User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Born2cycle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I copied your Bikeway content over to Wiktionary because it looked like a good dictionary definition to me (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bikeway). I was wondering if you planned on expanding the article further or if you think it will stay as-is. Tobycat 00:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No current plans to expand it, but it should be. I guess I should label it a stub. Thanks. --Serge 00:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a note that the edit you reverted on the Thomas Jefferson article, the person that removed that sentence is the same person that added it, so they probably just decided it wasn't worth putting in the article. I don't think it's possible to vandalize yourself. =] Peyna 12:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Libertarianism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

A request for comment has been filed in response to User:Pat8722's behavior on libertarianism. You are encouraged to certify or add your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pat8722. Rhobite 14:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've filed a request request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irgendwer and your input would be appreciated. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 04:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: What part of "no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities" do you not understand? — The part in English, I guess. :P —Tamfang 02:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Serge, I know you're passionate about neighborhood naming conventions, and there's currently a discussion and poll at the Talk:Anaheim Hills page regarding a move to "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California." I thought you'd want to drop, check it out, and vote (despite the fact that you and I tend to disagree on this particular matter). Soltras 16:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me on the Anaheim Hills name change portion of the issue. I am kind of getting tired of constantly being bashed by these big Wikipedia names who do things just for the sake of convention. I am trying to change the naming convention not just for Anaheim Hills, but for all communitites that have paragraphs as their title (which defeats the purpose of the article). I am glad that their is some sun shining through the clouds because it is nice to have someone that agrees with you sometimes. --Ericsaindon2 04:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

AHhhh, Im being attacked for changing the name! I cannot believe that the Anaheim Hills name was blocked from changing. That is ridiculous. It doesnt state this convention anywhere on Wikipedia, so how can it be ethically changed? --Ericsaindon2 03:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you vote on the Final Naming Poll on the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California page by Monday, June 6th at 11:00 pm pst. This is a collaborative effort to determine where the Anaheim Hills page will rest forever with no disputes. There are currently four choices to choose from, so go and check it out. --Ericsaindon2 21:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

While I believe that Irgendwer's attempted addition to Libertarianism is nonsensical, badly written, and confusing to the point that no amout of copy-editing would be capable of saving it, and the best solution is to just remove it as you have been doing, I also believe it to be counter-productive and uncivilized to add edit summaries which include the words disruptive and troll. Additionally, it may be inflamitory to include the word vandalism in those summaries in which you revert that addition. I hereby make a personal appeal to you to refrain from using those potentially volitile words in your edit summaries in the future. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 08:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop referring to your fellow editors as "mild autistics".[1] -Will Beback 01:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As an apparent member of the "group", I don't appreciate being called autistic, either individually or collectively. I didn't complain the first time you made the reference, but you seem to think it so funny that you've repeated it. Please don't do so again. -Will Beback 03:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -Will Beback 04:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened, as far as I can gather, is that we argued forever, and then everybody got tired of it, so we ended up with the status quo. If you want to restart the discussion, I'd continue to favor changing the rule (but only for major cities - I think the default should be "City, State," but that if it's clear that an American city is the primary use, we should move it to just "City"). I'm not sure about the Hollywood case. The current location is dubious and unpleasant, but I'm not sure exactly how that sould work - I kind of agree with Bkonrad that the most common usage of "Hollywood" is not for the place, but for the American film industry, and that Hollywood, California might be the best location for that. john k 07:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's a troll, but honestly thinks he's helping and just doesn't really understand Wikipedia. Starving hasn't been working in any case. It took stupid amounts of discussion before, but the "political" issue eventually stopped being an issue. I'm hoping engaging will work again. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. --Serge 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no controversial edits because their is no controversial critics. You are reverting only. This can be considererd by other users as vandalism. Nice day! --Irgendwer 20:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In case you're interested: Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board#Canadian city naming convention -- Usgnus 23:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

He's getting worse, and Tamfang is getting nowhere with him except into lengthy original-research discussions about the nature of libertarianism. Time for arbitration? — Saxifrage ✎ 18:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that was mediation. Mediation, being inherently cooperative, requires acceptance by all parties. Arbitration does not require acceptance by Irgendwar, and the Arbitration Committee has the authority to impose bans, blocks, and other sanctions regardless of what Irgendwar would like. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll happily be party to the Arbitration, but I think I'm far from the primary person involved (apart from Irgendwar). Tamfang seems to be right now, as were you and rehpotsirhc during the earlier "political philosophy" ridiculousness. Do you feel comfortable requesting the case be opened? — Saxifrage ✎ 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If I was forced to guess at gunpoint, I'd say User:Hannatk is Irgendwar, but I think we could be wrong. I've asked that user why their first edit was to get right into the middle of a controversy with a long history. We'll see if they answer, and if not I'll ask a developer for a sock-check. Until then I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt.

I don't really have the time to collate all the information needed to start a proper arbitration request either. I'll ask Tamfang. Since you were posting at the same time, perhaps you could query rehpotsirhc, or maybe Rhobite on whether they could? Alternatively, perhaps they would be willing to prepare it on a separate user page, and one of us could review it and apply for arbitration using it. That would be nicely Wiki-ish. :-) — Saxifrage ✎ 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not overloaded with energy, but .. what's the procedure? —Tamfang 05:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

---

His edits don't actually qualify as vandalism per Wikipedia's definition (it falls under both "NPOV violations" and "stubbornness" in Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not). So, it just hurts our case against him to mischaracterise his edits as vandalism and it's best avoided. I'm preferring to revert him with a "not consensus" rationale. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Serge. Thanks for what you have been writing on the talk page of the liberalism article. It makes sense to me. I started a poll on that page. Could you check it out and vote in the poll? Thanks. Shannon^{duck talk} 08:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Er, yes, you are missing something. The suggestion for Italy is to disambiguate when necessary using City, Region. The rule for the United States is to always disambiguate by City, State. I think the latter is stupid, but I'm perfectly alright with the City, State format in most cases - it's only for big cities that aren't ambiguous that I find it annoying. john k 19:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In a number of places you place the blame on the {city, state} "convention" on some sort of automated program that wrote hundreds of Wikipedia articles. I submit that this "convention" only reflects the prevailing vernacular - Americans tend to formulate place names based on postal designations and standards imposed by the U.S. Postal Service. In other countries, the city usually stands alone in mailing addresses and is not combined with a county, state, province or other country subdivision. Only in cases where disambiguation is necessary are cities followed by additional information, and even then, "states" or other subnational entities are not always used; consider "Frankfurt am Main" vs. "Frankfurt, Hessen", which one would never see. In the U.S., however, a town or city must always be followed by the state (or, more recently, a two-letter state abbreviation) when written in a mailing address. This is simply ingrained into the American public from elementary school on. All the time I see instances where, outside of a postal context, people will still provide a reference in a postal format. For instance, when giving the location of an upcoming event to someone living nearby, people will write "123 Main Street, Springfield, US 12345" as if the recipient would be writing a letter, and as if the recipient doesn't know that nearby Springfield is in the same state that they are. "123 Main Street in Springfield" would completely suffice. I agree that the latter formulation is more elegant, but to many Americans, seeing a city name "standing alone" feels incomplete or non-standard. Perhaps it is a "Puritan" strain of American culture to have to clothe an otherwise "naked" city name with the corresponding state name. You may not like it, but I think it might be a bit unfair to put down other editors when they are simply reflecting what is a general convention - and not something isolated to Wikipedia. Totallypostal 00:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My explanation is at User_talk:Totallypostal --Serge 14:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but wouldn't it be prudent to consult with the creator of a category before one submits it as a candidate for deletion? Doing so could save a lot of time and energy on the part of everyone who gets involved in the discussion, that perhaps could be more efficiently remedied with an explanation on the Category page itself. In the case of Category:American_Tour_de_France_stage_winners, if you had asked me first, I would have provided an explanation/justification to address your concerns/questions on the category page, and the discussion currently going on could have been avoided. Anyway, something to keep in mind. Thanks. By the way, do you have any concerns/questions besides what you stated on the categories for deletion page? --Serge 17:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda here, I was just cleaning up the uncategorized categories list, and it really isn't realistic for me to write 209 letters... However, in light of persuasive arguments by you and Mike Selinker, I've changed my vote. I still think the current setup isn't really correct, skipping a level like that, but we should keep it and eventually I think it will it will all work out. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. I'll keep an eye on that section and jump in, if I can, though at the moment I'm too afraid of messing you up, heh. :) Good luck. Luna Santin 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I fear that his lack of logical consistency means that he will actually be unable to understand why his argument lacks it. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm hoping he actually does value logical consistency, and honestly did not realize his position lacked it. But I'm not holding my breath. We'll see. --Serge 22:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. There's a recent development at Minarchism. [2] Irgendwer tagged it with a {{citeneeded}}, which I then satisfied with one of the references already used. Brand new user (first contrib) reverted me, and in the next few minutes, he's up to three reverts, I'm at two. I've finally gotten the newer user to discuss, at the talk page. I'm not sure, but part of me has a hunch this is connected; or, at least, Irgendwer's part in it. Luna Santin 13:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer has threatened to start sockpuppeting, saying in response to an administrator who handed out warnings and eventually a block that "many admins are playing me for a sucker now" and that he will consequently change accounts. Vahonia (talk · contribs) might be a sock as well. If they keep looking and writing like Irgendwer, we should do a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser on them and Alfrem (talk · contribs) (Irgendwer's likely original account). — Saxifrage ✎ 17:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Howdy! I noticed that you tagged Alfrem as a sock of Irgendwer. A note, I believe Alfrem to be the better root account, as it was sanctioned and dismissed from project a year before Irgendwer even appeared. IE, Irgendwer is the sock of Alfrem. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically Alfrem would be an abandoned account, leaving Irgendwer as the main account before it was blocked. It's not quite an academic point, because with the Alfrem account's inactivity it's more practical to tag the Irgendwer account as main for other editors. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought they were already suspended. I'm just trying to make sure cheaters are reconized world wide and not just in one specific sport. I might have jumped the gun on the cyclists but I'm sure time will show it right. Outside Center 03:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely Jan Ullrich should be part of Category:Doping cases in cycling as he was banned by the German Cycling Federation in 2002 ? KeithW 07:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I am kind of tired of these admins who keep making up these nonexistent rules, like you pointed out on the La Jolla, San Diego, California page. It is always the same four or five people that disagree, and go from community to community just trying to fight the name, and it is sickening. I cannot seem to believe that they selectively protected the page, so that it was positioned in a way that it was protected on their version (referring to these abusive admins). Now, I voted and made a statement, and will frequent the page, and support your community agenda for our goals are similar, enforcing the naming rules. But, I must warn you that if the admins begin to think I am a sockpuppet of someone else (like they thought I was the sockpuppet of user:Ericsaindon2)-actually, I think they just wanted to name everyone who supported (community) to be named my sockpuppet and to name all other parties involved user:Ericsaindon2's sockpuppets, so that they could have ultimate (yet abusive) control of naming communities. It was a disasterous mistake on their part, which they still have never said sorry for, and which took 2 months to clear my name. I am just telling you to be careful, for they can get really abusive with their powers. Cheers. OC31113 05:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Serge. I used to disagree with your cause, as recently as three or four months ago. However, you have convinced me with logic and reason. Soltras 19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Serge, I have a great idea. I believe that we should begin an Rfc for communities in general so that we wont have to do this same thing for every community. I am looking through records, and an Rfc has not been conducted in the issue for over 20 months. With fresh ideas from others, and a persuasive complaint on the Rfc, it is sure to be a winner with the general audience. What do you think? OC31113 19:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Maybe an Rfc is not the solution at the present time, but lets face it, we have gone from community to community fighting the issue, and its always the same arguements with the same people saying the same old stuff. I know that both La Jolla and Anaheim Hills will not be greatly affected (since both communities are seeking cityship and will have the naimg convention in their favor upon the passing of these proposals) but for the other communities, it needs to be done. OC31113 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't understand why this seems to be such a big deal regarding community naming. I gave my opinion, and will let consensus decide the results. I also don't think that the methods of other encyclopedias should be the methods of Wikipedia by default. The two principles I consider first regarding communities and cities are avoiding ambiguity and consistency.

