User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 2

more on personal attacks

Does calling Hesperian a good editor mean that you can say anything else about him that you want to?--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Why? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've made it a policy to take quick offense (my words) at statements you regard to be personal attacks (I can provide the diff where you first vowed to do that, if you wish). In many of these cases, I personally feel that it is a stretch to call the statement a personal attack, but I acknowledge that you may have a different view, and I do not dispute your right to take that stance, in and of itself.

I've also noticed that you continue to make statements about other editors that, again in my view, are as much personal attacks (which is to say "only arguably") as some of the things you call out other editors for.

When I have brought this up in the past, your response (as I have interpreted it) is to disclaim the attack nature of your statements, and to a lesser extent contrast them with statements against you, in a manner that others (and perhaps I in the past) have called "wikilawyering". I have come to recognize that as your style; I find it grating and irritating, but I am irritated by a lot of things at Wikipedia, so I accept that as my issue.

What makes me continue to bring it up is an issue of fairness. "You can dish it out, but you can't take it," as they say in my natal neck of the woods. I perceive that you intentionally set higher standards for others than you set for yourself. This irritates me, and it causes me to question all your statements and opinions, whether I would necessarily agree with them or not.

Of course, I fully expect that you don't give a rat's ass about my opinion of you, but, because of your stance on various issues, you must ultimately either care about the opinions of some other editors, or else face the futility of having your views rejected or ignored, not on the basis of their intrinsic worth, but on the basis of how people perceive you. And I'm guessing that I'm not the only editor who sees your dealings with perceived personal attacks to be unfair and counterproductive.

I hope I've explained myself adequately, but at any rate I'll have no more to say about my perceptions of the general issue.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but without specifics cannot really respond. In general, I think personalizing commentary on article talk pages is not helpful to Wikipedia, and I don't believe I do that. If you think I do, please let me now. As far as discussing such behavior of other users in the appropriate context, such as this discussion, I see nothing wrong with that. "Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page, ..." WP:NPA. In the incident cited above, A commented about B personalizing inappropriately, and I informed A, on his talk page, that I had similar experience with B in the past. I do not have a problem with others having such discussions about me, so I don't see the inconsistency that you apparently do. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Yog(h)urt

I think the ceasefire has worked very well, actually, considering how there hasn't been any yogurt on my drama radar. You say there was no consensus to keep it at "Yoghurt", but the point of a move discussion is to gain consensus on a proposed move; failing that, to not move the page. Since there is a lack of consensus, and this is such a blatant example of the bikeshed rule, I don't see it as wise to rename the article until there is a lot of support from people from countries that traditionally add the 'h'. In the meantime, keep on discussing it, but don't exhaust people over it. —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That is fucking ridiculous. You want a lot of support from a minority of countries that use a variant spelling predominantly? Great job. -Dscarth (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Which countries use "yogurt", and which countries use "yoghurt"? —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? Did you even read the RM discussion upon which you ruled? There are no English speaking countries that don't use yogurt. That's the point. This might have to go to RFC after all. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The one thing getting in the way of the re-name is the lack of consensus of editors to do so. If the h-less spelling is as predominant as you say it is, we would be having Commonwealth editors saying "yeah, that's an archaic spelling". However, the h-version is still recognized, which leads to support for the current name, which is preventing a consensus on renaming it. Because there is no consensus to rename, the article is to remain at its current title. Nothing I can do about a lack of consensus. —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the h-spelling is not recognized. The argument is that the no-h spelling is recognized everywhere, and the recognition of the h-spelling is very selective, and becoming moreso. Pointing out that there are places that h-spelling is still recognized completely misses this point. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeated RMs

What other reason could there be for relisting it so quickly? Black Kite 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• That is your opinion, but equally, what is likely to change from one discussion to another? I doubt very much if anyone who commented on the original request is likely to change their mind in such a short time span. Indeed, one could argue that the lack of people commenting on an issue raised at WP:RM indicates that the majority of people did not believe that such a move was constructive.
• This is not an isolated case. There are a number of other articles where a commonly-read article is situated at a location which disagrees with the predominant spelling for that item. Well-known examples are Aluminium and Orange (colour). Like this, both of those articles have had numerous RM discussions, again without any consensus for a move being reached (and notably, both make an appearance at WP:LAME). Oddly, others appear to raise little comment (for example Grey).
• However such issues tend to generate more heat than light, as (for example) can be seen from the ridiculous length of the archives on Aluminium - it never ceases to amaze me how much anger such a seemingly unimportant issue can generate. The generally expressed opinion seems to be that if an article has been stable at a location for an extended period of time, and the spelling isn't likely to confuse the average reader (I'm pretty sure that no-one reaching Yoghurt is going to think that it's a different product from Yogurt), then there is little point in moving it. One could also argue that such articles reinforce the fact that Wikipedia is an international, rather than an American, website.
• In the end it appears that little consensus can ever be gained for such moves, the spelling of such articles is effectively irrelevant, and that everyone's time would be better spent improving the encyclopedia instead. Black Kite 21:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, "aluminium" (rather than "aluminum") and "colour" (rather than "color") is used almost exclusively in the UK. That is not the case for "yoghurt", for which we have reliables sources (and google hits) that say that not only is "yogurt" widely used there, but that the use of the h variant is disappearing. A totally different situation, and it's very frustrating to see the closing admin, and now you, totally miss this rather crucial point. And that's why it was relisted. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, looking at the issues; both are used in the UK; "yoghurt" is the standard spelling, as it is in Australia and New Zealand. Not only that, but it only took me a few seconds to find American websites that use "yoghurt" such as this, this and this. This suggests to be that the situation isn't as obvious as might be thought. And in the end, as I said above, there appears to be little consensus for any move at the moment. Black Kite 21:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Of your three American website examples, the first is a marketing gimmick by Mountain High - product names are often misspelled or spelled uniquely precisely to be different - the second is just an odd search anomaly (and does not reflect actual usage), and the third is an article in which all the spelling is British ("flavourful", "ageing", "stabilisation"). Did you read the article cited on the Yogurt talk page that talks about the h variant disappearing in the UK? It is oversimplification to see this as a simple case of regional difference in spelling. One of the spellings is universally used and recognized, the other is not. That's very different. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop repressing Ireland man!!! - BalthCat (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

coolcaesar and personal attacks

The user Coolcaesar has been insistent on attacking users with abusive language. I see on the user's talk page that you have previously complained of this behavior. I have tried to reason with the user, but without success. Numerous other users have also complained on the user's talk page, but it has no effect. Please submit a complaint, and the user seems very intransigent. Maybe if enough of us take action, it could stop. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You asked about specific examples. One is the discussion page of the Lawyer article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming

Given you interest in the subject earlier in the year you might like to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Main principle? --PBS (talk)

Doing the Math (as they say across the pond)

Skinsmoke (talk) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Sometimes the blindingly obvious has to be pointed out! Skinsmoke (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC) PS Had it with my yoghurt (yes, we really do spell it like that over here!) Skinsmoke (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 22:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Haddocks' Eyes

With respect to this diff, I was wondering if we ought to move this article from what the name of the topic is called, to what the name really is. :-) Hesperian 00:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're catching on! --Born2cycle (talk)

How odd; PMA just made exactly the same allusion on the WT:NC. Hesperian 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd. That's just freaky. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Twenty-first century

That position will be more reasonable when there is more of the twenty-first century; I do not regard the universe, or the corpus of current English, as having begun eight 3/4 years ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhood names

Born2cycle, I have summarized the current situation at the discussion page - I think the current convention doesn't make a lot of sense, but it is entrenched - and have proposed a couple of other conventions that might work better. However, I have no idea if anyone would be willing to put in the volunteer hours needed to change the 350-400 such pages in California. IMO that should be a part of the discussion: not just "should it be done" but "is there someone willing to do it"?

