"I am running out of patience for incivility at Wikipedia,... Some people simply should not be contributing to an encyclopedia.... and note that all editors should always endeavor to treat each other with kindness, or else find another hobby. When we put up with this kind of behavior, we enable a hostile environment that drives away good people. We should be gentle, but firm: this kind of behavior is not allowed at Wikipedia." --Jimbo Wales 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) [1]
I think it best that the whole dialogue is kept together so I will usually reply to messages wherever they are posted. If you write something here, my reply will usually also be here. If I have written something on someone else's talk page, I will be watching it for at least 5 days. Any article I have contributed to recently will also be on my watchlist.
Please post comments relating to the contents of our articles on the relevant page's discussion page, and not here. That way all interested parties (including you and I) can participate and reach consensus. (All articles I edit are automatically added to my Watchlist).
Perspicacite comments go in the "P Section"; all other comments: (+)
This "P Section" is for posts by, (or that have a strong link to the conduct of,) User: PerspicacitealiasJose João (P).
One of the reasons for this division is the sheer volume of templated messages from P - measuring up to 105,077 bytes in one message!
If one did not assume good faith, one would assume he is attempting to drown out normal dialogue on this, my user talk page since, unless in extremis, I don't usually instantly expunge unfavourable comments (as P does on his own talk page and now even on article discussion pages ).
Hi, and thanks for your message. I agree with you on the issue of dates and spellings, although I sympathise with User:Perspicacite as it can be very difficult to keep that rule in mind. Two suggestions for you; next time there would be no harm in dropping the other editor a polite and friendly note reminding them about ENGVAR, and also by reverting all Perspicacite's changes out you may have lost a number that were good. Rather than reverting, consider a compromise version which uses the best of both versions. I may have a look at doing this if I have time, or else you might want to. Best wishes to you --John17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest and whatever assistance you can offer, John. I don't just simply revert without preserving any good material. All of his valuable contributions are preserved by my edits.
Perspicacite has now reverted to his earlier version (for the third time, but over an interval of several days) and reintroduced the US-English spellings and date formats in our article about a Commonwealth territory. (The date formats do matter a little, since the majority of our readers are folks who either do not have a user account or who are not logged in).
losing the picture by changing [[Image:Bowditch Tokelau.png|right|250px|thumb|Fakaofo islanders, drawn in 1841 by the [[United States Exploring Expedition]].]] to [[Image:Bowditch.png|right|250px|thumb|Fakaofo islanders, drawn in 1841 by the [[United States Exploring Expedition]].]] :Fakaofo islanders, drawn in 1841 by the United States Exploring Expedition.
losing conversion templates such as {{convert|500|km|mi|0|lk=on|abbr=on}} - paradoxically meaning that the non-metric measurements which most Americans are most comfortable with now do not appear in our article.
These two concerns are in addition to my concerns about changing (without consensus or discussion) to spellings and date formats to those prevalent in the USA, whereas Tokelau is a non self-governing colonial territory of the Commonwealth country of New Zealand and, therefore, the article has a strong connection to an WP:ENGVAR in addition to non US-English being the current variant.
I have tried to assume good faith here but the other changes that Perspicacite made did not, in my opinion, improve the article and, consequently, are not really susceptible of incorporation. Indeed it could be said that some of the changes he made were contrary to the sources.
The conclusion I have drawn after this third revert is that either these reverts are entirely careless of the efforts of other editors or that he is staking ownership of our Tokelau article.
I really do not feel that I have enough experience as an editor to reprimand him effectively if it turns out his edit summary is also mendacious. Alice.S 03:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Alice.S you have now violated a number of policies. Your talkpage posts violate WP:CIVIL and WP:STALK. Following me onto the Frank Gaffney article and WP:AN/I qualifies as stalking and is a blockable offense. You have also violated WP:OWN through your persistent reverting on Tokelau without discussion. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's policies so blatantly I will have to contact administrators for assistance. Perspicacite05:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perspicacite, you were wrong about the Engvar issue. No big deal and it has been fixed. Can we all just leave it there? This issue was never very important in the first place, has become unduly personalised, and is now over, resolved, finished. Please don't start throwing alphabet soup around; I can't see any evidence of anything but misunderstanding between two good-faith editors here. These things happen. I suggest letting things cool off a little and addressing any further stylistic disagreements at Talk:Tokelau after a few days have passed. Let it be, and get on with something useful, please.--John05:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like good advice! See you over on the discussion page of Talk:Tokelau, Perspicacite? Alice.S 06:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that stalking "does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them."