The vote seems to have shown consensus to be towards the community, city, state method, and particularly against community name only, so why fight it so vehemently? Why not let it go for now and work on other things? If it really turns out that we've made a bad decision, I expect that consensus will eventually shift on its own as editors develop experience. I see no reason why we shouldn't let the current paradigm hold for a while and see how things develop. Sxeptomaniac 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. OC31113 01:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I certainly don't mind your comments at all. I don't have any plans or any real inclination to go around making a push for other cities to move, though. I just happened to be looking at the Chicago article before I proposed the move.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have anything against participating in general discussions to revise the policy. I'll put the talk page for the cities-naming-policy page on my watchlist.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't really have to do anything, just wait for an administrator to close the request and perform the move. This is supposed to happen about five days after the request, so expect it any time now.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I already voted supporting the move sometime ago. Anyway, I am also interested in trying to prevent mandatory usage of the City, State convention. At the very least, they should be used only when disambiguation is necessary. Personally, I would even prefer that the convention be scrapped and the parentheses disambiguation method used instead. But that is probably a more difficult fight. --Polaron | Talk 00:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't move discussions from one page to another. -Will Beback 19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion appears to concern the city naming convention, not the naming of places. -Will Beback 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

lol, now we have a move discussion :-). See my sorry [3] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. My reason was that Karr is not independently notable. Since he is notable only through his connection to Ramsey, he does not qualify for his own article.--Srleffler 03:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you are active once again in the Anaheim Hills debate. Well, now they are venting their anger out on me by trying to get two community articles to be merged to this one. Both articles are far larger than most community articles are, and it appears to be an effort of venting their anger out on me (for I vastly created the two articles). I would appreciate it if you would vote to oppose the merge, for both articles are 5 paragraphs, and are by no means "stubs". I am sick of these admins picking on all of us for disagreeing with us on the naming convention. Once they loose one case, they find something else wrong. It is getting tiresome and needs to stop. So please show a vote for opposition. Thanks. Ericsaindon2 01:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You have never approached me to be your ally. Ericsaindon2 20:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that I did'nt want to be your ally, for I really do want ally's against the admins who made up this fake convention. I was just kind of confused, because you never had approached me before about being an ally, and your statement made it sound like we had this big "plan" or something. If you would still like to work on my side, I would appreciate it, and I am sorry for any misinterpretation.Ericsaindon2 22:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Call me dumb, but I still do not know why you are so upset. I just said you never talked with me about working with you, and I said I was willing to work with you. I am not playing any games, or trying to trick you in any way, I was just honestly a little confused.Ericsaindon2 20:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I can't think of a meaningful rebuttal! The policy is obviously meant differently she says weakly (Note no visual clues but that was tongue in cheek). Perhaps because it is the death of a third person ... I don't disagree with you its just I don't like it. It doesn't seem ethical ... but I don't disagree with you or your interpretation of the policy and I can't think of a better way to frame the policy. I think it is congruent with all the rest of the wikipedia policies. --Arktos ^talk 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A reminder that it is poor form to solicit votes in a strawpoll in a biased manner. Better just to announce it and not hand-pick sympathetic voters. -Will Beback 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I should have cited the guideline, Wikipedia:Spam#Votestacking:

• Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion and informing them of an upcoming vote, such as via a userbox or other user categorization. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters.

• Canvassing can be deleted on sight by admins and editors alike and, again, individuals found to have disrupted Wikipedia by canvassing are often blocked.

If the merits of your argument are sufficient then votestacking is not necessary. -Will Beback 21:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that the city naming issue in general is starting to be debated in a more general level. I think that's where the focus should be. While I would vote for any city article to be titled without its state (barring ambiguities), I don't think creating straw polls for every major city is necessarily the correct procedure. In Chicago for example, proponents of the "City, State" format may a year from now, claiming not to have been part this summer's poll, begin a new poll to move it back. I think all the polls are creating an air of bitterness and is polarizing the two main camps, which is counterproductive to the greater goal of debating city naming in general, not just repetition of the same arguments on city talk pages across the country. Soltras 19:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Serge, just contact me for each poll and I'll lend my vote gladly. This [[City, State]] convention as a strict rule has got to go. --- Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} My "Great Project"

If you start or come across other polls where well-known cities are to be moved to their common names then please do inform me as well. We should definitely not be bound by the guidelines to use the pre-emptively disambiguated comma convention for US cities. No one has ever come up with a single good reason other than citing that guideline for keeping cities at the comma-style article name. --Polaron | Talk 04:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There was not one thing in my statement that talked about exceptions. I said simply that I do not want to start another ripple affect, where you go city hopping, and create all this controversy. It seems downright stupid. I would say that instead of trying to enforce change on a handful of cities, and taking months on each attempt for a result, you need to get consensus to change the whole convention. There are over 45,000 cities in the US, and you have acomplished 2. Now, I know why you are doing it, and I do agree with you, but I do not agree with the way you are going about it. Ericsaindon2 05:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

On the User:Ericsaindon2/Sandbox, did you like the formatting? I tried to condense the situation as best as I can. It might allow your point to be verified on a larger scale, since many people like your convention, including myself. I think that it is a fair way to gain consensus, and conduct many cities of similar nature in one strawpoll. If you like the way it is set up, please let me know, or state it on the talk page of the User:Ericsaindon2/Sandbox, or if you dont, please state that as well. I want to made modifications, and get the ball rolling! Ericsaindon2 22:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole business is incredibly frustrating. What puzzles me is that there was such a strong near consensus to move Chicago, and then every other page where moving has been tried has seen major opposition. Was it just that the Chicago move caught the opposition unawares? Did you leave messages in a particularly effective manner? I don't really understand what happened.

I would have hoped that with Chicago successfully passed through, the argument could be made that the convention is merely a guideline, and that we could move articles as we liked, without worrying too much about the naming convention. This has seemingly proved not to be the case. Once it gets to a question of changing the general policy, I'm afraid the chances aren't good. In any debate over policy, there is a self-selection bias by people who like there to be lots of rules. That makes it incredibly difficult to change the general rules, especially since it becomes so difficult to propose a general change. I would strongly support changing the US conventions so that for cities whose names are not ambiguous, "City" is the standard. I proposed something like this two years ago (with the caveat that whenever we were in doubt, we should stick with the "City, State" format), and nothing ever came of it, for the most part because the people opposed to a change stopped arguing about it, and it just died down.

So I'm feeling kind of fatalist about this. Last time there were a lot more old-time wikipedians agreeing with our position than there are now. This feels kind of doomed... john k 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully concur. But then there's this inexplicable opposition. I've no idea what actual steps could be taken to effect a change. john k 20:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make statements implying that I've called anyone irrational, when I haven't. Thanks. --Serge 03:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Statements such as I don't see how progress can be made in such an irrational environment ([4]) and But I suggest the inability of anyone to actually state what it is is that it's not really there. That creates an irrational basis for decision-making, by definition. ([5]) appear to say you think some of the involved parties are being irrational. Perhaps if that was not what you meant, you should clarify that. -- tariqabjotu 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You wrote, "let's try avoid calling others 'irrational'. " I did not call anyone irrational. There is a world of difference between an irrational person, and an irrational statement or act. Please respect that. I do. Thanks. --Serge 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Serge.

Could you please tell me which of the two you would prefer?

• en.wikipedia.org - the online encyclopædia for the English-speaking world, not biased towards any particular country
• A split into usa.wikipedia.org (written by Americans, for Americans) - and other-en.wikpedia.org (for the rest of the English-speaking world)

I would be interested to know which scenario you would advocate.

Thank you, EuroSong ^talk 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My preference is the first... no split. However, when the name indisputably used most commonly to refer to a subject of a particular article happens to be one nearly exclusive to a particular country, there is not much we can or should do about that. According to WP:NC(CN), that must be the title of the article. It is certainly not a reason to use a name instead that is hardly used anywhere to refer to that subject.

--Serge 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are talking bollocks mate. Your claim that it is indisputable that Popsicle is the most commonly used term has no basis in fact. If you are refering to your Google search, then it prooves nothing. It would be the height of absurdity to claim that Google searches are the result of an unbiased sample. Where is Google based? Oh yes, that would be in North America. Where are the largest quantity of internet connections and internet sites? Oh yes that would be North America. What is systemic bias? Oh that would be ignorant people thinking that their culture and way of doing things is the only one in the world that should be taken into account. Take a look at my example regarding Cricket and Baseball Google searches, Cricket gets about 78 million, but Baseball gets 281 million. But Cricket is the most popular sport in India, the second most populous country on the planet. It is certainly true that more people watch and participate in Cricket than in Baseball. Baseball just has a greater exposure on the internet, it is an example of a biased sample. Even if a term is the most commonly used term that does not in and of itself proove that it is a common name, after all common implies used or recognised by all. The naming convention (CN) also states in the Exceptions section that Some of these exceptions follow from guidelines that give recommendations for enhanced precision, cleaner disambiguation and/or solution of naming conflicts, which might lead to article names that are rather "the most obvious" than strictly spoken "the most used". I would suggest that ice lollypop is far more obvious than the rather obscure popsicle. This section of the convention also states Other exceptions are contained in the Manual of Style, for example the National varieties of English section in that guideline leads to fixed-wing aircraft being used instead of aeroplane or airplane, in order not to give precedence to either British or American spelling. You are trying to cite a convention that clearly gives no support to yout biased POV pushing. You should probably go and have a look at WP:NPOV as you seem to have no understanding of the most fundamental aspects of neutrality. Alun 17:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• within the U.S., at least, the generic use of "popsicle" to refer to the subject of the article is much more common than the use of "ice lollipop" anywhere. (see here)

You make my point for me within the U.S., but this encyclopedia is not only for the US. It is also incorrect to refer to popsicle as generic (1 a : relating to or characteristic of a whole group or class : GENERAL. b : being or having a nonproprietary name), you clearly do not know what this word means. Popsicle is a trade name (or Trademark) it is certainly not generic. See the difference between Paracetamol the generic name for the drug and Panadol [6] not the name of the drug, but the name of a product. The term ice lollipop is descriptive, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Exceptions article names that are rather "the most obvious" than strictly spoken "the most used". But most importantly you have not shown that Popsicle is the most common word in the English speaking world, at best all you have shown is that it is the most commonly used name in North America, and as such your argument holds no water and becomes little more than POV pushing or personal preference rather than a proper argument. The popsicle article should be about the specific product and not about ice lollys generally. Alun 05:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi, Serge.

I see that this issue has now spilled over into the aircraft article also. *sigh*

Listen: I do understand what you are saying. From a certain perspective, you do have a valid point. You're saying that the most common name should be used when it comes to article titles. That's all very well and good when it comes to uncontroversial matters, where there is little international disagreement. For example George W. Bush is the common name for the American president: people don't go around calling him "Walker". Also, although the Prime Minister's name is "Anthony Blair", as on his birth certificate, everyone just calls him Tony Blair. So yes, that policy of using the common name is just fine for such situations.

However, you must also understand the other side of it. There are situations where different countries can have different "common names" for things. Yes, it is undisputed that the common name in the USA for those snacks is "Popsicle". That's just fine... and if this were usa.wikipedia.org, there would be no question whatsoever that that should be the correct name, because that's what 100% of American people call them. But this is not usa.wikipedia.org. There is only one English-language Wikipedia, and it must be shared between all the English-speaking people of the world. That means that different countries' language use are equally valid, regardless of absolute numbers. Yes, the absolute numbers on Google show more hits for the American words... but that's only because the population of the USA is greater. You must surely understand, however, that just because one country is very big, that does not mean the rest of the world have to simply submit to that country's way of doing things - especially when words like "Popsicle" are totally foreign to the rest of the world. At least the word "airplane" is close enough to "aeroplane" to be understood.

I want you to understand also that if there were an article titled by an exclusively British name, which was not understood by the rest of the English-speaking world, I would also be saying the same thing: that an international compromise must be found. This is also not uk.wikipedia.org :)

So... I hope we can understand each other now, and settle this amicably. I do not blame you for being patriotic: that's fine. But you also need to look beyond your own borders. By the way, are you of Russian background? Your name does not sound American.

All the best, EuroSong ^talk 15:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: "if there were an article titled by an exclusively British name, which was not understood by the rest of the English-speaking world" A recent example of a situation similar to this was the recent move of Athletics to Athletics (track and field). David D. (Talk) 19:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Serge. I was away from Wikipedia but do agree with the name change to Chicago. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in this matter. I am only on Wikipedia sporadically these days, but I will try to keep an eye on further developments. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to thank you, Serge, for the enlightening discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of doomsday scenarios. When I originally protested MapleTree's solicitations, I mistakenly assumed that everyone would share my sentiments. I am glad that you questioned my reasoning, because I then realized that my sentiments were in fact not unanimous. I want to thank you for compelling me to attempt to defend my sentiments in a logical manner. It was difficult not becoming impassioned, and I am unsure if I was entirely successful at the endeavor. But thank you again for the chance to have an enlightening and civil discussion. Sincerely, Iamunknown 00:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC).

Why do you ask? john k 23:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It was just kind of confusing because I go to school in Philadelphia and am probably, er, going back there in a month or so. So at first I was disoriented. john k 16:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. My opposition is basically based on my agreement with User:AjaxSmack's position that the general U.S. city naming convention has the virtue of being a consistent guide, and that adding to the two current exceptions to that policy would lead to a slippery-slope that would result in no coherent policy at all. If what you really want to do is change the general U.S. city naming convention, then I would urge you to resume the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006). (In fact, I think that I'll add a link to this policy discussion on Talk:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania so that the gang there can see the context).Spikebrennan 18:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to your further comments, I understand what you're saying, but I have not yet been convinced to change my vote.

(1) I happen to agree with the views expressed by those contributors to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/U.S. convention change (August 2006) that 'city, state' is the best convention for names of U.S. city name articles, notwithstanding the well-articulated arguments presented by you and other opponents of that view. If I had participated in the Chicago discussion, I would have opposed the move. I note that the end result of the aforementioned lively discussion was no change in the 'city, state' rule-- to my mind (but not to yours, I concede), this is evidence of the virtue of the general rule. (May I ask, do you intend to propose to have this article- moving discussion with respect to other cities, or just Philadelphia? If just Philadelphia, then it makes sense to discuss the issue at Talk:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. If you intend to follow up with other cities, then it seems to me that this is really an extension of the earlier discussion and should take place there.) (2) I really do happen to think that 'Philadelphia, Pennsylvania' is the best name for the article. There's a non-trivial number of other Philadelphias out there (including other geographic locations, the Biblical Philadelphia, the Tom Hanks film, and so on).