I certainly didn't intend to open such a can of worms! but maybe it needed to be opened. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

Tag

Fine, then you're not being disruptive; good. I prefer, especially when you are following the 60% of your causes I find ungrounded, to see you acknowledging the opinions of other editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your cause is not usage; it is an effort to change usage. Often, as with flora, I agree that usage should be changed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter what a bot did in 2003. The consensus for United States municipal names consists of the facts that these names have survived and are actively defended; the bot may or may not have represented consensus, but, if so, Consensus has Changed.
• On flora, I agree with you; you may be amused by this edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning

That was disruptive. Don't do it again. Hesperian 04:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Now you're edit warring again. Every day for three days now, you have edited the section lead to give "most commonly used" prominence over and above all others,[1][2][3] despite it being repeatedly removed, despite it being under discussion and heavily disputed at the talk page. Stop it. Hesperian 04:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Things and actions are concepts. All things are an indiscriminate blur, and Serge Issakov can declare anything he likes to be policy. Who do you think you are, Camille Paglia?

You have passed my tolerance for bad faith. Enough. Please stop now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

heh.

Well written, and your view is appreciated- thanks. I am honestly appreciative of you evaluating and posting. tedder (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My! To agree is one thing, but such kind words to? Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Districts_in_Hokkaidō article moves

There is a deliberate naming scheme used for all articles about Japanese governmental entities. Please do not move the articles in Category:Districts_in_Hokkaidō without first discussing it at WPJ. -Amake (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Poliomyelitis

I've replied to your comment here, in case you aren't watching the page. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also copied, and slightly expanded, in the requested move section. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note

Just wanted to say I appreciate your efforts at Talk:Poliomyelitis, and although I don't agree with your point-of-view, I respect your right to have it and I appreciate you're trying to improve the project. I apologise if my words have at any point seemed overly harsh, I just get passionate :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re - Atheism

Hey dude, Sorry I took so long to reply to your message. I am generally inactive over weekends. JW is a very aggressive editor who doesn't play well with others and doesn't like supporting anything but his own edits. If you need help again, please let me know. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP

this is clearly a blp violation. If you revert again on it, you may find yourself blocked. The BLP policy is not taken lightly.--Terrillja _talk 18:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so. But the initial removal of the comment in question, and several subsequent removals of it, did not cite WP:BLP at all, but relied entirely on WP:NOTAFORUM, which is not justification for removal. That was my objection to the removal, and why I reverted each time, as I clearly stated in the comment of each revert, including in the change cited above. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with the reason why it was removed, you are still responsible for checking the information that you are reverting and are responsible for reintroducing BLP violations even if the original text was not yours.--Terrillja _talk 20:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it did not occur to me that an editor's opinion about a living person on a talk page qualified as material about that person, or that such an opinion was a BLP violation. I've reviewed WP:BLP since then, and it's still not clear to me. I've started a discussion about this issue here. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, you're much better off observing the actions of sensible editors and trying to do what they do, than interpreting everything in terms of inherently contradictory policy documents that change all the time anyway. Really, the removal was just a common-sense action. The idea of policy is to write down how sensible and experienced users routinely do things ("policy is descriptive not prescriptive"), but most of the time it's more enlightening to just observe other users directly. In particular, when 2 or 3 different admins remove that comment with a brief comment like "NOTFORUM", what they're saying is "the reason for this is so obvious that the 1-word explanation should be enough". That is, they are not in any real doubt. In the event that you're still confused by the action, then by all means ask for more explanation, but expect that the other person knows what they're doing! See also: WP:COMPETENCE. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

B.S. Wikipedia is not an oligarchy. And I don't know how you define newbie, but I've been editing and involved in countless policy disputes for over five years. What's with the anonymous IP, Mr. Experienced?

A brief explanation for the delete might have been reasonable and judged possibly sufficient for the first delete, but once the delete was challenged, explanations for the second, third, fourth and fifth deletes needed to provide full explanations, not just lame repeats of what (little) was said in the first delete. Sure, each delete did not use the same words, but each amounted to nothing more than a reference to a section of a policy that did not even address the deletion of other users' comments, much less sanction it, WP:NOTAFORUM.

It was not until the fifth (fifth!) delete that a plausibly legitimate reason for deleting was finally provided (WP:BLP), and at that point it was accepted. The deletion of other users' comments should not be taken so lightly. The only sensible editing demonstrated by those deleting was in that fifth delete. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the removal was ok on NOTAFORUM grounds without bringing BLP into it, though in this case BLP also applied and was brought down to stop the crap faster. I do agree it would have been better if after the second or so removal, the remover put a note on the page asking people to stop restoring. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. WP:NOTAFORUM has as much relevance to justifying removing other users' comments as does WP:NOTDICTIONARY... none. Neither says word one about deleting the comments of others. NOTAFORUM is grounds for reminding others that WP is not a forum, and all that entails, period. You can keep inexplicably repeating that the removal was ok on NOTAFORUM grounds, but that does not make it so, nor does it introduce anything to WP:NOTAFORUM that even addresses removing the comments of others, much less sanction it. Only WP:TPO does that, and that's the policy section that should be referenced when going to the extreme of removing an other's comment, along with noting which specific TPO exception applies. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Origonal Research?!

Quit being a damn snob and calling everything you don't agree with original research! For your information there is no such thing as original research when it comes to discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrolord777 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Original research? What are you talking about? I suspect you have me confused with someone else. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Regarding your comment at Jaycee Dugard, please remember to focus article talk page comments on article content. See WP:NOTAFORUM. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)"

Wikipedia needs to quit being snobs or at this rate even urbandictionary will be better than wikipedia. That was a discussion page and I was simple discussing the matter. Of course this wouldn't be the first time it happened Loremaster decided to delete my comment under "Transhumanism" discussion I undid his edit because its a discussion page and not the actual article. He of course replied with hostility saying "Although I always try to be polite, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, and be welcoming, I have been, am, and will be curt with people who jump on soapboxes to try to push a pro-transhumanist or anti-transhumanist biased POV into this article, and I make no apologies. If you don't like it, feel free to report me and see where that gets you" that was anything but polite, he did include a personal threat, and he was far from welcoming. Pyrolord777 (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever happened to you at Transhumanism has nothing to do with me. My position originally was that your comment was a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM (as I stated in the comment you quoted above) since it was not about improving the article, but that was not sufficient reason to remove it. However, since then I've been convinced that it was a violation of WP:BLP, which is much more serious, and deletion on those grounds, per WP:TPO, is justified.

