User talk:Useerup
Please understand that the use of median in the web client table has been there for a long time and is the result of extended and detailed discussions between several editors over, IIRR, the last couple of years or so. If you think this existing consensus is mistaken then please come to the talk page, read the discussion (including the archived pages) and then tell us why. Your edits so far have been justified only by your own bald assertion and a complete lack of evidence and reason. Any further unconstructive activity by you will be treated as edit warring. --Harumphy (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers". Thank you. --Jdm64 (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal
As advised by ItsZippy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, applied to Mediation Cabal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear Useerup: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.
The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 November 2011/Usage share of operating systems.
Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.
If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, thehistorian10, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consensus on Talk:Usage share of web browsers. Thank you.
Edit war
If you continue edit warring on Usage share of web browsers, I will report you to an admin. Please stop. I suggest that you read the policy of the three-revert rule. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Median
Why shouldn't we actually make the discussion productive? Deciding on what not to do will require deciding on what to do anyway. Splitting these issues will only lead to yet more debates. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm all for building consensus. But I strongly oppose your attempt at setting preconditions for editors to voice their opinions. Whether they consider median and "correcting" calculations original research is unrelated to your desire to provide some kind of "summary" of the data. The dispute is about original research and that can be decided without summarizing data in any way (e.g. by deleting the median). You are free to query participants for alternative proposals but setting it as a precondition is overstepping the line!--Useerup (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Let's put it otherwise: if everyone coming via RFC opposes median and it gets removed, what are we going to do next? Do you understand, that we still won't have any consensus? Do you understand, that the amount of people coming through next RFC will be by far lower? How are you going to deal with this? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The problem lies with your pretense. You desperately want to present a single number to the readers. I don't. Wikipedia doesn't. We just have to make the summary somewhat more vague using text. Nothing wrong with picking a single source out that we can agree on and create a graphics for that source, provided that we are explicit about the source. The WP:NOR is a core content policy - we have to respect it whether or not you can find alternatives which you find useful or helpful. If we cannot find that, so be it. It cannot ever be accepted as an argument for allowing original research. --Useerup (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is not with a single number. I would accept the consensus to avoid any summary completely, if it falls out this way, but the way you put this debate we'll never have any consensus. Yes, I would prefer the single number, but, trust me, I just don't care it that much to sacrify a possibility to end this war with a result that would be convincing for everyone. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Some disputes cannot be resolved. And yes, this could be one of them. Fortunately, the authors of the WP policies anticipated this and put in provisions which in some cases make even absence of consensus actionable: WP:BURDEN, WP:OR and WP:CALC specifically are all designed to err on the side of caution and keep possible original research out of Wikipedia. It is one of the core principles that you should be able to directly verify claims by articles at the sources.--Useerup (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK. Just for Your consideration: I would actively support removing median until decisive result of the dispute (ie forever, if consensus will never be reached) if there was any indication of the process of building consensus (regardless of outcome). For now I see only that you try by all means to avoid moving towards consensus, so I act per WP:IAR which is one of the same set of policies where WP:OR belongs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Some disputes cannot be resolved. And yes, this could be one of them. Fortunately, the authors of the WP policies anticipated this and put in provisions which in some cases make even absence of consensus actionable: WP:BURDEN, WP:OR and WP:CALC specifically are all designed to err on the side of caution and keep possible original research out of Wikipedia. It is one of the core principles that you should be able to directly verify claims by articles at the sources.--Useerup (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is not with a single number. I would accept the consensus to avoid any summary completely, if it falls out this way, but the way you put this debate we'll never have any consensus. Yes, I would prefer the single number, but, trust me, I just don't care it that much to sacrify a possibility to end this war with a result that would be convincing for everyone. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The problem lies with your pretense. You desperately want to present a single number to the readers. I don't. Wikipedia doesn't. We just have to make the summary somewhat more vague using text. Nothing wrong with picking a single source out that we can agree on and create a graphics for that source, provided that we are explicit about the source. The WP:NOR is a core content policy - we have to respect it whether or not you can find alternatives which you find useful or helpful. If we cannot find that, so be it. It cannot ever be accepted as an argument for allowing original research. --Useerup (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Let's put it otherwise: if everyone coming via RFC opposes median and it gets removed, what are we going to do next? Do you understand, that we still won't have any consensus? Do you understand, that the amount of people coming through next RFC will be by far lower? How are you going to deal with this? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Useerup. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Talkback
Message added 06:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Windows Registry
Just a quick notification: Your last edit on Windows Registry appear to be cut-off at the end. --DanielPharos (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- No problem; I see you fixed it already. Thanks! --DanielPharos (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comparison of C Sharp and Java, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page .NET (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