Apropos of nothing, I happen to work in Philly and live just outside it, so to that extent I recognize that my views on the subject seem to be at odds with most of the other Philly-based Wikipedians who have weighed in on the topic. Spikebrennan 18:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I guess I've said my peace on the subject. Spikebrennan 01:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I may indeed change my mind at some point--It's happened plenty of times before. Spikebrennan 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a vote to move Seattle, Washington to Seattle. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 08:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• You wrote that I initially (initially? I haven't changed anything) implied "that behaving like moron was characteristic of those who insist on disambiguating the unambiguous" What words of mine implied that to you? --Serge 04:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• The part where you say "let's be morons instead and insist on disambiguated titles," implies that insisting on disambiguated titles is the way to be a moron. --Dystopos 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• You wrote: The part where you say "let's be morons instead and insist on disambiguated titles," implies that insisting on disambiguated titles is the way to be a moron. Right. Note that I was commenting on behavior and choices that hypothetical people make. I was not commenting on people, and certainly not on anyone in particular. Are you contending that commenting unfavorably on any particular type of behavior is "uncivil", because that implies something unfavorable about anyone who engages or has engaged in that behavior? Isn't that going too far? --Serge 15:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• All I was pointing out was that you initially referred to the behavior of those who insist on disambiguated titles, and then later claimed to be referring "to all of us, not just the opposers." I am not accusing you of violating the rules of civility, just acknowledging the change in your aim. --Dystopos 18:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from your insults. Using newbie templates on an established editor is a calculated insult. Do not do so in future.

In addition, stop moving pages against consensus. Your contempt for your fellow editors is unbecoming. Guettarda 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

False. A person who isn't intent of engaging in personal attacks says "remember the 3rr". If used on an experienced editor it's a clear and calculated insult which says (at best) "You are too stupid to understand the rules, so I am spelling them out to you like a newbie". There is no reason to use {{3RR}} on anyone who is familiar with the rule unless you want to insult them. Please refrain from personal attacks and calculated insults in the future. Or would you prefer if I used {{NPA}} and pretended that you weren't worth the effort of typing a few words? Guettarda 02:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Claiming on my talk page that my actions constituted a "clear and calculated insult" is a clear violation of WP:AGF" - so, when someone insults you, you should assume good faith? If you want to talk about failure to assume good faith, you should really look at your own actions. "Just wanted to provide an official warning that if you revert again, you will be reported. Next time I won't bother" - now that is a failure to assume good faith. You are assuming that there would be a "next time". That's your idea of assuming good faith? Hilarious.

• "all I was trying to do was give you a "head's up" that I was counting the number of reverts" - and you can't do that without (a) being highly aggressive and (b) calling me stupid? Are you trying to tell me that you are incapable of saying "FYI, you're up to 3 reverts"? That is giving someone a heads up. Using a newbie template on a non-newbie and documenting the reverts - that's called being aggressive and insulting.

• "I did that in what I understood to be the standard and accepted official manner" - really? You think that insulting people is the standard manner? You think that being rude is the standard and accepted manner? Don't be ridiculous.
• "I was just following the instructions at WP:AN/3RR" - no, you were not. The page says "If you find yourself in a revert war, it is a good idea to ensure that the "other side" is aware of the 3RR, especially if they are new". "Make sure" means take a couple seconds and figure out if they are new or not. If you feel you have the right to sling insults you should just do so, and not try to shelter yourself by twisting the meaning of instructions at AN3.
• "I didn't know you from Adam" - but you knew I was an admin (since you responded to a message in which I discussed the fact that the page was move-protected). In addition, I explained the difference between policy and guidelines to you. So it's clearly false to allege that you couldn't figure out whether I was a newbie or not. Even if you couldn't figure out that an admin can't be a new user, it only takes a couple seconds to figure it out. So it's blatently false to claim that you "couldn't tell" if I was a new user or not.

If you want to call me stupid, have to balls to do it and get it out of your system. Don't hide behind boilerplate to insult people. And don't say "oh, it isn't my fault, I was just following orders". In case you missed it, that defense just doesn't hold water. Guettarda 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This notice is to inform you that there is a new discussion open on the Yogurt/Yoghurt debate. Please visit Talk:Yogurt#Requested move revisited and consider participating. Thank you. —Mets501 (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Serge: thank you for trying to help maintain the article name, but it's just not worth it. It'll be a war against an admin (Guettarda), and it's better to remain uninvolved. Just let the people who think they know what they're doing have their way until we call in an uninvolved administrator when the discussion on the talk page is over. —Mets501 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I had actually already registered a support vote for the revised convention before you posted to my talk page. Bearcat 22:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. And yeah, I hope you can finally resolve this soon, too — it kind of surprises me how confrontational and unresolvable some of the US-related naming convention debates can be. (I still can't quite believe it took as long as it did to resolve the question of whether to use "United States" or "American" in categories whose conventions called for the adjectival form.) Anyway, I'll still keep an eye on the debate for a while, just in case something comes up where Canadian input might be helpful. I'm willing to let the foreign names thing go, but I do still think it's worth adding a clause to clarify cases such as American Samoa or United States Virgin Islands, in which some people might not be sure what the proper convention is (like we did for the Canadian territories.) Bearcat 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think that the city of Cork is (quite) a primary topic, I do think that there are advantages of having the article at Cork, and that the disadvantages are minimal. The city of Cork is also arguably more of an encyclopedic topic than some of the other meanings (like "thing you put in the top of a wine bottle"). As I said, I'm not completely convinced either way. I'll probably change to a weak support as I think about it more, but I'm not especially convinced that anything needs to be done. john k 15:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, I voted on this, and now you (Serge) have asked me to vote again. Where was the old vote and what was the result? If inconclusive, why are we doing this again? -- Evertype·✆ 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The previous vote, at Talk:Cork (material), was about moving

Cork (material) to Cork (after moving Cork, the article about the city, to Cork (city)).

There was no consensus to do that. This vote, at Talk:Cork, is about moving

Cork (disambiguation) to Cork (after moving Cork, the article about the city, to Cork (city)).

--Serge 16:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend that if you wish to make a comment such as, the following, to multiple editors:

Note: preference for new name not specified so Cork (city) is assumed. If you update your vote to specify a preference, please delete this note. --Serge 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

then the section talk:Cork#Survey or individual talk pages would be better than under each Support or Oppose vote to make that point. Ultimately it is for the administrator who tabulates the votes and decides at the finale what each vote and ajoining comment means. A request to clarify at this point is unrequired and just a bit presumptive. Djegan 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Cork (city)" is a poor choice for a name, and ignores the existing naming convention for Irish cities. We wouldn't name an article "New York (city)". Further, the ediotr who closed the last survey wrote, "Since incoming links ...now also seem sorted out, I'll apply the 'don't fix if ain't broken principle' for now." That seems like a good approach. -Will Beback 21:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your not really helping the situation by you latest edits to redirect to Cork, County Cork. But if you want to self distruct thats your choice. Djegan 21:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

(Leaving a comment here as I don't want to feed the off point discussion on Talk:Cork).

Hi Serge. Why did you go ahead and start changing links from Cork to Cork, County Cork? It's counter productive, and you're eroding your own intent. The discussion which you opened (with the intent to gain concencus before making changes) isn't complete - there is no concencus. And yet you've unilaterally started making changes anyway. You can't purport to support guidelines and policies on naming/renaming of articles in one breath, and then immediately ignore them. Relax. Guliolopez 11:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Cork is ultimately at Cork, Cork, County Cork, or anywhere else, no policies or guidelines are violated by changing Cork links now to be Cork, County Cork links, as long as Cork, County Cork redirects to Cork (which it does - no harm, no foul). However, if consensus turns out to be to move Cork, then all the current links to Cork will definitely have to change. With that in mind, I decided to investigate the size and scope of the task (especially because the amount of work has been noted as a reason to not move the article), including actually changing a few of the links (again, no harm, no foul). I did not mean to cause any consternation. What naming guidelines do you think I was ignoring? --Serge 15:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My point wasn't that you're ignoring the naming guidelines. My point was that you're ignoring the move guidelines (WP:RM), by going ahead and making changes before a concencus was agreed. I'm particularly bothered by this because you've continued to point out to other users (including me) throughout the discussion that reference to guidelines is an important part of the process. And then you go and demean all that by preempting the discussion you started and moving ahead with a rename. (You may not be renaming the original article, but you created the redirect page, then then set about changing links to the "new" page). Please tell me you understand why this might be perceived as preempting the result of the concencus discussion? Guliolopez 15:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the move guidelines either. Creating a redirect is not a violation of the move guidelines. Changing a link to point to a redirect instead of the article directly is not a violation of the move guidelines. Yes, I understand now why this might be perceived as preempting the result of the consensus discussion, but I did not see that when I was doing it, since I was not actually doing anything that would preempt the consensus discussion. But once that perception was brought to my attention, I stopped. Please tell me you understand that I did not actually ignore the move guidelines or any other guidelines in doing what I did. Thanks. --Serge 17:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge that you may not have ignored any documented guidelines. However, you did preempt the result of the discussion by creating the article and replacing existing links. Guidelines are not everything you know - Integrity in actions stands for something too. Speaking of which, I perceive an antagonistic tone in your note above. And so, to avoid getting into a debate which will not enhance the discussion, I'll step out of this now. (To the extent that, where I have attempted to help direct the discussion - which you started, and which I wanted to see resolved within the guidelines you laid out - you're on your own from now. No response is required. Verbum sap. Guliolopez 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My participation at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), at least for the last few days, has been minimal. And I don't see how the comments I have made constitute "ownership issues". Are you suggesting I not participate at all? If not, what exactly are you suggesting? --Serge 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, it's a broader problem than just the last few days. I'm on your side when it comes to the naming conventions; I don't see a good reason to have them pre-disambiguated in many cases, and it causes confusion for editors and sometimes for readers as well. But by making the cynical comments, defeatist pre-judging of your loyal opposition, and interjecting heat into a debate, you may be driving away people who would otherwise support you.

I wish we had an article on Clay Chastain already here on Wikipedia, because it's something I think you could relate to...he's been fighting to get light rail here in Kansas City, Missouri for years, and it's gone on the ballot like 7 or 8 times and been defeated each time, in whatever modification he puts up there. This year, for some reason, he goes low-key with it instead of flooding the paper, and the proposal (IMO a bad one, but a light rail plan nonetheless) passed. Everyone's shocked, really, probably not least of all him. -- nae'blis 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is wise advice. David D. (Talk) 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:burn#Transitive verb and (slang). Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, please stop with the move requests. We are obviously still discussing this at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television), and it is not appropriate for you to be jumping in and moving a bunch of articles without consensus. --Elonka 01:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, please stop with the transparent and borderline pathetic delay tactics. I am impressed by your contributions, but your position and arguments on this are disappointing. Consensus was reached several days ago and lots of people have been making moves since then. --Serge 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, is it your opinion that the phrase "transparent and borderline pathetic delay tactics" abides by the Wikipedia policy of civility? If I accused you of behavior that was "transparent and borderline pathetic," would you feel it was a courteous thing to say? --Elonka 23:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, I repeat, please stop with the moves. There is obvious disagreement at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television), and it is not appropriate for you to be moving articles around while this matter is unsettled. You are adding to the confusion, and increasing the environment of conflict. Please stop. --Elonka 01:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, as I'm sure you're well aware, multiple good faith editors have been calling for a new poll. Even Josiah Rowe, an admin, has agreed. Please respect the process, and let's run a new and clean poll. We can continue to argue about this for days, or we can just agree on wording, open a fresh poll, and move forward. --Elonka 01:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have agreed that a new poll is probably the best way to calm things down on that talk page. I have not agreed with your assertion that the previous poll and subsequent discussion did not reach a consensus — I think it did, and I see nothing wrong with Serge continuing to bring pages into compliance with it. My acquiescence to a repeat poll does not constitute agreement with your position about the previous discussion, Elonka. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI - the main reason I posted the revised poll questions earlier today, despite my opposition to having another poll, is to be clear that the way the questions she posed were unacceptable, and to make this clear in a specific manner as she requested. I didn't want to leave her an opening to claim "no one make any specific suggestions as I requested". Sorry if it caused any confusion, but I thought it was important to not ignore that part of what she said. --Serge 07:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start encouraging people to just move on from that discussion. As you've seen and stated, we're just being berated with no dialogue going on. I recommend just monitoring it and continuing along the lines of the obvious consensus that has already been generated. There's nothing to say there that hasn't already been said. All that's left is for someone to say or do something stupid enough that they get in trouble and that's not going to benefit anyone. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there are still a few pages left among the Lost episodes (the ones that started this mess) that are still violating the guideline for no reason. Since they're blocked and obviously controversial, someone should put in a move request at WP:RM. If I don't get to it first, feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's not submit any more RMs until we have consensus? --Elonka 00:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, from what I can tell, we already have consensus. We've had consensus for quite some time now. You saying we don't have consensus doesn't make my assertion untrue. If you had evidence of the previous poll being incorrect - like I've suggested you find - I would gladly favor a new poll. But you've not even responded to that suggestion. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC#Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, based on your message to my talk page, it looks like you think that I ignored one of your messages, which was not my intention, so I'm moving the discussion here. Could you please clarify which question you wanted an answer to? Thanks. --Elonka 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It took you two days (during which you made other posts on that talk page), but you eventually responded, which I just noticed. Thanks. We can continue there. --Serge 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have posted updated poll wording in the new section at the bottom of the page, and would appreciate your thoughts on wording. --Elonka 00:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), I completely agree with you there - but that page has become so out of control that I can't even figure out where to make my opinion known! —Wknight94 (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if someone uses postal addresses as an argument in those discussions, bring up my last situation: I used to live in Guilderland, New York in Albany County, New York (paying the higher Albany County taxes) but my mailing address was Schenectady, New York which is in Schenectady County, New York! Postal addresses aren't worth a damn... —Wknight94 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Elonka 01:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Specifically, note where it says this:

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks.