Still puzzled about the "snob" and "original research" comments, and still waiting for the thank you for restoring your deleted comment three times. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the snob comment it should be obvious wikipedia is always deleting comments/edits they don't agree with or just because their not mentioned by a major company. On both pages my posts were deleted and labeled as original research thats why I see wikipedia as snobs. Pyrolord777 (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is always deleting comments/edits they don't agree with "??? Huh? There is no "Wikipedia" or "they" that deletes comments/edits... only editors like you and me.

"or just because their not mentioned by a major company". I think you're referring to the requirement for material entered in the encyclopedia to be sourced in reliable sources. That's no different from any other encyclopedia. This is not the place to make up stuff, or to enter stuff so trivial or not notable that it's not in any reliable source. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a dictionary

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Tiptoety ^talk 06:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Thanks for letting the recent changes get a chance to be reviewed before any big axes go through them. Also, thanks for recognizing that it took a fair amount of work! (Roughly 6 hours to flesh out the basic unifying framework that appears in the literature, which is the sort of framework that seemed to be missing from the article.) I expect that there will be many reversions to my recent edits, but at least there's more coherence (IMO), and perhaps it's a better foundation to build from. BigK HeX (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

the problem was the balance, which has been discussed. the point is no matter how many sources say a specific thing, it does not mean it belongs all on one page. this material is welcome in disambiguation, but not here, as your tag (which i restored, btw) points out, the page suffers from trying to be orange, and orange. it has been the custom on this page to present massive changes before adding them to the page. i too appreciate the work big, carol and others have put into this article. carol specifically ask him to present his rewrite in talk 1st, i agree. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "How can redistribution not be authoritarian?"

From what I gather, left-libertarians hold that you generally don't own the resources used for production, so that the community must be re-compensated. Philosophically, as far as I can tell, this is equivalent to the kind of "redistribution" that would occur in a minarchist or anarchocapitalist society if a judge -- in some circumstance -- were to order that recompensation is necessary. BigK HeX (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

do you consider software code a product? i do i own the resources i used to write the code i've sold? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. How about an artist's easel and paints? A farmer's tractor? A tailor's sewing machine? The teacher's chalkboard? The very idea is patently absurd.

I see no philosophical similarity either. In the case of re-compensation by judgment in a minarchy, the forced transfer is based on the notion that the loser of the case did not have ownership of the item (or value) in the first place - the forced transfer is a correction of a wrong, it's not initiation of force.

But in the left-libertarian society, the idea is not that the programmer doesn't have the right to his computer while writing the software, it's that he somehow loses it after selling the software he produced while using that computer (but if he doesn't sell it, apparently the computer remains his, whatever that means in such a society). I'd love to read something about how left-libertarianism is supposed to actually work by someone who spent more than a minute or two thinking about it, if such a person exists. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "[in minarchy] the forced transfer is based on the notion that the loser of the case did not have ownership of the item (or value) in the first place"

Ummm ... I'm pretty sure that's precisely the rationale that I already described (when I said "don't own the resources"), and, that being the case, it is quite equivalent, IMO. Certainly, you can disagree with whether that concept of ownership makes sense or not, but that still doesn't change that the two instances of recompensation that I mentioned seem to be rather equivalent if (and that's a big IF ... but if) you grant the premise that the resources are not owned. BigK HeX (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that begs the question... what does own mean in that context? If I don't own the brushes and paints I use to paint the paintings I sell to pay for food and shelter, do I own the food before I eat it? Do I own the shelter to which I lock the door at night? Do I own the painting I create? Can I eat the apples I'm given in exchange for that painting, or do I not own those either? How the hell does anyone obtain food to eat in this world, and why would anyone bother painting, much less do work they don't enjoy?

I'm beginning to think that giving left-libertarianism coverage in the libertarianism article is akin to giving Creationism coverage in the Cosmogony article. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

lol ... if apparent absurdities becomes the criteria for exclusion, the libertarianism article might be left completely blank :oP

But, more seriously, you seem to forming a fair number of misconceptions about the philosophy (especially regarding fulfilling needs and the left-lib view of resources, and such). I'd heartily recommend that you not base too many ideas on the limited foray into the topic that we have going on the talk page here.

It seems that you might be forgetting that my responses here are limited only to cases where there may be reason for "redistribution", and so my comments here would not apply to just any conceivable situation. BigK HeX (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh ... as for reading something ... as far as contemporary works, this book has a guy that seems to have been thinking about the concepts for over 20 years, IIRC: [4]. (Disclaimer: I am not very familiar with the book.) BigK HeX (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

the largest example of redistribution that i can present, was the soviet redistribution of the Ukrainian workers(farmers)grain in the ussr, the result was mass starvation in the millions. what specific example or redistribution would apply to your comments? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Leipheimer change reverted

Thank you for your comments about the change to the Levi Leipheimer article that I made. However, your "reversion" to the article caused the exact same information to be included in two consecutive paragraphs, and so I had to re-revert your change to eliminate the redundancy. Sorry for any confusion. -- AyaK (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment after noting the redundancy. -- AyaK (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is why we have Edit summaries... ;-) --Born2cycle (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism

You have now reached 3 reverts today. This is a polite reminder of the WP:3RR restriction, so you should not preform any more reverts on this article today. TFD (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally your use of the "do not remove" template is inappropriate because it says, "...do not remove... without resolving the problem ... or giving a valid reason (my emphasis). Obviously the fact a tag was added without explanation or that an RfC has resolved a dispute are both valid reasons for removal. Also please read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. TFD (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The tag was not added without explanation. I referenced the explanation for adding it in the archives. I know about 3RR and it does not apply to the whole article. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

pre-coffee, sorry for being dense, i'm on euro time

which trap? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Using the term libertarianism in the broad sense. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

but that was my trap? it is obvious to me in a crowd that considers anti property and pro property the same philosophy, we are jousting windmills trying to reason away such double-speak. instead i am requesting proof LL is more than a tiny minority, like mt cannibalism argument.

most cannibals belong to tribes, many rs have written about cannibalism within tribes, yet no mention on the tribalism page, because it is a tiny minority. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheism

Yes. Everything needs a reference, particularly on an article as controversial as Atheism. Please refrain from leaving unnecessarily belligerent messages on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Razorback

Hi. Puzzled as to why you closed an active discussion which I think was working towards a consensus, and which certainly had a long way to run. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This particular request is two weeks old, already one week older than the standard one week. And, like I said in the closing comment, there seems to be some fundamental issues about the topic of the article that need to get resolved first. Further, if the decision is made that the article topic is or should be the feral pig, then the correct course might be a merge rather than a move. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Only Warning

Your harassment of a blocked editor has gone too far. Additional forms of harassment will result in a block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• What??? Wikipedia:Harassment states: "a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target". Engaging in discussion about whether the blatant serial plagiarism of a user who is blocked for plagiarizing is malicious or a "simple mistake" appears to you to "have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person"? So much for WP:AGF, I suppose?

  If that's really how it appears to you, it's important to me that you know and understand the purpose was not to adversely affect anyone. How ridiculous would that be even if it were someone's intent? He is already blocked and has been made notorious for this behavior.