However, I shall try and draw something positive from this unpleasant little exchange; at least I got to read some interesting policies about civility and ownership and stalking and no personal attacks that I might have missed otherwise.
I will continue to follow Wikipedia policy in editing articles that Perspicacite might have edited before since, judging by his history, he seems to spurn all efforts at reconciliation and I formally withdraw my offer not to edit articles which Perspicacite has previously edited.
Alice.S 18:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You are on the verge of violating WP:3RR, making more than three reversions to an article in a 24-hour period. A fourth reversion will result in a 24 hour block. Perspicacite10:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have completely misunderstood several points (leaving aside the fact that you are not an administrator):
1) I have never made a simple revert to any article (except to revert simple vandalism). Please provide diffs to show where you believe I reverted to my version (as opposed to making progressive edits)
2) By contrast you have already made 3 successive (and I believe rash and unconsidered reverts to our Rhodesia article within a 24 hour period: 1 and 2 and 3
3) If you consider this important enough, please report yourself to an administrator for blocking. Alice.S 10:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Please consider giving yourself a voluntary block for a short period to try and encourage yourself to actually incrementally edit rather than continually revert your colleagues. Alice.S 10:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, actually my last edit was not a reversion. See, none of your four reversions were "simple." They restored vandalism. That's generally looked down upon by the community. See, what you fail to understand is that while you escaped a block on WP:AN, it's much harder to do so on the 3RR noticeboard. Spamming WP:AN/I allowed you to avoid a block previously, but I doubt it will work with the 3RR violation. There's really no way you can talk your way out of this. Perspicacite10:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need to be more careful in my edits in future since, when the admin dismissed your complaint, it seems he did find that I had reverted once: "(User:Alice.S reported by User:Perspicacite (Result: ) - Querulous complaint, most of the diffs are not even reverts.)"
NeilN has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
While you might not think of it that way, posting on the talk page of someone who you are in a conflict when they're blocked can be seen as provoking. I recommend you in the future to refrain from doing so until the block expires, since it may just work the other party up. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse that, and suggest that you refrain from interacting at all with the user in future. I'm not saying you meant to make the situation worse, just that that was the net effect of your posting there. --John19:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Penwhale: I can see the sense in your position.
However, one of the reason's I've been interacting with Perspicacite is that I believe that ours is a co-operative project and we need to be able to discuss things with one another; I understood that, since he could only post on his talk page during a block, that would be the best place to address him.
Do you think that there are some policy, guideline and essay pages that need updating with this particular piece of advice so that other newbies don't inadvertently aggravate the situation, when a user has been blocked?
John: I'll do just that on talk pages, but I suspect that I will need to address Perspicacite directly on article discussion pages and (given his track record) on noticeboards, etc. To do otherwise would be to change his (anticipated) reverts without explanation and I genuinely feel that nobody is beyond redemption (if that doesn't sound too pompous). Thanks for the good advice, Gentlemen! Alice.S 20:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Alice. I agree with John and Penwhale here. Perspicacite has been, no question, very difficult to deal with. I think that has led you (and a few other people) to do some things that you never would have done in dealing with somebody else's edits. That compounds the problem. Before he had no reason to be grumpy beyond some misunderstandings, but now he'll have to overcome that plus the additional history.
He's clearly not so good yet at handling his emotions on Wikipedia, so let's not give him any more to deal with right now. Please give him a wide berth, so that both you and he have time to cool down. A month of not editing the same articles would be great, and definitely do not follow him to any articles. I expect that in a year's time you both will look back and say, "Oh, if only I had known then what I know now, that wouldn't have blown up." But for now, we've got two million articles, so there's plenty of room for you to both be good contributors separately.