If you think I said anything about you that does not qualify as "civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character", please let me know what specifically I said that you feel is uncivil or involves your personal character. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would retract your accusation of personal attack on my talk page. --Serge 01:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been making repeated personal attacks and uncivil comments towards me over the last several days. Stating that "Elonka's mind"... is not "in the real world."[7] "Elonka's words only seem to make sense"[8] "taking rationalization to an art form", exhibiting "sour grapes delay tactics",[9] "you're digging yourself deeper and deeper into your hole"[10]. Plus of course this recent "Is Elonka filibustering" poll [11], I realize that you and I have different opinions on this naming issue, but these repeated negative comments about my character must stop. I would appreciate if you removed your personal attacks from the Naming conventions page, and endeavored to adopt a more professional and courteous tone with me in the future. --Elonka 01:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

People who want to see a change need to stick with it. What happens is a few of us are pushing at any given time, and then some of us give up, so there is never quite enough of us around to get it going. Please, don't give up, this is as close as we've ever gotten, and I think we're going to do it. --Serge 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you figure that it's close? I figure you need some kind of a hefty majority to justify changing such a longstanding guideline and I'm not seeing any kind of majority at all. Don't worry, I'll watch it more closely and make sure I participate in any discussions or surveys which may appear effective. But I can't imagine anyone has anything to say that hasn't already been said numerous times. This issue is even longer than the WP:NC-TV issue, isn't it?! I've got places to go and people to see! (and an article that I've been meaning to revamp for weeks now) —Wknight94 (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course you have a second city in the US. Frelke 13:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and wikifying of my California City list. I know I did it in haste without wikifying it myself, but even where you found ambiguity, the fact is most of the cities were unique althrough there might be other uses for the word. (With the exception of Eureka-I knew that was a bad choice).

 For Instance:

• only 2 Los Banos in the world, in California and the Philipines (next to a volcano no less)
• Fresno shouldn't be an issue, as the Fresno, TX only has 6,000 residents and Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a word translator, because Fresno has an entry for it's spanish meaning of "Ash Tree".
• only 2 Cudahy's in the world also, both cities (CA and WI) founded by the same man. --Interesting
• Indio only 1 city with this name, althrough it's used both as someone's name (as are many cities!) and a brand of beer.

Anyway, it's all good, the point is that we don't want to make things more confusing than they have to be. I'll be reading what others have to say as well.Gohiking 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with your point about moving away from the [[CITYNAME, STATE]] convention. Curious how every single country on Wikipedia with a similar convention (such as Canada) is trying to move away from that format, EXCEPT the American articles. The Vancouver article had a proposal a while back to move it to Vancouver, British Columbia, but it was met with fierce opposition. Calgary, Alberta, meanwhile, was moved to Calgary after strong support from users. In both cases, they used the same arguments you did, and people agreed it makes sense. But not for the US articles. Go figure. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, as we'd discussed on the Lost talk page regarding the page move there, now that the page move has been closed I've listed Misery for a page move to Misery (book) to allow Misery (disambiguation) to move to Misery. Just thought you'd like to know, since you brought that idea up. --Maelwys 16:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not turn the talk page into a perpetual vote. Be sensable. Djegan 01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge you are going to hit 3RR before me, and if you do I will report you. Djegan 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge I am very serious about the talk page and will report you if required. If I do not revert you others will. Djegan 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Renember the useful Wikipedia naxim that "if it needs to be done, someone else will do it". At this point, you are fraying tempers. For my part, I regard continued use of the !vote on Tariq's proposal as a warrant for radical change as a point of personal privilege. The margin is only three !votes, one of them mine; and you know I would be content with the policy as it is. Others look to be in the same condition.

I request, Sir, a retraction and apology. If this argument continues, i will change my !vote so that it can no longer be misconstrued; and if you continue this much longer, I will offer to sign an RfC. Only you are capable of convincing me that you are arguing in bad faith, and you are not as far from doing so as I would wish.

The best way, I think the only way, to your goal, is to sit down and shut up for a while, and let this go off the boil. Septentrionalis 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. My opinion on why we can't reach consensus is that everyone is looking at the problem, from several different points of view (policies and guidelines). Given that, consensus will be hard to reach. I hope that my effort to try and focus the discussion on specific points works in helping to move the process along. Right now it appears to have created a place for venting. But that could be good in the long run. However based on the initial comments, I don't see consensus happening. Vegaswikian 00:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Serge--FWIW, at this point the survey seems to have lost steam, and so your promises regarding the moratorium are effectively voided as well. I do appreciate the effort, though, and we might revisit the idea of a moratorium. Having said that, I will state my position as (1) in favor of moving unique city names to [[cityname]], and (2) in favor of retaining the comma as disambiguation. It was point (2) that prompted me to suggest the moratorium, since a "grass roots" effort to move articles to unique names could expand to re-disambiguate using parentheses, which I oppose. Also, I won't consider it bad faith for you to jump into the discussion now, either, but that's your call. Cheers, Ishu 04:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that you not comment; merely that you not carry the burden of argument for your preferred position for a while. Septentrionalis 04:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Take this input for what you will. [Start disclaimers] I know there's a lot going on and that you have a lot to say, so we all sometimes "shoot from the hip." [End disclaimers] Your recent comment began with This is another point I've been waiting for someone to make... This sounds to me like stalking behavior. I know you're not out to get anyone personally, but when you start out saying you've been waiting for something, it comes out that way. Especially to a newcomer in this discussion. I've seen your stuff over weeks and months, so I kinda know where you're coming from. But I'm just saying this isn't the most persuasive style. Cheers, Ishu 17:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Matawan, New Jersey
• Mattawan, Michigan
• Matteawan, New York (assuming it ever gets a separate article, which it may; it was a separate town before Beacon, New York was formed.)

Matawan, New Jersey has the following advantages.

• Anyone looking for the article will know where to find it, without worrying about whether there is another Matawan, so spelt, somewhere else.
  • The same applies to editors making links to Matawan.
• The link to Matawan is, by MOS, from the first mention of the place, which is usually something like "in Matawan, New Jersey." or "Born: Matawan, New Jersey" in an info-box. Making the link "in Matawan, New Jersey" is simple and straightforward.
• If the information being inserted happens to refer to "Matawan, New York" as an old spelling of Mattawean, New York, making the link Matawan, New York will either be a redlink or link to the right place. Matawan will link to the wrong place, without warning.

If any of this is clearer to you than what's on the talk page now, feel free to insert it in there. If none of it is, I suppose you will just have to accept that your perennial proposal is destroying what others see as real advantages. Septentrionalis 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you, Serge. A friend suggests an explanation for the difference in usage you seem to see. Along the Delaware, the following conversation is natural and normal:

A: "Where are you from?"

B: "I'm from Doylestown, Pennsylvania." or "Doylestown, PA"

If A knows Doylestown, PA, there may still be a Doylestown, New Jersey, and B is avoiding confusion. If he doesn't, the state tells A something, at least: which side of the river. (The natural phrasing for Philadelphians is "I'm from Philadelphia", but that's an example of primary usage.)

Coastal California is further from a state border than most of the United States can be; and I don't suppose you get many visitors from the deserts of Arizona or Nevada. Septentrionalis 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Yes, any registered editor may vote on Requests for Administration. It's always good to have more participation there. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Serge. As you requested, I had a look at the situation at Talk:Bath, Somerset. I understand why the closing admin made the choice he did, but I understand your concerns as well. Since the outcome is so unclear, I think Rwendland's suggestion of a second RfM vote (Bath, Somerset vs. Bath (city)) is the least bad alternative (with all the usual caveats about why voting is evil, etc.). For what it's worth, I'd probably have voted "Oppose" to the original move from Bath, myself, because I think a good case could be made for saying that the English city is the primary encyclopedic meaning of the word "Bath", especially given the unambiguous article titles at bathtub and bathing. But Duja is right that there was clearly a consensus to move the page from Bath, with no consensus about where to move it to. The best way to resolve that is with another RfM. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i was just trying to follow the instructions given on the RfC page. I posed the question on one page and so was suggested RfC. Yes i am requesting one and i thought i was folowing procedure by listing the reasons for the dispute and a sort of summary. One thing to take into account was that the article was originally Bath (with no siffixes). If you want a copy of my question before i came to RfC, see here. It is still a lot of editors though [but not hundreds, my mistake], read to see what i mean. Simply south 13:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask me one more time if I don't understand you. Just get it out of your system. Say it ten times, twenty times. I'll go count blades of grass while you work it out. Let me know when you're finished. And then spare me the insult when I get back, okay? — coelacan talk — 06:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never asked you if you understood me. I asked you whether you understood the distinction between a foreign term for which there is no commonly used English translation (i.e. Volkswagen) and a foreign term for which there is (i.e., Doctors without Borders). A fair question, I might add, given your repeated comparisons indicating a lack of appreciation for the distinction. It's not about understanding me. By the way, you never answered my question, and you're accusing me of being uncivil??? Have a good night. --Serge 06:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

howdy . you're getting this message because you have made a meaningful contribution to Consensus decision-making in the last couple of months. This note is to inform you that i have done a complete rewrite of the article, basically from the ground up, and will be installing the rewrite sometime after 22:00 mst (gmt -7)

i decided to undertake this rewrite because the current article had some notable shortcomings in my opinion, most notably:

• lack of references: whole sections of the current article are unreferenced
• section balance: the amount of detail on some sections was out of step with the detail level on other sections. for instance 'timing' is as large as 'key principles'
• run-on writing: some sections succumb to rambling, while other sections are quite concise to the point of being terse.

all of these problems are inevitable in a project written by a group of people with different areas of expertise and writing styles.

my rewrite is designed to address these issues. most notably i have aimed to make the article more concise -- put more content in less words as it were -- and to make sure that everything is effectively sourced. i have also pretty much completely re-sectioned the article in an attempt to flow from general down to specific.

i have given this notice to you as a 'heads up' that this change is coming. i realize that you have invested a lot of effort into the existing article and i want to make sure that you are ready to make the edits you feel are necessary once my rewrite goes 'live'.

i also intend to submit the new article for peer review shortly after posting it. i think that the feedback will help us all drive this piece forward, hopefully to at least ga status! -- frymaster 23:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here page. Thankyou. --Bob 16:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the opening comments, this is not intended to be a vote or a poll. It is to discuss the various alternatives to try and develop consensus. Would you consider changing your comment to reflect this? Vegaswikian 21:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I tweaked the formatting and added keep/delete to the comments there to bring it in line with other RfC's (and for clarity). Hopefully you have no objection to that, if you do I apologize in advance, feel free to revert me. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Serge! This is regarding this comment of yours. I thought it'd be more appropriate to reply on your talk page, before the discussion is once again deviated to a random direction.

First of all, as you have probably already guessed, I am new to this particular discussion. Of course, I've seen that the US locations are named differently than the locations elsewhere in the world, but I always wrote it off as yet another "country-specific" convention. I never realized it was in fact a subject of so many debates.

I am mostly working on Russia-related topics, and the way names of Russian geolocations are currently handled is probably your dream come true :) Names are only disambiguated when ambiguity exists, and there is always a reference to the disambiguation page in such cases. Having utilized this naming scheme for about a year now, I am yet to see a situation when it fails to work as intended. The convention has not officially made it to policy yet, but I am working on it.

Anyway, that said, I don't see why this same convention (which is used not only for Russia, but for many other countries as well, albeit sometimes in slightly modified forms) shouldn't work for the United States. Hence, you can count on my support.

I do, however, mostly rely on logic and reasoning. From my observations, intimidation, threats, and emotional pleas seldom work as intended :)) I also prefer to keep the discussion as focused as possible. I realize that this way may not convince the opponents (who all too often operate under the influence of emotions), but at least it helps recruit and retain supporters.

Anyway, let me know if there is anything I can help with or if you have any questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, stubborness and resistance to "damn foreigners trying to break our life-long traditions" probably plays a role here, wouldn't you agree? :) I could understand this sentiment if this were a US version of Wikipedia; however, since it in fact an international edition in English, such sentiments are quite harmful. I could also understand this if we were using pre-disambiguation everywhere else, but that's definitely not the case.