  Please explain why anything I posted appears to be harassment to you at at all, much less harassment that has gone "too far". If you won't do that, then please retract your statement, because, I assure you, an admin leaving a statement like this on someone's talk page is threatening and intimidating (therefore it is WP:HARASSMENT, by definition). Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked, he's "paying the price"; and now because of editors like you, it's been necessary to lockdown his talkpage from everyone. That's disruptive, harassment, and will not be tolerated. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins, you didn't respond to the point Born2cycle made. He's not in violation of WP:HARASS by any means; he's using the talk page in a similar manner to a forum, yes, which is very much discouraged, but there is no harassment taking place. It's an accepted fact that the guy was guilty of the stuff Born2cycle was discussing, hence why the former was banned. Since when was referring to a vandal as a vandal harassment? I'm assuming good faith and good intentions on your part in this incident, but you made false accusations, threatened a block, gave what amounted to a final warning for a trivial misdemeanor, and treated Born2cycle like a recurring troublemaker... KaySL (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Born2cycle. I think admins may be out ahead of the general awareness in terms of how they deal with the talk pages of blocked users. At some point a policy discussion might be needed, but the general temper at ANI is too overheated at the moment to suggest any policy changes. Your edit here, while understandable, would probably be frowned upon by a new policy if it actually got written down. If you had made the same comment about Dhlomo at WP:ANI people would be unlikely to object. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Ed, that really explains it. Thank you very much. So, with that in mind, no consideration for "being way out ahead of the general awareness in terms of how they deal with the talk pages of blocked users" was given in the threat to block on my page, or even in the warning comments made at the talk page in question. I still think it to be an abuse of power to do what Bwilkins did here, and I'm disappointed that nobody on the ANI page would acknowledge this. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Language like this "and now because of editors like you" sounds a little abrasive. This DD fiasco has turned into a forest fire. I posted a personal attack of blunt language and crude analogies that was clearly wrong. But where is the line drawn for editors like Born2cycle? The terms of the warning basically say that's strike two. How is Born2cycle to couch his language or should he even have to?Wlmg (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I perceive that just about anything that other editors say on the talk page of a blocked user risks being criticized unless it seems to be part of a legitimate unblock dialog. E.g. encouraging them to agree to some proposed unblocking deal is OK. Critique of their past actions is risky. The rationale is (I think) not to make them any angrier than necessary, since people who are upset sometimes calm down after a while. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That all may be well and true, but the DD situation is unique. The discussion turned more to the soul of wikipedia. No admins objected when whole sections were created. If you follow the chronology UncleG locked down the page after IP vandals made a new section trying to turn DD into some sort of bizarre wiki antihero. Wlmg (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

just about anything that other editors say on the talk page of a blocked user risks being criticized . That's the crux, and I had no clue. Didn't see it coming at all, while others were operating as if it was common knowledge. That was the disconnect. This needs to be fixed. We need a template that can be added to pages of blocked users that essentially says that, ideally based on some kind of policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Darius

I am stating that it is very disappointing plain and simple than Darius resorted to copying and pasting form this site into the wiki article. Before you rant on look to see what I'm actually saying, i agree it was unacceptable. He should not have been copying text from such sites, it is poor editing. But I don't think he did it to create havoc is my point and overall he has been of great benefit to sports related articles on wikipedia and should make a formal apology to the community and be allowed to resume on condition it never happens again. Obviously you don't agree so there is no point in discussing it further. Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy the argument that someone with sufficient intelligence and knowledge to add coherent content to Wikipedia articles can be unaware that plagiarism (never mind Wikipedia rules) is wrong. Therefore, he knew it was wrong, but did it anyway, over and over, in countless articles, for years. I don't believe a person capable of doing that could have a genuine desire to contribute constructively. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The same thing could be said about (the many) people who see nothing wrong with downloading music – because you can't "own" music, like you can't "own" knowledge. The free reign of the internet has done much to up-turn seemingly obvious human ideas as the work–reward relationship. I would imagine that is what has happened here. Although he realises his actions are wrong in the context of Wikipedia, I imagine if was working on his own "Dariuspedia" he would not see a problem. This has very little to do with intelligence and very much to do with conflicting values. SFB 22:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean and that gives me pause, but there is a big difference between downloading an illegal copy of Allejandro, and presenting that song in a manner that implies it's you singing. That is, the blatantly wrong part of plagiarizing isn't when you select and copy side, but when you paste it into something that others will see in a context in which you are presumably typing. I keep notes at my disposal for various purposes that I've copied from all kinds of sources, but to present any of that as words that I typed one key at a time, like this comment, wouldn't even occur to me. Yes, we all learned in Kindergarten that stealing as well as copying is wrong, but downloading an illegal copy of music just doesn't seem like stealing something physical and tangible, but plagiarism is plagiarism. I think it's a big difference. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Juan Carlos I of Spain

I've only just come across the debate on the move of this article to Juan Carlos I, and I must say I am baffled by your decision. Even discounting the anonymous voter, there is still no clear consensus for the move. I do not understand your closure comments at all. Deb (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

These are my closure comments:

The result of the move request was: Move to Juan Carlos I (pending speedy delete of destination). When opposition arguments are discounted for creating Catch-22 situation (per john k), consensus is clearly in favor of move. Much of WP evolution occurs at the single article level; simply relying on consistency with some non-policy general naming guideline is not a compelling argument against special cases. Born2cycle (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to explain.

1. The raw count was Support: 4, Weak Support: 1; Oppose: 4, but consensus is determined not just by raw count, but by merits of the arguments/reasons.
2. John K explained the Catch-22 situation. If page renames are rejected solely due to contradicting specific naming guidelines, and specific naming guidelines can't change because what they say reflects how pages are named, then no change/evolution is possible. Therefore, opposition based solely on compliance with specific naming guidelines don't count as much as opposition based on page-specific reasons/arguments, or arguments that comply with with naming policy other than consistency with specific naming guidelines. That applied to two of the four votes, effectively changing them from Oppose to Weak oppose.
3. The IP vote comment was nonsensical and especially since it was anon I counted it as Weak.
4. I found the nom and John K's arguments to be compelling, so I added my own vote in support, thus resulting in: Support: 5; Weak Support 1; Oppose: 1 Weak Support: 3.

That's what I meant by, "When opposition arguments are discounted for creating Catch-22 situation (per john k), consensus is clearly in favor of move.". Does that make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that you agreed with John's view, therefore your opinion carries the day. But, in closing the debate, you should have been impartial. Reading the comments, I find it difficult to understand John's and your reasoning - I see no Catch 22 situation here at all. I would like to see this debate re-opened so that true consensus can be obtained. Deb (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Closers are supposed to weigh the persuasiveness of the arguments, not just do a raw count, especially with respect to how well the arguments are supported by naming policy.

I will try to explain the catch-22 situation to you one more time.