That's the odd thing about these episodes, William. I genuinely think that (with one significant exception) I have treated Perspicacite the way I would like to be treated and the way I (misguidedly?) intend to treat anyone else's edits: I analyse the changes he makes and leave intact the good ones and correct any mistakes; if there is a pattern in the mistakes I would normally take it up directly with the editor but, in this case, because of the history of grumpy and bitey behaviour that I saw, I went to two separate admins to ask them to point out the problematic behaviour since
a) as a newbie I was not sure that my edit analysis was correct
b) I did not want him to lose face by being corrected by a newbie.
I will ponder for a while on all the good advice I have received.
Can you answer the question I have posed above: Do you think that there are some policy, guideline and essay pages that need updating with this advice so that other newbies don't inadvertently aggravate the situation, when a user has been blocked?Alice.S 21:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't. I think we have a zillion policy and guideline pages already, and if anybody sat down to read them all before trying things, I don't think they'd ever make an edit. I'd rather we focused newbies on something short and sweet like WP:5P, as I'd rather them spend their time thinking things like "Am I staying cool?" and "Could the other person mistakenly see my comment as incivil?" If instead they worry, "Gee, have I complied fully with WP:EIEIO, WP:WTF, and WP:OMG?" then they risk missing the forest because of all the trees in the way. Others may differ on this, though; not everybody is as worried about instruction creep as I am. William Pietri00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How wise!
(and how useful, since I'm a fundamentally lazy person, to get a carte blanche to cut down on my wikireading. I do so agree that it's a very steep learning curve, William!)Alice.S 00:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This no longer interests me. I am willing to accept your original offer of you "keeping" Tokelau and not following me onto other pages. If you agree to stop harassing me then as far as I'm concerned, at this point, you can go wild with Tokelau. Perspicacite10:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a perversion of my proposal. I do not concede that I have ever harassed you. I have encouraged you to work in a more collegial manner and to eschew reverts other than for simple vandalism. Please take care to quote editors correctly or provide the relevant diffs in future. Alice.S 02:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I remain deeply concerned about your civility in talkpage posts. As you know,
civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. "Civility" is a principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it is a reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. Wikipedia invites visitors to improve its text. But often there are differences of opinion on whether a change in text is an "improvement". When editors weigh the pros and cons of whether a change is an improvement, it may be difficult to criticize text without being subjective about the situation. Editors, in trying to be clear, can be unnecessarily harsh on the giving end. Conversely, on the receiving end, editors can be oversensitive when they see what they wrote replaced by something that claims to be "better", despite it being the opposite of what they wrote. Again, thanks for the note! Perspicacite11:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your recent violation of the WP:3RR rule on Rhodesia. You see, in consideration of the harm of reverting, Wikipedia policy states that you may not revert any article more than three times in the same day. This is a very strict limit, not a given right; you should not revert any one article more than three times daily. When a revert is necessary, it is very important to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit, but fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified.
Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of, eg, "rv page blanking"). Because of the lack of non-verbal communication online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's one of the possible causes for edit wars. If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance. Conversely, if someone reverts your change without apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's talk page or your user talk page. Perspicacite11:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think we've truly delved into why incivility is bad, together, as a team. I've found
it makes people unhappy, resulting in discouragement and departure from Wikipedia, resulting in non-constructive or even uncivil behavior themselves, further escalating the level of incivility. It puts people on the defensive, closing their minds to other ideas and preventing a consensus from forming. It's bad because people lose good faith, resulting in even less ability to resolve the current conflict — or the next one, because in the end, the content to be edited is not improved.
A few good ways to prevent incivility:
Prevent edit wars and conflict between individuals (the project sets editing constraints — essentially a community answer)
Force delays between answers to give time to editors to calm down and recover and to avoid further escalation of a conflict (protecting pages)
Use positive feedback (praising those who do not respond to incivility with incivility)
Apply peer pressure (voicing displeasure each time rudeness or incivility happens)
Solve the root of the conflict between the offender and the other editor(s) or the community — or find a compromise.
Use negative feedback (suggesting that an editor involved in conflict should leave a conflict or even temporarily avoid all controversial areas in Wikipedia). It may be worthwhile making such suggestions to both sides of the conflict.
Have certain users refrain from editing specific pages that often trigger incivility.
Filter emails by the offender, or filter mail based on certain keywords and reject emails to the Wikipedia mailing list with those words
Accepting that incivility and rudeness can't be entirely avoided in such a project, and not responding in kind.