Anyway, since you seem to be a lot more involved with this than I am, feel free to leave me a note on my talk every time I miss something of this nature going on. Like I said, the convention works, and I am yet to see a convincing and a logical argument (i.e., something beyond the version of ILIKEIT) from the opponents' side.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Serge! I thought you might find this thread interesting. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know; I'm sorry I was not active at the time of the discussion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it, but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them), and there is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.danielfolsom 23:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(sorry I put this on your userpage at first) Oh no I wasn't addressing it to you - I was addressing it to the guy that started the topic - since his whole point was "I violated policy so we should redo the vote". Sorry about the confusion.danielfolsom 20:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm really getting sick of this debate - I feel like, given the number of needed citations and needed fixes in the article, we are collectively a baseball player that's about to step up to the plate knowing he has to hit the ball or he'll lose the game, but he can't decide what color bat he should use (damnit if you're from England that proably made no sense ... sorry). And it's just so frustrating to have to defend my actions about a vote that should be done with, and frankly that's why I'm coming out so forceful, leaving like 50 responses - because I've somehow been put on the defensive which is an awful position to be put in. Because frankly I've never been put in this position by someone, no one has ever called me out and said "you purposely fucked this up". I'm sorry for ranting but I just want to provide at least some justification in a plead for your patience with me because honestly I know that I'm not acting my best and I'm probably being uncivil in multiple ways, but it's just so frustrating. I've been called anti-American (and I'm from and live in America), totalitarian, a vote stacker - and frankly I'm not sure I can take it anymore. So again, please for the rest of this debate excuse any amazingly stupid thing I may say and please if you think I get out of line contact me and put me in my place.danielfolsom 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Yoghurt. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

No worries. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! The Talk Page Guidelines do restrict what can be said on article talk pages, and the standard Template:Notaforum states that off-topic material can be summarily removed. I had added the {{notaforum}} tag in the hopes of reducing off-topic content, but it doesn't seem to have worked. I'll try adding it directly to the section. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Serge, the source actually says "supreme reality". That you don't comprehend the phrase is neither here nor there. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Serge, that's all right. I know that you wrote it because Dawkins etc. view it from this angle. However, since this part of the sentence is a description of the actual event, we should be accurate and neutral. As for Muslim or Islamic, I was undecided myself which one to chose and finally opted for Muslim. However, I don't mind Islamic either. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed you appearing in City, State → City votes. I'm creating a category for those opposed to the City, State article naming convention. Using this category, we can alert each other to proposed article moves. If you're interested, add this to your user page: [[Category:Wikipedians against City, State naming convention|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 04:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I'm not on it either for some reason… Oh well. -- R'son-W _{(speak to me/breathe)} 22:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought you'd like to know that there is requested move at Talk:Minneapolis, Minnesota#Requested_move

Continued from Talk:Ron Paul#Is Ron Paul a minarchist or an anarchist? --Serge 02:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You aren't forced to stay in the United States. By your definition our government is voluntary and consensual. But by being here you enter willingly into a contract with the government of the United States of America, agreeing to obey the laws of the land. (Suggested reading: "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine) And it could very well be in the future all homes will fall under a homeowners association, killing the consensual and voluntary part of the organization. The organization only remains voluntary and consensual up until the point that it's not that only option left, which makes it an unsustainable definition (it has boundary conditions which would void the definition). --D 00:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the larger the scope of the governance, the less practical is the option to avoid it or leave it. I am well aware of the concept of the social contract, and, to an extent, it is libertarian. After all, libertarianism requires everyone to abide by the non-aggression principle (NAP). And in a free market, contracts are fundamental. If a capitalist chooses to develop his land and sell parcels or units with covenants attached, he should be free to do so in a free society. Conversely, buyers should be free to accept the conditions of purchase, or not. In other words, these issues are not at all black and white. There is a continuum of choices and options. I think it's pretty clear that the optimal point maximizing liberty on this continuum minimizes the conditions to adhering to the NAP at the federal and perhaps even state levels, and optionally adds more restrictive conditions at the more local levels, accordingly to social demand. This balances the freedom to be free of conditions and covenants (by leaving it practical to avoid or leave unwanted conditions), with the freedom to choose to live in an association, community or society where all members are bound by certain conditions and covenants. --Serge 02:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And that's nice but you still haven't proven that homeowners associations are actually consensual and voluntary as you stated, but rather that they are more consensual and voluntary then larger federal governments. Mostly right is not right. --D 03:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I understand your position but I shall decline your request. I antecipated that I could be regarded as biased since I participated in the previous discussion. In fact, I was going to participate in the discussion and call for a speedy close of it, but decided to close it myself when I found out about the selective canvass. Regards, Húsönd 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

But if you think that my closure was still inappropriate, you may present your views on WP:ANI. I shall undo my closure if other admins regard it as inadequate. Best regards, Húsönd 16:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You've been warned previously about canvassing for support for policy changes. This appears to another instance. If you'd like to alert previous participants in a discussion to a new discussion, please do so even-handedly. Selectively notifying users who support your position gievs the appearance of gaming the system. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Will, first, WP:CANVASSING is not prohibited. Second, what I did above is closer to a friendly notice than canvassing, or, at worst, it is campaigning, about which a "hard and fast rule does not exist". But thanks for expressing your concerns. However, future similar "warnings" on my talk page obviously will serve no purpose, and are not welcome. I hope that is clear. --Serge 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please review the nature of a behavioral guideline:

• It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

It is a standard that you are expected to follow. Friendly wanring are tolerated "if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion". Selectively canvassing certain editors who've previously agreed with you gives the appearance of attempting to influence the discussion and is called "votestacking". See the "audience" column in the chart at WP:CANVASSING#Types of canvassing. This behavior has generated comments from other editors besides myself. Ignoring polite requests to follow guidelines is not helpful behavior and does not demonstrate good faith. You seem to be saying that you will continue to flout this guideline, and that I needn't bother mentioning it again here. In that case if there is a recurrence it will have to be addressed in another venue, such as AN/I or a user RfC. It would be better if you'd simply follow the expected behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Will, you're acting like an idiot. I'm not ignoring nor flouting the guideline, I'm following it. Please stop claiming that I'm not, or that I'm flouting it. What part of "The difference lies in the disruption involved. " do you not understand? The disruption you're causing now is much more than any (if any) disruption my one little post caused. What part of "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying on their talk pages certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view, in order to influence a vote." do you not understand? What part of "However, the greater the number of editors contacted, ...the more likely it is that this behavior will result in warnings ..." do you not understand? One incident of campaigning hardly warrants a warning PER THE GUIDELINE. It would be appreciated if you took the time to understand the expected behavior before you warned people for not following it. Please stop being disruptive, especially on my talk page. --Serge 22:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is your latest canvassing being done in a neutral fashion? Are you canvassing those who've expressed opposing views? If not then you're violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the canvassing guideline. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

From the various answers that are given on the current revision of the talk page, I'll choose one:

1. Articles are given a name that is unlikely to need changing on the discovery of more information about other places.
2. It is easy to distinguish between the many links that deliberately link to the article, and any others which might need to be checked and properly disambiguated.
3. The title is precise enough that readers can fairly quickly identify what the article is about.

Scott Davis ^Talk 09:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Λυδαcιτγ 02:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess all the reasons are more heavily weighted for cities because cities are commonly disambiguated in everyday use. The name of a city can be thought of as including it larger geographical area. Not so with most other people, places or things.

Anyway, whether you or I agree with these reasons doesn't matter, because enough people don't - and have demonstrated that their views are not going to change - that we'll never get a consensus to go to the wiki-wide standard. I'm pleasantly surprised at the level of support the recent proposals are getting, and I will be as happy as I'd expect to be with a compromise if one of them is passed. Λυδαcιτγ 04:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Serge... I guess it is years later, but I just cam upon this thread by you. It is amazing. I recently visited a BBS for Rand adherents. I asked if anyone could give me some examples of positions and/or stands that Rand adherents would take that would differ from libertarian positions. Well, i learned the hard way that Rand adherents like to play word games, and I was quite harshly attacked and ridiculed for even asking such a question. So it is interesting to see this back forth by you and others where you have encountered the same strident argument that Rand adherents are not libertarians. Well, in any event, for others that come across this thread... BEWARE & BE WARNED! I found Rand adherents very angry people. That like to argue. Seems best to just avoid them. The good news is they are an amazingly small percentage of the population. Webulite 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I justed added to; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism_and_Objectivism#Objectivists_are_libertarians.2C_by_definition

Thought you would appreciate the update. Webulite 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Serge! This is right down your alley. Just a heads up in case you miss it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of the naming of the article at the talk page (Talk:Bath, Somerset), independently of previous discussions. Please contribute to the discussion and, if you can see a way forward, suggest it. It may be a bit of a tired discussion with a few votes in its history, but "Bath, Somerset" is wrong and no amount of voting can change this. I saw that you felt the same in the archived discussion, so I'd like to invite you to contribute. --Oldak Quill 12:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Serge, please drop by this discussion and leave your comments. Thanks, Waldir ^talk 18:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if I sounded frustrated at times, I want to thank you for the fascinating discussion on countersteering. You made me think long and hard about a topic I enjoy, and I always looked forward to your replies. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. The two new references are excellent! (Well, except for "Leaning hard on the outside pedal will help you maintain traction in the turn." It might make you feel more comfortable on the bike, but won't change the traction one bit. Will old myths never die?) -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you are a leading editor at Talk:Chicago. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I didn't know to list it there. I guess I'll do that now.--Loodog (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"You can please some of the people ...". See WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." my I gave my reasons and they were based on Wikipedia Policies. WP:RM is not a voting procedure it is a consensus building exercise based on deciding what the Policies say.

You wrote "When it comes to naming Wikipedia articles, the official or technically correct name is irrelevant when there is a name that is clearly most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in question. In this case that name is Big Ben, without a doubt. Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster??? Please. That's ridiculous. " For your opinion during the Talk:Big Ben#Requested move. But if you were to read the WP:NC policy this opinion is not correct. The official or technically correct name is not irrelevant, as these names are likely to be used in reliable sources they are relevant. Names are not decided on the "most commonly used to refer to the subject". But I am repeating myself because I explained this in detail at the end of the WP:RM request.

BTW we used to have a 60% 40% for consensus for WP:RM moves, and I was in favour of keeping that (see the talk archives of WP:RM and WP:CONSENSUS) but others decided that this was not to be and that administrators should therefor be given more discretion. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to support a move of Washington to Washington (state), please note it at WP:RM rather than at the talk page of naming settlements. Georgia guy (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As your edit summary recommends more discussion would you care to join in that? Also, it isn't the original configuration really, that giant section only took its current form a few days ago. Mfield (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

On 26 November 2008, on the Talk:North Sea Geological History page, you said: "Geological history" makes no sense. History is comprised of the relatively very brief period since human written record started." Please see my response on that talk page. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The efficacy of general conventions should be limited where there is consensus that there should be an exception. On Flora, there does not seem to be; see Mock-orange for a useful example of how the guideline misdescribes actual practice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Serge, you know we disagree on this; in particular, this should not in general erode the rule; it should reinforce the rule in all other cases: Exceptio probat regulam. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As I was passing PMAnderson talk page I noticed your "Root of all evil?". There are good reasons for the the "except" and it is to do with things like ships, cabbages and kings ... and whether pigs have wings. If you like we can discuss it further on the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. -- PBS (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Coffee and Coffea seems, in practice, a workable division into two almost distinct articles; I'm not sure that forcing a merger would be helpful.

There's a section in WP:QUALIFIER saying that we prefer to avoid parenthetical disambiguation when this can be done without clumsiness. But if you think this important, file a RM for Coffea. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You will want to consider Colchicum's proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Present_draft. I think an entirely ttaxonomic arrangement excessive, but you should address your own concerns. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Poison oak is not about a taxon; so you may want to just go ahead and write it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your dissent around the word taxon is barely coherent, presumably because you don't have a clear understanding of what the term means. Permit me:

A taxonomy is a way of organising a collection of objects or concepts into groups. The Wikipedia category system, for example, is a taxonomy of articles. In botany, one tries to organise the plants into groups in a way that reflects how closely the grouped plants are related. Thus, when botanists talk about taxonomy, they mean the organisation of plants into a hierarchy that groups closely related plants together.

A taxon is a unit of a taxonomy. In the Wikipedia category system, for example, each category is a taxon. In botany, every species is a taxon. Every genus is a taxon. Every family is a taxon. Etcetera. Botanists usually use the word taxon when they want to refer to a group without specifying its rank.

Taxa are independent of the names given them. Botanists may agree that a taxon is valid, yet argue over what name it should be given. Botanists may disagree over whether a taxon is valid, without quibbling over what the best name for it would be if it were accepted.

The group of plants that comprise the species Yucca brevifolia is a taxon no matter what name you give it. It is a taxon even if you call it by a vernacular name. It would be a taxon even if it didn't have a name. It would be only one taxon even if it had many names. If its name changes in future, it will still be the same taxon, only with a new name. The only way it will cease to be a taxon is if a taxonomy is published (and accepted) that doesn't recognise it as a valid group.