Say there is a specific naming guideline for names of articles about people that says last name should go first and all or most articles about people are named accordingly. Now, also imagine that there are some who think it should be the other way around to be in compliance with how people are usually referred to by name in reliable sources. So they try to change the naming guideline, but it is argued that since the guideline accurately reflects how people articles are currently named, it cannot be changed; that only if the naming of individual people articles changes can the guideline be changed. But any time they try to change the title of an article, say from Doe, John to John Doe, those attempts fail on the grounds that Doe, John is already consistent with the specific guideline for naming people. Do you see the Catch-22 now? That's why relying solely on compliance with a specific naming guideline must be discounted in weighing the arguments in a move discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but, even if I agreed with you that this represents a Catch-22 situation (which I don't), that is not what the oppose arguments say in this case. And the duty of the closer is as follows: "He (or she) is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate." This is not what you have done, and I'm disappointed in the way you have chosen to defend your action. Deb (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Parties in the USA

If I had known there were so many Libertarian Parties in the USA, (almost every State has one, it would seem), I would have grabbed a drink from the fridge before I started compiling that list, lol. I apologise if I appeared to be getting a little agitated with TFD in the initial discussion of mainstream Libertarianism. I just get a bit frustrated with their pedantic knit-picking and constant Wiki-lawyering over every little detail of my posts. BlueRobe (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but it's more effective to our cause to vent about that stuff somewhere other than on that article's talk page. If someone new comes along and sees comments from you like that, your relevant comments are likely to be less persuasive. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that is their secondary objective when deliberately baiting me. The primary being, obviously, to get me banned, lol. BlueRobe (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:

I've already posted an expansive argument supporting this on the talk page, using statements from the WP:OR policy page. I fail to see how using multiple sources to support a conclusion on a talk page is Original Research; I don't even think that policy applies to talk pages. Toa Nidhiki05 19:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Libertarianism discussion of the last day reminds me of one of those IQ tests, where, the longer we try to reason with the blatantly unreasonable person who will never change his stance or agree to any kind of compromise no matter what, the lower our IQ.

Let's face it, after months of arguing, BigK HeX hasn't given an inch of compromise as a good faith gesture towards reaching some sort of consensus among the editorial community, and he reacts to our provision of reasoned arguments and reliable sources by Wiki-lawyering everything to death.

I think we're well beyond the point where we need to refer this case of we're-banging-our-heads-against-a-brick-wall to the power's-that-be for some sort of mediation, (preferably, someone who has the first clue about Libertarianism).

I'll give it another day or so before I act. But, based on past performance, I am not the least bit hopeful we can produce anything constructive out of our attempts to reason with BigK HeX (and TFD etc) in the Libertarianism talk page. BlueRobe (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply ask for a WP:RFC on the talkpage, or search for a third opinion. WP:CONSENSUS usually means that all sides move a little ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Left-Libertarianism in the Libertarianism article

I agree that left-Libertarianism has no place in the Libertarianism article (it's more of some confused feel-good hybrid of Communism, Socialism and Anarchism). But, I'm suggesting we give it a section of its own in the Libertarianism article with a view to achieving some sort of consensus. Alas, they're just going to reject the offer, ignore the offer or disappear for a few hours, anyway. At least, that is what has happened every other time I have presented this compromise. BlueRobe (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be a little bit more careful when committing edits such as this diff where you seem to have accidentally wiped out a large body of text I had added. Fifelfoo (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. There was an (edit conflict), so I copied my text from the lower box to the upper box and saved. Isn't that supposed to work? I would think it works like this:

1. You, I and X are all editing.
2. X saves.
3. I save and get an (edit conflict)
4. I move my text to integrate changes with X's changes in upper box and save

OR:

1. You, I and X are all editing.
2. X saves.
3. I save and get an (edit conflict)
4. You save
5. I move my text to upper box, integrate and save, but get an (edit conflict)
6. I move my text again to integrate with your changes and save

But what seems to have happened is this:

1. You, I and X are all editing.
2. X saves.
3. I save and get an (edit conflict)
4. You save
5. I move my text to upper box, integrate and save and don't get an (edit conflict) and so your changes are clobbered without warning.

That's a bug in the edit conflict resolution software.

--Born2cycle (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries! I some times get false positives even when I edit-by-section instead of editing the whole thing at once. Fifelfoo (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I was editing by section, but in the edit conflict window the upper text is always the entire page. I integrated into that and saved. That's supposed to work (otherwise, what's the point?). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(“left-libertarian,” “right-libertarian,” and “libertarian socialist” suffice. The three are not factions of a common movement, but distinct ideologies using the same label) very interesting find indeed, a clear distinction sorely needed in the conversation concerning due weight. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, facts, reason and logic are on our side. If we all spent more time reviewing the alleged references for the poorly supported assertions, the article would be much improved. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

i'll keep looking as well, the translation of the letter to proudhon has still not arrived, in time i will delete it also if no remedy. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Threatening allegations

In response to "However, warnings against repeating unsubstantiated assertions belong on the talk page of the user who makes those assertions'", this sounds very much like a breach of WP:AGF and tending towards WP:BATTLEground behaviour. If you want to discuss the article, do it on its own talk page. Do not visit my personal page with veiled threats.

To clear up a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, it is our job as editors to use our own knowledge of a subject to decide which sources are reliable and notable. We do that by discussing the subject in article talkspace, where there is no requirement that each and every of our statements be underpinned with a formal citation. Those of us who have expert knowledge in the field use it sort the "wheat from the chaff", rather than blindly assembling random collections of links. In my own case, having founded a libertarian chapter in my younger days, I am well aware of the differences between US libertarianism and the anarcho-socialism advocated in some circles. The two bear nothing in common. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit. In closing I want to note it seems you're misreading my remarks entirely. When I say a "US-branded Libertarian", that in no way, shape, or form implies a difference between the US and any other particular flavor, except in respect to what I was specifically comparing it to. On the argument as to how closely US Libertarianism compares to that found in Australia or New Zealand, I am not prepared to say. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not discussing the article on your talk page (or mine for that matter). I'm discussing the unsubstantiated statements you've made on the article's talk page.

Thank you for acknowledging that you are not prepared to say how US libertarianism compares to that of Australia or New Zealand. Hopefully that is sufficient to inhibit you from asserting again something like, "the word "libertarianism" has entirely different meanings in the US and outside it". I hope you understand how it's easy to misconstrue the implications of "US-branded Libertarian" in the context of someone who made the previous assertion. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

born, since there have been so few editor who support our changes, and the ones that do are often being blocked unjustly(one just got unblocked and the admin who denied his unblock request was over-ruled. the admin has shown interest in others editing here and may be trying to advance a pov.) fell is one of the more recent voices here, i urge you to see if we can find middle ground here, after reading his comments i didn't comprehend it the same and am glad to have fresh opinions here helping us fix the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reason and logic is on our side, but we need to present it persuasively. It's a lot of work, but we can do it.... how about putting in some time helping with the Talk:Libertarianism#scope project? --Born2cycle (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

will do, i think i found the missing link in the capitalization of the term, wp is very clear about such Darkstar1st (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC view

The frankness in your RfC/User comment is worthy of quite a bit of respect .... perhaps we can use a space here in order to set aside some differences and try to come to an understanding on the Lib article sometime later...? BigK HeX (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no benefit in personal attacks, especially not to the person delivering them (or his associates). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism in the United States

