes, and I'm working on that (this is the valid aspect of GTB's complaint about me - my making a bigger deal than I should about many issues, way too often - it's a personality issues that manifests itself in real life too). Overly argumentative? Yes, and I'm working on that too. But tendentious, especially in terms of what WP:TE says? I just don't see it. Back in 2009 someone even filed an RFC/U on me over that, that went no where due to lack of evidence. So people get this impression of me, but I think it's a misconception, because the evidence to support it simply does not exist, as far as I can tell. That's why I'm all for this - if the evidence is there, I want to know what it is so I can change that as well as tending to what I've already promised.

Frankly, what's more bothersome to me is that someone (Greg) remains convinced that I lied and was deceptive (in that MfD). Short of meeting him and having a beer over it, I'm not sure how to convince him that that was not going on, much less that I created that file in good faith. I find it ironic though that he's now in the middle of creating a "dirt file" on me, has publicly announced it in a manner that is arguably much more humiliating than how I did it, the only difference being that he's announced an intention to go through RFC/U and his goal is to get me banned for the behavior he finds unacceptable, while my goal was to get Tony to stop engaging in the behavior I found to be unacceptable. I mean, he knows he's doing all this in good faith, why can't he accept that I did something similar in good faith? Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

At the WP:AN, Vegaswikian just weighed in, writing: " I don't believe that B2C accepts the fact that his opinion is not always going to be right or gain consensus."[7]

I know that's not true (because I definitely know my opinion is not always right or that it will always gain consensus), but that's not relevant considering how many people have this impression of me, or something similar. I take full responsibility for creating that impression with them.

One thing I'm always right and confident about is what my opinion is. I also try to be clear about what that opinion is, and why I hold it. Perhaps in doing that I often leave the impression that I don't accept that my opinion might not be right, or won't gain consensus? Something to think about. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You asked me for a suggestion. Read through User talk:Gavin.collins - I mentioned it to GregL on my talkpage. You argue a bit like him. He had supporters because quite often he was right about notability, but he always took it too far, and in the end he wandered up a blind alley and got totally disruptive. He could never work out a strategy whereby he could agree to disagree with other editors - his line was always that they had to prove him wrong (and couldn't to his own satisfaction). I think however that you appear to be much more able to reflect on how your actions appear to others, and I hope this will bring beneficial results in your future editing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive tone in your comments.

As to the specific question about Catholic Memorial School. Personally I don't believe that the existence/absence of a redirect or a dab page decides if there is a primary topic. That is determined by other subjective factors. While I believe that you and I would like to see more objective criteria in some of these areas, I don't see it happening. For the school, my concern is exactly what is being searched for and what are some of these schools called? While one school is called that specifically, the concern is that it may be the common name for other schools. I suspect, but can not prove, that several of these have a common name of Catholic Memorial. I guess I'm in the group that favors disambiguation to avoid any questions. In the past, you have labeled that as being overly precise or pre disambiguation. I consider it to be informative. Now I guess that the valid question at this point is where do you draw the line between the two? I don't know the answer. In discussions, many editors will go to formal encyclopedias to prove their point. However Wikipedia has a much larger coverage of material, so what works in print or a religiously reviewed encyclopedia may not work here.

Hope this helps. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We agree the existence/absence of a redirect or a dab page does not decide if there is a primary topic, and that that is determined by other subjective factors. It just seems to me that a redirect, especially a longstanding one for which there is no corresponding dab page, and no proposed candidates for adding to one, indicates those other subjective factors designate that the topic of the article to which the redirect links is the primary topic for the name of that redirect.

As to predisambiguation (or whatever), my main concern is that it would be very difficult to decide where to the draw the line. We already have enough disagreement and consternation over titles, it seems to me, but at least that's somewhat limited by the fact that when a topic has one obvious name, we just use that, and, if it's ambiguous, then we add precision as necessary to distinguish it from the other uses.

If we start accepting the predabbing of titles that are not ambiguous, suddenly we open the flood gates for countless more article titles that are likely to be changed, and we don't have the "hints" (the other uses) to help us hone it on what the extra precision should be (which could make those discussions more contentious). That said, I've started a new RFC/poll at the bottom of WT:AT that seeks input on this and related issues. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

I know I said I was gone. I've been away, but I checked back out of curiosity about fallout. I'm very heartened by your post to AN/I indicating that you desire to change the way you interact. I wish you the best with that.

I'm just going to make one comment, in response to what you've just said here, that I think you might find generally applicable. You say, "If we start accepting the predabbing of titles that are not ambiguous, suddenly we open the flood gates for countless more article titles....".

No. These things are not such high-stakes. If an article is badly titled, then it's likely to be disregarded as precedent. We're good at disregarding bad precedent. Precedent is, empirically, not a very powerful force here. There is no instance I've ever witnessed of a bad title causing anything like a flood. Have you? This is not something to worry about. Bad titles are corrected later; they don't cause all the other titles to go bad. It's advisable to let things go at least 80% of the time. Very rare cases deserve RFC's. Very rare.

Please take care, and remember that these things just don't matter very much. Treating them as if they matter very much has been the entire problem. Please hear this, and please be well. Goodbye now. (You can reply to me if you like, but I'm just going to go even longer before I check back again, and eventually I'll stop checking back. The longer I sit with my decision to leave, the more right it feels.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Like I mean it with that pledge, which I'm keeping very accessible at User:Born2cycle/pledge. Good luck to you, GTB. I will miss you - I already did. I've gotten a lot of good advice lately, and now yours included, which I've just added to my collection [8]. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)