Hesperian 06:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"This is an encyclopedia for the general reader, not a work of taxonomy". I'm glad we agree. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really care that much about it until I saw this article and about hit the roof. It is a content fork (maybe even just to make a point, it is (or soon to be was) factually wrong (rice is the name of the plant and the grain, not just the grain), and, to top it off, it is cited as an example of good form in WP:NC(flora). A two sentence article with a tiny infobox could easily be fit in at rice. In truly ambiguous cases (e.g., Prunus mume), I have instigated moves to a scientific name but this is getting out of hand. — AjaxSmack 06:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to let facts get in the way of a good rant, but rice comprises two species of Oryza; Oryza sativa is one of them. There is very widespread consensus that every species merits its own article. Hesperian 10:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The other already has its own article at African rice. — AjaxSmack 03:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

But article rice covers a food product by both species, so we didn't have an article on O. sativa until I created it. You are at liberty to believe the article was not merited, but it is beyond me how you got the notion that this was a "content fork"—a fork of what? And "maybe even just to make a point"—what point would that be? Hesperian 04:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's rice and African rice. Two different species like potato and sweet potato. — AjaxSmack 04:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's Asian rice (O. sativa), African rice (O. glaberrima) and rice (a foodstuff and a collective name for both species).

Don't believe me? The second paragraph of rice is:

"Domesticated rice comprises two species of food crops in the Oryza genus of the Poaceae ("true grass") family: Asian rice, Oryza sativa is native to tropical and subtropical southern Asia; African rice, Oryza glaberrima, is native to West Africa."

So I created an article on Asian rice. Do you stand by your assertion that this was "a content fork (maybe even just to make a point"?

Hesperian 04:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Except for three sentences, the rice article is solely about O. sativa. An additional article (of only three sentences) on O. sativa is necessary for what? — AjaxSmack 05:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

AjaxSmack; at the time Hesperian started Oryza sativa, his/her edit was consistent with my reading of Naming_conventions_(flora) and which was not disputed.[12][13] I wonder if you might wish to moderate your criticism of his/her edits to that article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Given our past history and your comments in the discussion to rename Joshua tree, you may be interested in this discussion. I know that we don't often agree, but often you raise points that everyone else misses. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mainly for those who's language is not English. Many times a national group will say that a name is spelt ɻjɰɢ̆ʡ̯l̪ɫɬɮɺɭʎʎ̯ʟʟ̆ in in Ruritania therefor it should be spelt that way on Wikipedia. This is a general problem, but it was a real problem with sporting personalities. But this is a general problem, and it helps keep the muppets in order with disputes over just how common a name should be used (Don not overdo it). See the dispute over Talk:Big Ben where whatever I decided to do some were going to complain and those that do complain about Big Ben ignore the fact that the tertiary sources also use Big Ben.

I originally got involved in NC over the naming of Zurich and as can be seen the community has been split over this issue for years.

When the original clause "Use the most easily recognized name" clause was written it was before WP:V existed. However it makes no sense to have a set of rules for naming articles that is not in harmony with the three content policies of WP:V WP:NOR and WP:OR. Take the name Lech Wałęsa we have the situation where it is neither compliant with WP:V or WP:NC. Once the new clause has had a year or so to bed in then may be the time to start to deal with these pages. But the problem is that such pages (like the flora ones) have a small cabal who are willing to ignore policy and there are not enough Wikipedians who support the general principles who want to get involved in endless debates about this with different minorities so some pages end up at the wrong names for may years.

My major concern with the naming of flora is that the guideline must not contradict the Naming Conventions policy. The rest will over time probably sort itself out in the was if that is achieved. --PBS (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The argument presented would have been presented a year ago without the word reliable: "PBS has yet to produce even a single counterexample to my claim that reliable sources for "most commonly used name" simply do not exist - so any guideline requiring such is inherently un-implementable" -- so no change there then. -- PBS (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I noticed your edit here - no problem. I don't think my edits to that page introduced that disambiguation issue, ie, I think it was there previously. But if it did result from one of my edits, that was not what I had intended. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Although we have often disagreed, I think your input might help illuminate some well-meaning, but mistaken opinions about parenthetical disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 03:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to understand our differences with WP:COMMONNAME. You want it to apply and override all else. I want it to be primary only when there is not another guideline that establishes a uniform naming convention. WP:WPRS is an example of a guideline that is not uniform in my mind for the average reader. The flora discussions of late are clearly not uniform, so I support you there. The project at that point should provide the guidance when the common name is not precise. Also the common name is a matter of perception. For anyone in the US, the city, state usage is normal. Not sure about the rest of the world. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Content yerself with this. cygnis insignis 04:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edits creating this section are insulting and degrading to a fellow editor, and thus comprise a personal attack. I realize that Wikipedia editing can be stressful and that emotions and nuances are not conveyed effectively in this written media, which all easily adds up to misunderstanding. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm having a very hard time seeing how this could be a misunderstanding. It seems to me to be clearly insulting and degrading, and meant to be exactly that.

So, we're going to continue this here now that you've told me I'm a cabal member? No, my post was backed up by quotes from you that support EXACTLY what I say and said and continue to say.

As soon as you started throwing accusations around that the botany editors are a cabal you showed your true colors. Those are your words, "cabal." --KP Botany (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As to your earlier accusation of me personal attacking you, I assure that was a result of a misunderstanding, and the following from WP:ATTACK apply:

• "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks,"
• "Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. "

No, you did not use civil language in a way to describe my actions. You used language to show that I was damaging Wikipedia by my actions. You offered no proof that my actions damaged Wikipedia. In other words, your baseless accusation against me IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS: A PERSONAL ATTACK AGAINST ME. Can I say it any louder, or will just call me a cabalist? See cabals don't shout, they whisper in back rooms.

As you know, my original statement was: "Not using the most common name for the title of an article should not alleviate the editor from doing any of these tasks involving the most common name, but it usually does, and Wikipedia is not better for it, but editors like KP Botany are obviously looking forward to it." There is nothing but civil language in this statement, and nothing is said or implied about your personal character, which, by the way, so far as I know, is impeccable. Truly. I mean, knowing human nature, nothing personal, odds are against that, but it may very well be true. In fact, the only reference to you is only a restatement of what you yourself implied when you wrote: "If I have to post plant articles under common names, I simply won't."

There is NOT NOW, and NEVER WILL BE, anything civil about using words to falsely and inaccurately portray someone you disagree with as being damaging to the project by their actions. You know NOTHING about my personal character and your continued speculation about it REMAINS GROSSLY INAPPROPRIATE IN EVERY WAY. Your lame, back-handed attempt to disparage my character on my talk page is DISGUSTING. Is there anything I am saying now that you still don't understand?

You misunderstood this to be a personal attack from me, and responded not on my talk page, but on the article talk page here and again in an entire section devoted to it. Per WP:ATTACK, responding in that manner is not appropriate.

I responded exactly where you posted the personal attack. Until you withdraw it, ALL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT CAN GO THERE> Do you understand that? Do NOT POST PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST ME ON MY TALK PAGE.

At the time I wrote that statement I knew practically nothing about you, except one or two posts in that discussion from you, including the statement in which you said: "If I have to post plant articles under common names, I simply won't." I had no reason to insult you. Frankly, I didn't know who you were, except that you wrote that one sentence, and it struck me as an example of something I've been thinking and writing about a lot: guidelines that don't adhere to use of the most common name for titles tend to make editors feel like they don't need to pay as much attention to common names, and so "common name management" (redirects, links, dabs, hat notes, etc.) tend to not get as much attention in articles subject to such guidelines. It's just something I've observed about the behavior of countless editors, including perhaps the best and most conscientious among us, and had nothing to do with you personally. You just happened to make a statement that illustrated how this widespread phenomenon (which I believe is detrimental to Wikipedia) occurs, so I made a note of it. The idea that I intended to insult you by it is preposterous. For the 3rd or 4th time, I'm truly sorry if you were insulted by it, but I assure you that was not my intent. From the beginning I have consistently expressed genuine astonishment about your reaction. It's high time you paid heed to WP:AGF and stop accusing me of intentionally and purposefully insulting a complete stranger for no reason. That's just ludicrous. Believe me, I'm no Don Rickles.

You have no idea what my FEELINGS are. Get OFF the topic. Stop speculating about my feelings, here, or anywhere.

Stop discussing my behaviour and your observations of it. Stop it. This is not the place for that. Go to a coffee shop and get a bunch of friends together if you want to gossip. Don't do it here. Stop attacking me. Stop calling me a cabal member. Stop accusing me of damaging Wikipedia. Stop discussing your observations of behaviour.

If you want to continue this discussion here, fine, but please stop responding to what you perceive to be personal attacks on the article's talk page, and especially please stop launching personal attacks there yourself. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove the personal attacks from the talk page if you don't want them discussed. Also, stay off of my talk page. --KP Botany (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at this. I'm not saying you are a troll (of course, that would be a personal attack). I am saying that some of your behaviors match some of the behaviors elucidated on that page, and that the match may cause other editors to regard you to be a troll. I have learned from other editors that you have exhibited similar patterns in other areas of Wikipedia (I won't reveal who they are, lest you be tempted to attack them), and that would be neither here nor there, except that it reinforces the impression that editors have that you are a troll.

I'm still trying to assume good faith on your part (and, believe me, it isn't easy), and so I bring all this up as advice, based on my perception that you polarize the playing field and insult your opponents before you even present your arguments (or, at best, during their presentation), and that, if your goal is to effect change rather than goad editors, these actions of yours are, in my estimation, counterproductive.

I am not writing this for any benevolent reason, either pretended or real: Frankly, I'd rather discuss an issue with a calm, rational opponent than be goaded by a troll.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I admit the force of your argument, but I don't think I am being inconsistent, really.

For US municipalities, the difference is that between Matawan and Matawan, New Jersey. Both are in common use, both are recognizable; the factor of convenience then comes into play. There might well be a Matawan, West Virginia; it happens to be spelled Matewan, West Virginia, but it's the same Algonquian word. Everyone concerned is helped slightly by not having to worry about the problem, and having the internal search engine come up with New Jersey and West Virginia helps readers get the right articles.

But the difference between Norway maple and Acer platanoides is much greater; they're not mutually recognizable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What I said was that Joshua Tree and Joshua tree were not ambiguous, in our sense (that is, the software will let us have pages named for each); we can, likewise, have pages named Matawan and Matewan (and we do; one's a redirect, and the other is the movie). But that does not change the etymological point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The relevant relationship between Matawan and Matewan is different than that between Johsua Tree and Joshua tee. But I said I admitted the force of your argument, and I stand by that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A party wall seems to me a better description than join at the hip (see semi-detached) --PBS (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yer but the two homes are built from similar material and look similar although they may vary in detail. Now we could have put in our own NC definition for sources, but the arguments over WP:ATT suggest strongly that all we will end up doing is having two places for people to argue the definitions of what and what is not a reliable source. We have enough on our plates with WP:NC without opening up another area of dispute, which for 95%+ of the time is of little relevance because the common name in reliable sources and all internet sources are the same. --PBS (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If the botanists will accept the common name criteria, then that is a step forwards. There may be arguments about what is the most common name, and whether to give more weighting to an obscure journal or the NYT, but that is something that can be discussed plant by plant if necessary. But if you look at the quick and dirty survey I carried out]] on the last 50 moves made by KP Botany (why only 25 shown because 25 of them were to the associated talk pages), surprisingly often the common name in reliable sources is the same as the common name in a raw search of the web. --PBS (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What reliable sources? You still haven't provided one. Please be sure to notify me of discussions of me. Please, especially notify me when you provide me with your reliable sources. --KP Botany (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Making changes like over-turning a clear consensus at Talk:Battle of the Strait of Otranto without engaging in the discussion first is a very bad practice. The justification you cite rests on two guidelines and, as you should know if you are going to engage in this kind of behavior, exceptions can be made to guidelines when editors judge this appropriate - please review Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I found your behavior on this article to be uncivil and arrogant, and strongly suggest that you stop reverting uncontroversial moves on articles in which you haven't been involved with. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that Wikipedia should change its naming conventions for organism articles to require scientific names, and this suggestion should be discussed fully at Wikipedia naming conventions. --KP Botany (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Born2cycle.

Please indulge me, and forgive the following assumptions.

You are not silly.

You are able to think for yourself.

You know how to make a sensible communication.

However ...

It is my guess that there is something behind this ongoing dispute, and that it has nothing to do with flora or fauna, common names, conventions, guidelines, policy, or "use english".

That you have experienced some decision that was completely wrong-headed in the past. I would not be surprised if you had ...

That you now hope to draw attention to the issue by questioning the 'rule' in areas beyond your the scope of your regular contributions.

Believe me when I say that I want to help you find a resolution to that problem.

I couldn't care less about (almost) any other users, my primary concern is the improvement of the document. In as far as is humanly possible, I earnestly hope for peaceable collaboration on all the topics in the scope of wikipedia.

So,

without a hint of malice,

I posit this direct question:

What is the problem?