I'd like to draw your attention to the condition of this article. Compare with Conservatism in the United States, Liberalism in the United States and Republicanism in the United States. Could you please dedicate your talents to improving this article? Yworo (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but for now I'm much more concerned with making sure Libertarianism fairly presents libertarianism (with respect to what the word commonly means in English throughout the English-speaking world today), including as a "distinct ideology" from libertarian socialism, as supported by reliable sources. But I'll be happy to move on to Libertarianism in the United States once the glaring errors at Libertarianism have been corrected. Your contributions (future as well as past) in helping out in that respect are appreciated. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Confession... I wrote that without looking at the article first. Yikes! You're right. It needs attention! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it could help a lot in the current dispute to get that article expanded and into shape. Assuming good WP sourcing practices are used, parts of the resulting article could be used to summarize US libertarianism in the broader article. Plus hopefully work on the US article will be less contested and there will be less obstacles to getting it coherent and otherwise in shape, something that can only benefit the interested editors and ultimately benefit the main article in the long run. Yworo (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if you think that's bad, Toa Nidhiki & I have already been at it a bit today, this is what it looked like when I found it! Yworo (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Stockman

Born2cycle, there appeared to be NO CONSENSUS to move Stockman to Stockman (Australia). Only ONE editor actually wanted the move, everyone else was opposed, and the most impacted editor was sort of on the fence. So WHY did you move that page? Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the closing comments, no evidence was presented that the topic of that article met the criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I read, in fact there was consensus to rename the article, to make it clear that its topic is the stockman in Australia. Montanabw made a compelling argument for naming the article Stockman (Australia) rather than Australian stockman. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Answered on the talk page. Anonymous 69 is twisting my words. I opposed this from the get go, but offered a compromise in the event consensus went the other way. Montanabw^(talk) 23:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(and edit conflict) The evidence was clear as a bell that the Australian use was the Primary topic. Not sure what you think was needed, but only one person wanted this move (and you probably are aware that this anon IP is undoubtably an experienced user hiding behind an anon, note that editor's contribution history.) Everyone else either opposed it outright or said something like, "well if you must move it, do it this way, but..." Not sure what constitutes "evidence" and the WP:PRIMARY article doesn't clarify. Montanabw^(talk) 00:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There was NO consensus to rename the article, and if a change was to be made Australian stockman was agreed to be more appropriate. The move was opposed from the start. Anonymous 69 is the only one who wanted this move.Cgoodwin (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The article I moved from Stockman to Stockman (Australia) is clearly not the primary topic for Stockman. Please consider the definition of primary topic... "[when] one of these topics [to which a single term refers] is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box." When I type stockman in google and the first hit is David Stockman and there is not a single instance of the Australian usage on the first page, that means if I as the closer had left the article at Stockman than I would be violating WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Sorry, I'm not going to do that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Geo-bias in that unreliable source, ghits, I get a "Hall of Fame" at http://www.outbackheritage.com.au/ on the first page. General comment, to others here: Primary topic is a bogus rationale, despite the the contention that it is an inviolable rule, it means whatever one wants it to mean. In practice it dovetails beautifully into a narrow outlook, synthesis, or other agenda, it shouldn't overrule other considerations. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I get that too at google.com.au, but it would be geo-bias to be going only by the AUS google results. I get nothing about the AUS stockman on the first page of results at google.co.uk. By the way, both Stockman and David Stockman each got about the same number of hits per month in July... 2100-2200. But Stockman would get a hit any time any one looking for David Stockman typed in just Stockman. Will be interesting to look at total article hits in October when Stockman is just a dab page.

Point taken about primary topic in general, to an extent. I challenge that it "means whatever one wants it to mean". When considering "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined", relative populations have to be considered when looking at geo-biased searches.

And what "other considerations" are you talking about? WP:ILIKEIT? I don't think so, and that's about all they had in this case. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm letting this one go because it isn't worth my time or energy to fight about it any more, though I agree with Cygnis. But I believe that most of the opponents sincerely thought we were making a primary use argument and not an "ILIKEIT" argument. Keeping the term primary was, IMHO, also showing cultural respect for Australia. What's correct isn't always what's popular. I mean, Google a lot of things and the popularity contest will link to a common last name or a sports team or a movie far more times than what the word itself actually means. Montanabw^(talk) 20:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing the AUS use of the term is the primary use ("[we] thought we were making a primary use argument"), but even if it wasn't primary, the primary topic consideration should not be given much weight ("I agree with Cygnis."; "What's correct isn't always what's popular"). You also suggest something like "showing cultural respect" maybe should carry more weight than primary topic considerations. I have no reason to believe there is any broad consensus basis for that view in the context of article titles.

Consensus in WP is not static, but Cygnis' is the first challenge to the concept of primary topic I've encountered, so for now I'm assuming that challenge is not even close to a consensus view. Further, I suggest that if we ignore, dismiss or even just discount primary topic considerations, the claim for their titles in perhaps even the vast majority of WP articles would come into question.

Anyway, I could see no reason, and was given no reason, to accept the AUS use of the term to be the primary topic. Therefore, I thought, and still think, that moving that article was consistent with the consensus of the WP community. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's OK for us to agree to disagree. I don't think I interpret WP:PRIMARY the same way you do, but truth is, this is not the article where I have the energy to draw a line in the sand about it, either. So we'll just stay tuned for further developments elsewhere, I guess. Montanabw^(talk) 20:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Butcher, Baker, … this how people got surnames when they couldn't afford to buy one. Where is David_Stockman unambiguously referred to "Stockman"? How could the flood of hits on his last name, and the others, have a bearing on an article title. I think it just the first time you have heard your conception of primary topic being challenged, so not a complete waste of time, I know it is not the first time it has come up. Discussion should be closed as a recognition of consensus, not by process editors with an opinion and subsequent judgement. How does one cite ghits, or wikipedians wrangling and finagling of them? Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• The criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not consider whether a given topic is unambiguously referred to as the term in question in reliable sources, if that's what you're referring to. Determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is about considering what a user is likely to use to search for a given topic, and what a user is likely to be searching for when using that term. I'm not arguing that David Stockman is the primary topic for "Stockman"; I'm arguing that because that topic pops up as the first result in a search for "Stockman" at U.S. google, and because the AUS topic does not pop up at all on the first page of google results for "Stockman" at the UK google as well as the US google, that the AUS topic is not the primary topic for "stockman" in English. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Electoral districts

We use a different convention in Australia, based on the fact that that wording is the actual legal title of the electoral district.

You're randomly moving two in a set of a couple of thousand electorate articles, and then you're sugesting that the person moving those random articles back is the one that should go to WP:RM? Nice try, mate.

You're also a bit clueless beyond that - you're moving the article to Gordon (electoral district), even though there's several electoral districts in Australia called Gordon. Rebecca (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Small favor

Hi. Some edit filter decided my fixing incoming links to Stockman is not constructive, but ... this is funny ... the edit filter also decided my reporting its false positive is not constructive. Would you report it for me? Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports is where it is supposed to be reported. Thanks! 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I was on Bumping River. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done ... or at least not a problem anymore. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Proposal

For some reason, you are the only person I feel to know well enough to believe that you might be interested in this proposal. If that's no so, feel free to ignore this note. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 30, 2010; 15:24 (UTC)

Disruption of threads on Talk:Libertarianism

Please do not attempt to disrupt the topic of my thread by inserting your soapboxing into them. You've asked that question ad nasuem previously on the talk page. It's not productive and I've made clear that I find it fallacious in the thread where you originally posted it. If you put that off-topic crap in my threads again, I will take your disruption to AN/I. Yworo (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your concerns. However, I don't understand. Can you please provide links to what you're talking about ("that question" - I've asked several of you today), and where you think you've already explained what is "fallacious" about it.

