This is an archive of past discussions with User:O. 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.
A fairly quiet month in November. However we had a fairly successful COTM with the Alice's Adventures in Wonderland article with 85 modifications made. The success of which I will leave to your assessment.
Member news
The project has currently 290 members, 8 joined & 0 leavers since the start of November 2007
Task force news
The Fantasy task force has got off to a really good start with now 13 members. Do cooperate one with another and make it really work for us.
If any group of editors sees a need for a new "task force" then let us know. Also we can link a WikiProject in as a task force (as Australian task force), this has the benefit of reducing the level of effort dissipation and also advertising interest areas in more than one location.
Some discussion is going on about the "Activation of Members". To which end a "clearing house" of jobs and volunteers is being trialled at Novels Job Centre. Have a look and see what you think.
Welcome to the nineteenth issue of the Novels WikiProject's newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.
We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask.
This diff and this one apprear to be the same user. The IP shows up on WHOIS as being in Oman, and the IP's other contribution is to the Egyptian passport page. We'll see how long this continues before I suggest changing the Lead image to something else. No need to attract controversey if it can be avoided, and I doubt we can protect the page just over this! - BillCJ (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's see what happens when we tell the user(s) to use the talk page. 哦，是吗？(review O) 22:20, 05 December 2007 (GMT)
Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!
Joy
MarlithT/C has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day!
Hello. I see that you changed some photos. There was an editor with actual publishing experience that made a recommendation a few weeks ago. He said that one should avoid situating the pictures so that the aircraft seems to be flying off the page. In other words, if the front of the plane is pointing right, it should be in the left margin.
I've replied to your comment on my RfA. With respect, the question on undeleting a bio article didn't mention ArbCom and the OTRS element was bracketed and apparantly an aside i.e. "biographies policy (or OTRS as well)"
I'm concerned about some recent edits of yours that look to me a lot like attempts to game the system. I'm addressing these directly to you here, since I think they constitute a pattern of behaviour that is tending towards disruptive. Specific instances of this include:
Your attempt here to frame line spacing as an MOS breach. Your evident level of computer literacy indicates that you are fully aware that a few bytes is a truly inconsequential amount of data. Yet you attempted to characterise this saving as equivalent to "a lot of prose". I'm not going to assume bad faith here, but I wonder what your motive for this could have been if it were not an attempt to confuse less computer-literate editors?
Your attempt to frame articles conforming to WP:AIR's page guidelines as breaching the MoS here and here. Apart from a brief period two years ago, MoS has never prescribed any particular order for these sections. Indeed, since August 2006, it has specifically stated that it's okay to re-order these sections.
Your assertion here that MOS:NUM states that numbers and units "must" have a hard space between them. I'd be more inclined to accept this as a geniune mistake on your part if it didn't fit into the more general pattern.
Your apparent attempt to use the Boeing 747 FA candidacy to leverage agendas of your own that I've indicated at the above two points.
All of the above seem to me to be examples of the sort of behaviour illustrated under GAME:2 and GAME:7.
In each example, the misapplication of policy remains consistent: you over-reach what the policy actually says, and try to force an interpretation on other editors that is more limited, more narrow, and more prescriptive than those policies. This consistency makes me believe that you are doing this knowingly and deliberately.
There may be other examples; I haven't delved into your edit history and at this stage have no desire to do so. I do, however, note the remark on your current review that suggests that WP:AIR isn't the only WikiProject where you've been at the focus of some friction.
There's no problem in having a difference of opinion; but if you want to change policy (as it seems to me that you do), then go about building consensus to change it. Please don't simply misrepresent what exists at present.
If, on the other hand, these incidents are all simply co-incidental, I strongly urge you to make yourself thoroughly familiar with what policies actually say before attempting to advise others of "breaches" that you perceive. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
All of the above you mention should be purely coincidental. Since you brought up quite a lot of issues here, it should be convenient to split them up into chunks of text.
SIZE: Yes, it's not all that much, but the spirit of that MOS entry is to make sure there is not too many unnecessary bytes present in readable prose to the extent that it inflates it. You may interpret the spirit differently than I do, but that's just respecting others' opinions. Just keep in mind that the spirit might not always be what the exact text means, such as BLP, when the spirit pretty much means "don't add/restore poorly or unsourced material that is controversial in any way in a public venue without proper (private) discussion".
AIR and MOS (possible conflict): That's still in discussion, but the real question is "should the MOS have a hard order on the last three sections?" Personally I think there should, as every article excluding aircraft have that order. But that's debatable, as already seen.
MOS:NUM: According to quiteafew FACs, even recommendations have to be complied to.
Tensions with the other WikiProject that I participate in have already diminished.
If you think I should read up on the applicable policies and guidelines, be mistaken; they are practically lodged into my head. The only apparent problem is the differences on interpretation. 哦，是吗？(review O) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (GMT)
Fair enough - and thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'm still willing to assume good faith. Nevertheless, I stand by my advice that if you're going to attempt to counsel others on rules, you need to present them as they actually exist. To return to specifics:
Are you really trying to tell me that safeguarding hundredths (or thousandths) of a second of download time is your idea of the spirit behind WP:SIZE? And why did you say that 2 bytes equates to "a lot of prose"?
There is no conflict whatsoever between WP:AIR page guidelines and the MoS as it currently exists, or indeed as it has existed for over two years. That's not a question of interpretation: it's there in black-and-white. The letter of the policy says there is no conflict, and the spirit of the policy (as indicated in the notes and by the history of its development) says there is no conflict. I fully agree with you about the real nature of the question, and evidently you and I have opposite answers to it. Nevertheless, until and unless you build consensus to change the MoS, please refrain from inventing a conflict that simply isn't there. More especially, don't try to convince other editors who may not know the policies as well as you do that it's there. I'm actually curious about where you got the impression that the MoS has anything to say about the ordering of these sections? The short-lived prescription predates your time here. Did you simply infer it given how widespread that particular section ordering is?
Whether other FACs have required following recommendations is not the question here: no-one is disputing that they have. What I'm concerned about is your telling another editor that MoS requires them. Like I said - as an isolated incident, it wouldn't have even caught my attention (we all make mistakes), but it seems like part of a broader pattern of trying to make Wikipedia policies more hard-line than they are.
Hello. Others and I have tried to make changes to address your comments (747 article). The issue of the last 3 sections seems to be an issue that the WikiProject community should consider. This could solve the issue and have the results applied to all of the articles. I don't resist your suggestion, just think that guidance from the community for this systemwide issue is better. Archtransit (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Adopter
Hi O,
I've started to clean up the Adopters' list. You appear to have changed username since you added yourself to the list but not updated your info there. In case you're still interested, can you kindly update your information? Or, if you're not interested any more, would you mind removing yourself? Thank you and happy editing, SnowolfHow can I help?22:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)~~
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 44 support, 4 oppose, and 3 neutral. I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools (and don't worry, I'll be careful).
I noticed you were vandalized by this IP as well. I also noticed he said something about the Wikimedia Commons. I don't recall seeing this user anywhere at all, let alone the commons. Do you think this user could be a puppet of someone you know? I'm kinda confused. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 04:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no clue about anything else. About all I know is that the IP is vandalising; if it hits Commons, I'll take care of it (I'm an admin there). 哦，是吗？(O-person) 06:52, 26 December 2007 (GMT)