Regards, cygnis insignis 13:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My interest with respect to Wikipedia article naming is that the policies and guidelines are written as clearly as is reasonably possible, and that they are complied with as much as is reasonably possible, in order to have a consistent naming system within Wikipedia. If there is an origin to any of this, it is my experience with the required comma convention for U.S. cities (now thankfully loosened for at least the best known so-called AP cities), which resulted in inconsistencies such as Paris, London and (freakily) San Francisco, California. Luckily, in that case, the New Yorkers refused to budge from the very beginning, thus New York City was never moved to New York, New York, and, for a few years, remained the only exception to the comma convention. But several of us were bothered by the inherent inconsistency between U.S. city naming and other city naming within WP, and kept working on it. I think Chicago and maybe Philadelphia were the first to be "rescued". Eventually a compromise was reached to allow all cities on the AP list to not be named via the comma convention. Anyway, that debate went on for years. And I still think that no city, no matter how small, should be at Cityname, Statename, unless Cityname alone is not available due to a conflict with other uses, and so must be disambiguated.

It's interesting how those seeking consistency in naming within a given area (flora, U.S. cities) inevitably support a system that leads to inconsistent naming in the big picture (U.S. cities not named consistently with respect to Euro/Asian cities; flora articles not named consistently with respect to fauna articles).

Consistently followed naming policy, guidelines and conventions helps make Wikipedia be an integrated system, rather than a hodgepodge subject to the whims of the particular editors in each "ghetto". It's interesting to see that KP also seems to be bothered by the blatant inconsistency between flora and fauna naming in WP. Too bad he doesn't appreciate that fauna is consistent with the rest of the system, and that it is flora that is out of step.

Guidelines that blatantly contradict each other are the root cause of the worst inconsistencies.

There's really nothing else to it for me, as far as I'm aware. I don't want WP to look like a hodgepodge of names. But thanks for asking. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you check your watchlist, you would arrive at the reasonable assumption that I have been reviewing your contributions as an editor. I intend to continue this, though you did not specifically request it, and I will give you and others my assessment when I'm done. Your actions have successfully drawn attention to your contribution as an editor and member of a collaborative community, this message is just to let you know.

Btw, where is 'recognisable' defined in the particular guidelines and policies you believe you are 'enforcing', or anywhere else? It's mention in the flora guideline/policy was the subject of a different discussion before the current 'discussion' necessitated it's archiving. cygnis insignis 06:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't that 'recognisable' is defined in any WP guideline or policy. Why do you ask?

I also don't see myself as an enforcer since I have no power to enforce anything. I'm not even an administrator. All I can do is bring issues - and in particular inconsistencies - to the attention of those to whom it may matter. They are just as free to ignore what I say as they are to agree or disagree, and explain why. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Normally when I find myself in dispute with a good faith editor, I try to find some common ground; something we can agree on. In general it isn't very hard to do, and it helps keep things collegial. It is too bad I haven't attempted this in your case. Actually, I did do the research previously, and it was not at all difficult to find common ground with you; but I've been too pissed off to extend a hand by communicating it to you.

Anyhow, for what it is worth at this late stage, here it is: a year-old argument at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places, in which I failed utterly to convince people that the present naming convention for articles on Australian places totally sucks. The convention that I objected to, and still object to, is to compulsorily predisambiguate localities (i.e. cities, towns, suburbs) using Comma State; but to disambiguate geographic features only when necessary, using (State). My primary concern was/is the inconsistency between the two, and the potential for clashes; but I disagree with the predisambiguation too. In the course of the discussion I made the following comments that I am certain you would have agreed with:

• "My personal preferences are (i) to disambiguate only when necessary, and (ii) to disambiguate with parentheses."
• "If I want to create separate articles for Margaret River the river and Margaret River the town, I would be expected to create them at Margaret River, Western Australia and Margaret River (Western Australia) respectively. To the passing casual reader, this looks utterly ridiculous, and any attempt to explain it away by recourse to our naming conventions would sound like a load of navel-gazing nonsense."
• "I've never understood why it is necessary or even desirable to preemptively disambiguate any articles, even those on localities. Why is it necessary to put our article on Jerramungup at Jerramungup, Western Australia rather than the obvious and intuitive Jerramungup? I realise I'm heavily outnumbered on that point, but I simply can't see any merit in the arguments for doing so."

Hesperian 23:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, now you're talking my language. The Marget River examples are perfect - mind numbing. I've been in the same position with those who argue for the predisambiguating comma convention for U.S. cities (use to be all except New York City, now it's all except a dozen or so so-called "AP" cities). See this discussion for a recent (today) one about less obvious problems that stem from predisambiguation.

Can you understand how I see the default use of scientific names as yet another manifestation of predisambiguation, at least in those cases where the more familiar (to most) common name is synonymous (or "close enough") with the scientific name? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not reading anyone else's posts, or listening to or acknowledging either your own failure to make points or the points of other editors. You are not discussing policy. You are bandstanding without evidence, without support. You are hounding plants editors to interrupt and disrupt editing of Wikipedia flora articles. Consider this a civility and disruption warning. --KP Botany (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. For the record, I disagree. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be working on an RfC and will invite other editors to do so with the intention of having your disruption of Wikipedia stopped. User:KP Botany/RfC Born2cycle --KP Botany (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with me?!! B-b-but...you're not supposed to agree with me. It upsets the karmic balance of the universe :) Guettarda (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As you were involved in some of the recent discussion and debate about the images in the article on Intelligent design, I thought you might like to know a separate proceeding was brought to try to remove the Time image by outright deletion from the wiki . It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg . If you are at all interested in the issue, it would be reasonable to post a "keep" or a "delete" at that page. .. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Born2cycle. 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. Thank you. Gnangarra 01:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to what I just said at Talk:Atheism, I also want to say thank you to you here. I really appreciate the kind words (especially after some of the other words that were directed at me during that process!). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Born2cycle. 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. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbratland (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi born2cycle, I've asked on the lanesplitting article talk page if you would accept me as an informal mediator. If not, can you (a) state why, (b) tell me if you'd accept someone else as a mediator, and (c) if you'd agree to formal mediation? tedder (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

dbratland has replied on Talk:Lane_splitting#Informal_mediation; that's close to what I am seeing- there is a need to have things settled. Can you indicate your approval/disapproval for mediation over there? tedder (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The content of this page which quotes the California code belongs on Wikisource, not here. I know the article is in the middle of a rewrite, so I will wait a while, but this is probably going to wind up going to AfD. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Quotes should only be one or two sentences. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you please identify the policy or guideline that says that? Books and articles on this topic (bicycling and the law) follow the same format used in this WP article, where the law being discussed is quoted in full. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. A simple list of quotations would be better suited for our sister project, Wikiquote.. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you leave the quotes in, I will have no choice but to nominate the article for deletion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Throw out the baby with the bathwater? Why? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Born2cycle. 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 discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#User_Born2cycle.2C_tendentious_editing_and_a_flat_refusal_to_engage_in_any_sort_of_mediation. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Born2cycle. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Born2cycle, where you may want to participate. tedder (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I know I said I'd like the discussion to take place on the RFC, but in the interests of following the RFC:UC rules perfectly, I wanted to include the above template. tedder (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I supose I could remind you to assume good faith. ;) But in any case the material you removed does not appear to have been a personal attack. Rather, it simply comments on your editing behavior in a relevant place. If there is a specific part of the comment which you think goes over the line please let me know so that phrase can be redacted while leaving the rest.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd be helpful if you'd discuss this with the editor. However your own participation in the naiming conventions issue is important, so the two of you should figure out a way of addressing his concern with it appearing disparaging to you. In any case, I suggest that it'd be better if you'd let someone else handle the deletion or redaction of purported personal attacks involving you.   Will Beback  talk  00:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Born2cycle, we've had editing contact before, not problematic, but we didn't always agree. I'm disturbed by your deletion of an entire post over a trivial criticism, and concerned that mine could randomly be your next post hit.
The name redaction is also not appropriate, and I will support the other editor in case he chooses to make an issue of restoring it.
A "nullity" means "a mere nothing", which the other editor said you had acted as if a certain government standard was. My immediate reaction was 'So what?' Deny it and move on.

• First, fact-based criticism is permitted at Wikipedia. "Disparagement" is mostly indistinguishable from fact-based criticism, which is often disparaging yet permitted.
• Second, could a reasonable reader who had read your other posts believe that statement about you was more likely to be true than not true (even if you don't agree)? If so, the other editor can state that with impunity.
• Third, is that statement so vague that it can't be proved one way or another – in which case he gets to keep the statement by default. Not fair? Ok, you can claim that statement is not fair, if you can provide a reason why it's not fair.
• Fourth, while you may have other options like an WP:ANI report, there is no expectation to be able to remove disparagement you don't like. Wikipedia:NPA#Removal of text: "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, .... removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." The other editor's statement was not at all an obvious or true personal attack.
• Fifth, even if it isn't true, there's no attack on your character and it's a trivial matter, so there are more politically appropriate responses. One is to state that the other editor has got you wrong and that you do think the certain government standard is of some importance. (If possible, quote yourself to prove it.) Another, if you're sure it's not true, is to ask him for a diff to prove his claim. If he can, take the point by saying, 'I can see how you got that idea, but here's what I really think...' If he doesn't, you can say 'I don't see any diffs, so until I do, I'll assume that you have mischaracterized my position on (certain government standard). Now here's what I really think...'
• Sixth, post deleting can start talk page edit wars. If you blow up a discussion over a minor matter, you'll gain little regard from your fellow editors who may be disinclined to help you when you really need it.
• Seventh, if you are going to involve yourself in league debating at Wikipedia, you either need a thicker skin, or to stay out of controversy discussions. See this essay Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks. Milo 02:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, Milo. I recently noticed the statement allowing for deletion of derogatory comments in WP:NPA - previously I had assumed it was not allowed. One reason I deleted this derogatory comment was precisely because I did not want to get into the tangent of explaining and defending what my arguments were years ago, and why the disparaging statement made about me was a complete and total misrepresentation of that.

The definition of derogatory is simply, "expressive of a low opinion" [m-w.com]. The words in question, "started acting as if the US place naming convention was a nullity", express a low opinion of the person who (allegedly) acted in that way. It's derogatory, period. And a comment merely meeting the threshold of derogatory is enough to justify deleting it, per WP:NPA, which is not merely an essay like Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks is; WP:NPA is policy. The sentence, Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor, is in the opening paragraph of the policy. Deletion of such comments is not only not prohibited, it is explicitly allowed.

Later on in the policy, as you quoted above, it states, "removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." That arguably sets a somewhat higher threshold than do the words in the opening paragraph, but even still, whether any words in particular obviously constitute a "true personal attack" is largely a matter of opinion. But WP:NPA gives many hints about what is a personal attack is, including all of the following:

• It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.
• comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people.
• discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion" this was not the appropriate forum in which to discuss any particular user's alleged improper interpretation of guidelines.
• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.
• Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.

I sincerely believe all of these characteristics directly apply to the statement in question. Using criteria from WP:NPA itself, the evidence that this derogatory comment was a personal attack is substantial if not overwhelming. Both sections in the policy that talk about deleting other people's comments clearly allow for in such a case. It was in my perhaps flawed opinion that the best course of action was to delete the comment completely, allowing the editor to repost as he wished, hopefully without the personal attack.

Frankly, I wish WP:NPA was better understood, appreciated, followed and enforced.

But, again, thank you for your concern. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I read your response and noticed that you didn't address the most important issue: the severity versus triviality of the claimed personal attack.

The Arbitration committee has declared that "remove personal attacks" is to be used sparingly:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI#Remove personal attacks 3) The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. [14]. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly. ¶ Passed 6 to 0 at 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

...and that means reserve it for important matters.

The reference is to a poll for Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. The final discussion result rejected the proposed WP:RPA guide because it failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community.

The bottom line is that your claimed PA is trivial – therefore you may not remove it.

According to complaints, you appear to be carrying out a campaign of activism by pressing too many extreme interpretations. Arbcom has frequently stated its opposition to this kind of activity (search "campaign of"). When your actions have reached the point that this is now pointed out to you, even if it's not technically true, you have probably exceeded the drama limits that the community will tolerate.

A way to avoid becoming bicycle topic banned, is to recognize that Wikipedia is highly political. If you want something, study the politics to get it. That always means compromising, with the understanding that the perfect is the opponent of the good. Milo 08:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We will have to disagree to disagree on whether my claimed PA is "trivial". I think it's important to also consider the context. This derogatory comment about me, that completely misconstrued my history, was made on a policy talk page in a discussion in which I was not even participating. There must have been a reason to refer to my name. If that purpose was not to attack me, then what was the reason? The only difference between the original statement and the one in which Will redacted my name is that only the original was a "true personal attack".

Besides, the opening sentence of NPA is "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia." This is not qualified to not apply when the attacks are considered by some (but not the target) to be "trivial". It's a shame that Wikipedia has a written policy that so clearly takes a reasonable and very firm stand against personal attacks, but that acceptance of such behavior as being "trivial" within WP is apparently fairly widespread.

All I did was delete a comment that was a personal attack per WP:NPA. I've stated my reasons, including why I chose to delete rather than respond in this case, and will not repeat them, but I will review the arbcom cases you mentioned. Thank you for bringing them to my attention. I will be curious to see if any of them involve derogatory comments about another contributor in discussions on policy pages in which the target of the attack was not even involved.