I mean, I could have just responded to this by saying, "that's fallacious", or "that's invalid logic", without explanation. But I wouldn't do that because it wouldn't be productive and would be disruptive to improving Wikipedia. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No. You know just as well as I do what I'm referring to. Yworo (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't Yworo. I can guess, and I suppose there's a good chance I'd be right. Perhaps you mean this question which you have not yet answered?

There is no question that there is support for the broad interpretation of the term libertarianism in reliable sources. But thanks for reminding us again.

However, there is support for the broad interpretation of cat in reliable sources too (to refer to the family that includes lions and tigers), yet the scope of the article at Cat is limited to the more specific topic, the domestic cat.

Given that you're appealing to general policy that applies to all WP articles (include Cat) and not to policy that applies only to articles about political philosophy articles, why do you think mere support for a general use of a term in reliable sources means the article named by that term must be about that general use for this particular article, when it clearly does not mean that in the case of other articles, like Cat? Or is there more to it? If so, what is it? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's the one and you feel you've already answered it, please let me know where. Or do you mean either of the following questions which you have also not yet answered?

Thank you. A couple of follow-ups.

1. The alleged deficiency in the logic I presented in that post is not clear to me, even though my profession depends on my ability to think logically - software engineer. Perhaps I'm missing something. What exactly is "clearly deficient" in the logic presented in that post?
2. What, if anything, do you believe justifies limiting the scope to a more commonly used specific interpretation of the respective term rather than to cover a more broad use of the term at articles like Cat (which does not cover lions and tigers even though they are "cats" in some reliable sources) and Bicycle (does not cover three-wheeled human powered devices even though they are considered to be "bicycles" in some authoritative reliable sources)?

Regardless of which question(s) you're referring to, would you please either answer each of these, or provide a link/diff to where you believe you've already answered them, because I honestly don't recall ever seeing an answer from you to any of this. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

the article Libertarian, not to be confused with libertarianism, addresses some of the cat/bike issues, but an editor is trying to make that redirect to this mess. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification of discussion at AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Talk page disruption by Born2cycle. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Montanabw behavior. Thank you. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI is busy these days. Thanks for your contributions, Born2cycle. Interesting result there. Montanabw^(talk) 03:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

personal attack?

I disagree with your interpretation of a personal attack. I've made myself clear. Stating that someone's edit is "silly at best" is, in my opinion, a personal attack. If there are no more personal attacks, this shouldn't amount to much more than a simple disagreement about how to define "personal attack". We'll see. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

IMDb is not a reliable source, and they often list films that don't have release date under the year most likely to get the release. This is no guarantee, nor a source. BOVINEBOY2008 04:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction

I thought you made some good arguments in favor of the move. I was drafting a response in support of what you were saying because I thought it was getting a bit heated and a second voice summarizing the same essential points in a slightly different way from another might be useful but it was closed before I finished:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I was a bit surprised it was closed in favor, but am pleased closers are weighing the arguments and Wikipedia community consensus reflected in the policy and guidelines that applies to all articles, and not just counting the votes of those participating. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was surprised too—not because the closer got it wrong, but because it is often the case that in discussions where a head count is 50/50 or stronger, regardless of the merits of the arguments, the close is no consensus. It is always easier and safer to maintain the status quo than it is to buck many users, even if their arguments are weak, and even when the opposers are blatantly outside of guideline and policy. I don't know that this one is so black and white but even when it is you can get accusations of bad faith on the close from those who want it to be a headcount.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an outstanding decision. Well done. Unless you tell me otherwise, I will probably use it as an example. And inspiration. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's high praise. Thanks much. Of course you can use it any way you deem useful. Unfortunately, writing decisions like that takes real mental energy and time that I often feel I don't have to devote, so when and I come across a discussion that I feel requires that type of consideration, instead of closing it with half a decision, I don't close it at all. I would get more done if I wasn't so anal about such matters but I am doomed to be a scorpion I guess.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the Determining consensus section of the closing instructions to better explain the kind of decision you made above. Next time you can just point them to that. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Dream a Little Dream of Me

Hi Born2cycle,

I think you overlooked the talk page move when closing this WP:RM.

The song is now at Dream a Little Dream of Me, but its associated talk page Talk:Dream a Little Dream of Me is still a redirect to Talk:Dream a Little Dream of Me (disambiguation).

The talk page Talk:Dream a Little Dream of Me (song) therefore needs to be moved to Talk:Dream a Little Dream of Me over the current redirect.

Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it again, I see you did move number one, DaLDoM -> DaLDOM (disambiguation) in its entirety, talk page and all, whereas User:Dabomb87 carried out the second part, DaLDoM (song) -> DaLDOM incompletely, without the talk page move. Ah well. Sorry for bothering you.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't do the second part because I needed to wait for the destination to be speedily deleted. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of requested moves

Hey, I'm curious about something. I notice that you close move requests - ie remove {{movereq}} templates - sometimes when there is no unanimity, generally applying your obviously firm grasp of Wikipedia naming conventions to just do the right thing and cut back on that ridiculous backlog (eg here). But, Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Non-admin_closure seems to imply that non-admins should avoid closing requests that aren't "nearly unanimous" - what is your take on interpreting these instructions? Thanks, and thanks for all your work on keeping naming consistent and sane over the years, ErikHaugen (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing and asking. Frankly, I just noticed that the other day and decided to apply WP:IAR for the good reason that I had already been inadvertently ignoring it for some time and no one objected, even after I inquired about potentially controversial decisions I'd made at the WP:RM talk page (and was told I did good). I think the intent and spirit of the requirement is to make sure closers of non-unanimous decisions know policy, naming and closing conventions well, and one way to ensure that is to require adminship. I presume I'm meeting the spirit of the requirement. I suppose I could apply to be an admin for that reason and so I could do speedy deletes, but haven't bothered. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Your home page: Examples of naming consistency

Not particuarly interesting, but I just noticed that this entry in your list:

• San Francisco — Salinas, California (California cities.)

does not conform with the others. US city naming conventions actually differ from other articles in that ordinarily the City, State nomenclature is used even when there is no need for disambiguation, with a redirect from the primary topic. So Sacramento redirects to Sacramento, California. San Francisco being named without its state is actually one of the exceptions to the rule due to its being "listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier" - i.e. one of the top few major cities in the US. (I believe it took some argument to drop the state name from even these articles). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite aware of that anomaly in the naming conventions, but what that list demonstrates is examples of pairs of articles from "like articles" that are apparently named inconsistently relative to each other, but consistently with the overall naming criteria that applies to all articles (use the most common name, precise but only as precise as necessary, etc.). Whether they're so named because of, or despite of, the particular conventions for that group is besides the point I'm trying to make with that list. But thanks for noticing and taking an interest! Perhaps I'll add some comments to it to explain this because I can now see it's not clear. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Countries of Europe#Requested move

We have effectively swapped opinion now. I didn't realise the proposal is a package deal. My original response to you reflected my confusion and was false. Sorry. Hans Adler 11:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 19

In light of your previous participation in this conversation, you may wish to opine in the deletion discussion for Delirious (disambiguation) and The Choir (disambiguation) now underway at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 19. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

NOINDEX

This only stops your userspace draft showing up in Google searches, it doesn't affect anything else at all. This is clearly required whilst the DRV is proceeding as technically the article is deleted at the moment. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 07:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

criticism of Nortel has been removed from wikipedia

Just wanted to thank you for your eloquent Keep support in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Nortel

Unfortunately common sense did not prevail, this time. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looks like wisdom and common sense did prevail actually. As did policy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Would you please elaborate - how did this criticism article breach Wikipedia policy? Which policy? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• This is the second situation I've run into recently where many hold the view that critical content that is acceptable within a main article, is not acceptable in a separate spinout.

  I don't know of any policy that supports that view, except maybe WP:ATTACKPAGE, however that policy addresses content that would not be acceptable in a main article about the topic either. This is indicated by the fact that administrators are reminded, in bold, to not even quote any of the content in the deletion summary when deleting such pages.

  That said, in any case in which the critical material about a topic can reasonably fit into the main article, I don't see any harm in doing it that way. That seems to be the case here, and that's fine with me. But I didn't understand the strong motivation to delete the separate page either. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I just noticed no one moved the content into the main article before deleting the spinout. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I would be very surprised if the critical material, what little was left of it, finds its way back to the main article - it is so much easier to criticize others' work than to pull up your sleeves and do it yourself, sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Since the final decision was not a delete but to make it redirect to Nortel, the complete history is available. So you can easily copy/paste it into the main article. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • The final decision at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Nortel makes it impossible for me to do any further work either at Nortel or at criticism of Nortel because this decision requires: Editorial consensus needs to determine what content, if any, is to be merged from the history to Nortel. It is impossible to reach consensus between only two people who hold opposing views - this is what led me to try and split the criticism article from the main Nortel article. I tried to work co-operatively with the one other contributor at the Nortel article for about five months (October 2009 - March 2010). It was a disaster - we could not agree and he ended up reverting almost everything I contributed forcing me to re-revert etc. etc. I finally decided it was a waste of my time and separated the 2 articles. Does this make sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Had you tried any of the multitude of avenues available to get help to work it out? Anyway, I've pasted in the content. Please object if it is removed in toto. If someone has good reason to object to certain content and delete some of it, fine, but they need to explain their reasoning. In general removed well documented material that is relevant is frowned upon, especially if it's in the main article so nobody can claim WP:UNDUE applies (though I find that argument dubious even when applied to spinout that is legitimate). If consensus is not reached then I suggest an rfc. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well said B2C ... we have WP:DR, WP:3O, WP:RFC and other methods of working things out. I have added Nortel to my watchlist, and will keep an eye out for funny business/requests for assistance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

From WP:CONSENSUS:

Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles. Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes.

77% is not a simple majority, it is a supermajority. To shift the decision, you'd need more than a simple majority in the other direction, which is clearly not going to happen. Yworo (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but consensus about one specific point cannot be extended to consensus about a general point. And consensus changes via discussion; you can't censor discussion by which consensus changes. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

IMO, you are wrong on both counts. Yworo (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge

I saw you closed the move discussion on Talk:Cambridge as "consensus to move." While I agree with your logic, wouldn't it be better to let an uninvolved admin make the call. I know you didn't comment on the Cambridge discussion, but you did support similar moves at Talk:Plymouth and Talk:Dover. DC T•C 04:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Just because I participate in other similar discussions does not make mean my decision in this one is unfairly biased. I didn't comment nor even read the discussion until I came there to evaluate it for closing. I read all the comments and arguments carefully, and explained my reasoning in detail because I knew it might be controversial. Anyone may appeal this decision to an admin, but I stand by my reasoning and I would hope that's all that should matter. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good luck. DC T•C 04:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incorrectly closed move request at Cambridge. Thank you.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the {{db-move}} tag you placed on Cambridge, pending the result of that AN/I discussion. JohnCD (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Queen Anne

I you made an error in executing the move to Queen Anne. The clear consensus for the move was Anne, Queen of Great Britain not Queen Anne. There were in fact numerous opposing votes to Queen Anne but not so much for Anne, Queen of Great Britain. let me know if you're willing to change the move, otherwise i'll input another RM.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the consensus of those participating on this point was clear. Some seemed to favor Queen Anne but assumed this topic was not primary for that name since there were so many other Queen Annes. But I think there is good argument to be made that the most common name is Anne, not Queen Anne, and the title should reflect that. It's probably worth another RM to look at this question more closely. By the way, if the most common name is Anne, then the title that makes must sense to me is Anne (Queen of Great Britain) (in order to more clearly convey the most common name in the title; if you don't put the disambiguatory information in parenthesis than many might be mislead into thinking the ", Queen of Great Britain" is part of the most common name). So perhaps a nomination with several possible destinations (including keep at Queen Anne) is the best way to go. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

re User_talk:NickCT#Impressed

Agree w/ your thoughts Born2cycle. In terms of naming convention, I've come an appreciation of WP:COMMONNAME as a relatively clear cut and pragmatic guideline for article titles. I think WP:NCROY is useful when the WP:COMMONNAME is not obvious or when "the common name is not unique" (as stated is WP:NCROY).

WP:NCROY makes it pretty evident that WP:COMMONNAME is primal when it says "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English". Unfortunately, I think a number of newer editors, who are primarily interested in "royalty pages" and who read WP:NCROY before they read WP:COMMONNAME, assume that WP:NCROY trumps WP:COMMONNAME.

This conversation tends to be rehashed. It might be useful if someone was to propose that WP:NCROY be edited to make the supremacy of WP:COMMONNAME more evident, and to explicitly state that WP:NCROY ought only be applied when 1) the WP:COMMONNAME includes some kind of royal title, and 2) the WP:COMMONNAME needs to be made disambiguous.

P.S. I'm impressed you are reading these older conversations so carefully. NickCT (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Mission Hills

Hi there. Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you. But in your response you might want to substitute something else (Bay Ho, let's say) for Mission Hills, which is a dab page. Also, it's not just L.A. - my other examples were from Minneapolis, Seattle, and San Francisco, all using the NEIGHBORHOOD, CITY format. Anyhow, it'll be interesting to see the responses. Dohn joe (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I wanted to respond in detail for the sake of others, and thanks for pointing out the problem with Mission Hills. Last I looked some but not all SF 'hoods were unnecessarily disambiguated. Right, see Haight-Ashbury, for example, which is as it should be per WP:TITLE policy and relevant guidelines. But, yes, there is some fixing to do there too. Let's see if we're successful with San Diego first. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I don't think anyone can argue there's a consensus due to a stealth edit which perhaps no one noticed. Anyway, there's no harm in putting a hold on your big proposed move until we settle the naming convention issue.   Will Beback  talk  07:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see a reason to hold, but I agree there is no harm in holding. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Sorry it took me awhile to research how to award a barnstar and to locate the one most appropriate. Thanks for helping with the complex situation at Nortel Ottawahitech (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

(I know, don't template the regulars, but....)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Article titles. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)