You completely lost me when you said a way to avoid being banned from editing "bicycling topics" is to recognize that Wikipedia is highly political. What does this have to do with "bicycling topics"?

If there are complaints about me alleging that I'm "carrying out a campaign of activism by pressing too many extreme interpretations", I would like to know what they are, what the basis for the complaints is, and who is making them. Thank you again for your concerns. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

←"There must have been a reason to refer to my name. If that purpose was not to attack me, then what was the reason?" You were being criticized, so you were named. More exactly, your inferred position ("acting as if") was being criticized.

Behavior/actions/acting is commentable at Wikipedia, including criticizable. The comment must be:

1. More likely true than not true as based on documentable facts ('Username did x', - even if it's derogatory it's not considered a PA -),
2. an opinion reasonably concluded from the facts ('Username misbehaved', - even if it's derogatory it's not considered a PA -),
3. a civil personal reaction ('I don't like what Username did'),
4. vague ('What Username did was unhelpful'),
5. a generalization ('Username could have done better' - everyone could do better -),
6. another type of not un-acceptable statement,
7. or, so uncertain of the above that it defaults to acceptable.

""Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia." This is not qualified to not apply when the attacks are considered by some (but not the target) to be "trivial"." This is an example of an extreme interpretation (see Milo 08:10). WP:NPA makes it clear that statements are not to judged as PAs by bright-line extremes:

WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?: "There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion,..."

And, there are a variety of other WP:NPA qualifications in the policy details, Arbcom cases, and descriptive practices.

In the absence of bright-lines, judgments of rule breaking require the cautious balancing of multiple factors; that's the reason that justice is symbolized by two-pan, beam-balance scales. To do this requires the skill of balanced analog thinking, which may be of shorter supply in an age of digital extremism.

"What does this have to do with "bicycling topics"?" .... "...what the basis for the complaints is, and who is making them." I'm making reference to complaints in your RFC, as listed in a previous section above.
"carrying out a campaign of activism by pressing too many extreme interpretations" That's my analysis of the complaint drama at the RFC. A point I made previously, is that even if those complaints are not technically true, the drama itself is a problem that seems to put you on an arc toward an eventual Arbcom hearing – which could cause you to be bicycle topic banned, or at least article banned.
However, if you pursue a path of serial post deletion, that's likely to result in blocking sanctions at WP:ANI fairly soon. Milo 04:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You were being criticized, so you were named. But why was I being criticized, all of a sudden, out of the blue, in a policy page discussion in which I was not even taking part, if not to attack me personally? I think it's fair to say that all of your 7 examples about when a critical comment is okay (with which I don't have any issue) assume the context at least already somehow involves the person in question. That's one of those premises so obvious it doesn't even need to be stated. By the way, what is the source of that list of 7 examples? I don't see it on the WP:NPA policy page.

You think that criticizing someone in an open forum is not insulting? Do you honestly believe you wouldn't consider yourself personally attacked if someone with whom you disagreed about something in the past, out of the blue, suddenly shared his biased and critical opinion of you on a policy talk page in a discussion in which you were not even involved?

That's my analysis of the complaint drama at the RFC. What complaint drama? I have no idea why, and perhaps I'm missing something, but you seem to have a bone to pick with me.

a path of serial post deletion Serial post deletion? One deletion of a post in 5 years and now I'm a serial post deleter? What is this about? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

←"But why was I being criticized, all of a sudden, out of the blue, in a policy page discussion in which I was not even taking part,..." That may be due to your drama problem. The nature of drama makes it easily remembered, even across venues.

"...if not to attack me personally?" Because it was to criticize you personally.

"critical comment is okay ... assume the context at least already somehow involves the person in question." Pardon, I don't know what you mean.

"what is the source of that list of 7 examples?" It's my institutional research of current Wikipedia NPA policies, guides, and descriptive practice, encapsulated into a reference list.

"criticizing someone in an open forum is not insulting?" An "insult" can be either a speaker's rude personal remark, ('you're a blankety-blank'), or merely be inferred by a hearer for a vague or abstract reason ('That book is an insult to one's intelligence').[15] The latter is considered a personal reaction, and not necessarily a fault of the speaker. So, criticizing someone in an open forum is not an insult that rises to the level of a personal attack unless rude words are used.

"Do you honestly believe you wouldn't consider yourself personally attacked ... shared his biased and critical opinion of you" I wouldn't like it, but I assure you that I would not consider it a personal attack unless that opponent seriously violated the WP:NPA policy.
A proportional response to an opponent has a lot to do with developing a full set of debating skills. If the only tool one has is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail.

"What complaint drama?" Since an RFC was called on you, it's probably about too much wikidrama (whatever the details). "Drama" at Wikipedia is like having "attitude" at a RL job. One can be fired for "attitude", and there's no way to argue against it. Take heed of the RFC and reduce the drama.

"...you seem to have a bone to pick with me" Yes, post deletion. I stated that in the second sentence of my first post (Milo 02:24). The root of this post deletion issue seems to be stated by you in that RFC: #Lesson Learned: Do not tolerate Personal Attacks "...the lesson for me, I think, is to nip this kind of thing in the bud next time it happens,...". Post deletion and redactions are not an appropriate kind of bud nipping for less than incendiary remarks, such as what the U.S. Supreme Court called fighting words. (Yet more serious things like outings get oversighted.)

[if you pursue] "a path of serial post deletion" ... "...serial post deleter? What is this about?" "Pursue" can mean to continue an activity, but it also means to "proceed along <pursues a northern course>"[16] and "proceed in accordance with (a method, plan, etc.)"[17]. Milo 08:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

...you don't name names? "small groups of biased specialists" --Curtis Clark (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm blind to it, but I don't see how. I didn't even imply there was anything wrong with being part of a small group of specialists. I did intend to convey that groups of specialists tend to be biased in favor of whatever benefits their specialty. And that's good, for the specialty. But that bias is not always best for the bigger picture. I honestly don't see how you get a personal attack out of that. I certainly did not mean it as one. It's the same point that is made in the quotation that I added to the bottom of my main page yesterday. Does that seem like a personal attack to you? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it has never occurred to you that "biased" is a serious insult on Wikipedia when applied to an editor rather than an edit. If you had, instead, written "Hesperian, a biased specialist", how could that not be taken as a personal attack? WRT the quote, those were not your words. I am bringing this up with you because you appear to be very sensitive to perceived personal attacks toward you, but less so to perceived attacks you make on others.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it never occurred to me that calling someone "biased" is an insult at all, much less a serious one, because I know that everyone is biased, and there is nothing wrong with that. It's just that in a particular area of specialty, everyone in that specialty tends to hold similar biases with respect to that specialty. I assumed that was generally understood and accepted. Is it not? Would it have been less problematic for you if I had written, "small biased group of specialists"? I suppose that would have more clearly indicated that I was talking about the overall pro-group bias of the group of specialists. At any rate, I did not mention anyone by name, and had no one in particular in mind. I was thinking as much about the editors of motorcycling articles, U.S. city articles, Russian sub articles, TV episodes, etc., etc. as I was thinking about plant editors, much less Hesperian in particular. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I picked Hesperian as an example; it of course could have been anybody. If everybody is biased (which I don't contest in the sense you claim to mean it), then why would you ever use the word as a qualifier in that example? Would you have written "small groups of human specialists"? small groups of literate specialists? small groups of computer-using specialists? What would have been the point? --Curtis Clark (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I already explained my point: ...in a particular area of specialty, everyone in that specialty tends to hold similar biases with respect to that specialty. Thus they are not only specialists, but they tend to be biased because of that specialty, in favor of that specialty. Hence they are biased specialists.

For example, one of my (amateur) specialties is traffic cycling law and safety (I've read bunch of books on this topic, taken classes, belong to various groups in the field, etc.). It is probably because of that bias that the difference between lane splitting and filtering forward seems so significant to me, as opposed to those who think the two articles should be merged. Who is right? Well, technically, I am. Lane splitting is about where one is traveling (between lanes of traffic), regardless of speed, while filtering forward is about how fast one is traveling relative to other traffic (faster) while using unused road space (which may or may not be between lanes of traffic). Technically speaking, they're entirely different concepts, though of course both apply when one is using lane splitting in order to filter forward. But, in the vernacular, people often use the two terms interchangeably. Now, are WP readers better off if the biased specialists like me decide to keep the two articles separate, or do they benefit if they are merged like the non-specialists want? Regardless of the answer to this question, which is beside the point, I hope this adequately explains what I meant by "small groups of biased specialists".

Hypothetically, I could have written "human specialists", "literate specialists", or "computer-using specialists" if I was trying to make a point about the humanness, literacy or "computer-usingness" of those specialists. In this case I was making a point about the inherent bias of specialists in a particular field, so I said "biased specialists". Does that make sense?

If you still think the phrase might be interpreted as an attack, I'd be happy to reword it (sorry, should have suggested that right away). --Born2cycle (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're blind to this, when you are so sensitive to (in my mind) equivalent statements directed at you.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The key is that even when I'm unable to see how my comment about people in general might be seen as a personal attack, I'm fine with someone removing it as long as the offensive language is identified so I can edit it and put it the comment back without that language. Others deny their comments are personal attacks, even when they identify the person they are referring to in an insulting way by name. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Born2cycle, I definitely owe you some closure on the talk page for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Born2cycle. I'll do so this week. I just wanted to give you an FYI, as I haven't posted over there lately. I can't remove it, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs, but as you've posted a wrapup, I'll post a wrapup, and perhaps someone uninvolved will see to it. Cheers (and I mean that), tedder (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries; no hurry. However, if you would address, one way or another, the question I asked in [this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Born2cycle#Two_to_tango.3F] I would really appreciate it. Since no outsiders endorsed anything you guys accused me of, yet I know I have issues, perhaps we can still get something out of this. What happens is I get into debates, and I try to focus on presenting the best arguments I can, and make sure I address every argument that is made by those opposing. But often that turns out to not be persuasive, and people take it personally (even though I believe I'm very good about addressing content and arguments, without getting personal), and get pissed off at me personally. I don't want to piss anyone off. I just want to do the right thing, and make Wikipedia better. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I can address it. I didn't want to pick at the scab if it's healing, but if you want to discuss things further (i.e., what my intent was, aka "WTH was I doing" :-)), I'd be happy to. If you'd like me to just wrap it up, I can do that instead. I'm quite happy to take either approach, okay? Hmm, this sounds bitchy. That is definitely not my intent. I'm happy to discuss it more or simply wrap it up. tedder (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm always open to constructive criticism. However you want to handle it is fine with me. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(moving left) Do you want me to contact an editor about having the RFC taken down, would you like to do so, or would you prefer it to happen naturally? tedder (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine, especially since Dbratland has made the changes to lane splitting he agreed to make. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The merger of Filtering forward and Lane splitting was decided. It should be done, not negotiated further. Is there some rule about merging that says the article merged into must meet certain critera before the redirect can be made? If you're unhappy with the state of Lane splitting and think it should be changed, change it. If it needs edits to explain something about filtering forward, edit away.--Dbratland (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone doing merges should familiarize themselves with what WP:MERGE says, including:

You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page. That is fine; you can feel free to delete the redundant information and only add the new stuff. If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary.

If you believe there is no information to be added to the destination page (Lane splitting), you certainly did not make this clear in the edit summary.

One of my objections to the merge was I did not know how to do the merging of the information. The onus to do that is on the person doing the merge, not on me. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make Filtering forward redirect to Lane splitting now. Do you have changes you intend to make to Lane splitting before that is done or can we go ahead?--Dbratland (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, who ever changes an article A to be a redirect to an article B needs to make sure that first, the content in A is moved to the content in B, unless it is believed that all of the content is already duplicated, in which case that needs to be duly noted in the edit summary of the change to the redirect. I think the distinction between the two terms needs to be explained in the new article before the change to the redirect is made. If you're not comfortable doing that, I will, but give me a few days. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to direct you at this: Talk:Traditional marriage movement#Balance and New Title.3F. It's an interesting discussion, and it seems like the sort of things you are interested in- a tough discussion where it's hard to figure out the "right" thing to do. (I mean this in all sincerity- it's over my head, which is why I'm pointing you at it). tedder (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the issue of your misbehaviour further, this would be the place. If you would rather simply stop using misleading arguments, that's fine with me as well. If you want to advance your argument that NPA forbids others from commenting on your actions, while allowing you free rein to comment on theirs...I dunno, start of blog or something. Guettarda (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, why not edit the mainspace. This is, after all, a project to write an encyclopaedia, after all. Guettarda (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Shit, 500 mainspace edits takes you back 2.5 years? I'm sorry - I thought you were an active editor, given the amount of time you spend arguing over policy. It was wrong of me to assume that you were familiar with the way things worked around here. I shouldn't have expected so much of you. Sorry. Guettarda (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm archiving the section that was deleted from User talk:Guettarda here (it was started there):

Guettarda, you wrote, "you know it doesn't say what you claim it does." Can you please identify the exact words you believed I used in order to claim the google results show something that I know they don't show? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

--Aervanath (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You might want to consider archiving your talk page, it's creeping up on 200Kb! Kind of hard on those with slow connections. Anyway, thanks for the cookie!--Aervanath (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Born2cycle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5