Giving awards for good edits.
Ways to reduce the impact:
Balance each uncivil comment by providing a soothing or constructive comment
Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor. Do not escalate the conflict. (an individual approach)
Alternatively, respond to perceived incivility with greater civility and respect. Many editors will rise to the occasion and moderate their tone to match yours.
Ignore incivility. Operate as if the offender does not exist. Set up a "wall" between the offender and the community.
Revert edits with a veil of invisibility (&bot=1) to reduce the impact of the offensive words used in edit summaries (the comment box)
Walk away. Wikipedia is a very big place. Just go edit somewhere else for a while and return when tempers have cooled.
Please. Thank you. I'm sorry. You're welcome. You're a good person and I know we'll work this out. Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project.
You do not have to like an editor as a person, to appreciate that they are also working for the good of the project. If you do not like a fellow editor, try not to hold that fact against them.
Users may also remove comments.
Strike offensive words or replace them with milder ones on talk pages (this is often seen as controversial, as is refactoring other people's words)
Remove offensive comments on talk pages (since they remain in the page history, anyone can find them again or refer to them later on)
Revert an edit with &bot=1, so that the edit made by the offender appears invisible in Recent Changes (do-able on ip contributions, requires technical help for logged-in user)
Delete (entirely and permanently) an edit made by the offender (requires technical help)
Permanently delete an offensive comment made on the mailing lists (requires technical help)
Replace a comment made in an edit summary by another less offensive comment (requires technical help)
If it is a clear case of ongoing incivility, consider making a comment on the offender's talk page. You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement. In extreme cases (of heavy or repeated incivility), a user conduct Request for Comment may help resolve the matter. Parties sometimes attempt to negotiate an agreement while one party is not ready to negotiate. For example, if the source of the conflict is a specific point in an article, an uncivil discussion may impair a dispute resolution. It is best to clear up that issue as soon as possible, so disputants can regain their balance and clarity when editing. Some editors are badly shaken by uncivil words directed towards them, and cannot focus on the source of the conflict itself. It may help to point out to them why unpleasant words were used, and acknowledge that while incivility is wrong, the ideas behind the comment may be valid. The offended person may realize that the words were not always meant literally, and could decide to forgive and forget them. It can be helpful to point out breaches of civility even when done on purpose to hurt, as it might help the disputant to refocus on the issue (controversial).
During a mediation, a third neutral party is in contact with disputants, ensuring communication between them.
Mediators also promote reasonable discussion between the disputants. Therefore it is helpful to remove incivility voiced by User A, in rephrasing comments to User B.
For example, if User A and User B are flaming each other by e-mail through a mediator, it might be best if the intermediary turns "I refuse to allow Neo-Nazi apologetics to infest the Wikipedia" to "User A is concerned that you may be giving too much prominence to a certain view." Perspicacite11:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I broadly agree.Alice.S 12:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the subpage, I will link to it from my talkpage. I'll put the link right next to my own archive, where I've kept a longer list of comments starting from my first talkpage posts. The "past activities" refers to my previous accounts on Wikipedia. Every year or so my interests change so I get a new account to match 'em. Regarding the policies, I would probably get rid of ENGVAR altogether and require American spelling on all pages. Perspicacite12:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is more consistent (and a little simpler in most cases). If the spread of Microsoft's spell checker continues that will probably become the default anyway. Until then we all need to follow the existing policies and guidelines.
Can you point me to your previous accounts so that I can track your development and progress as an editor?
Alice.S 12:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The text block in blue, there, explains:
"All user's have a right to delete comments they are uncomfortable with from their user space (see: Don't restore removed comments) but this means that both admins and editors new to interacting with a particular individual may not be able to detect a consistent pattern of behaviour before they have "awoken the dragon".
This page is not designed as an attack page but as a handy reference I can point to when warning other editors that may be unaware of the (rapidly deleted) history of User talk:Perspicacite's "Archive" and the first unfounded allegation of "Wikistalking" dating from 05:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC). If the situation does not improve when User:Perspicacite returns it will also provide evidence and be a source of diffs for an Arbcom or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee hearing. This archive deliberately excludes the first 4 threads/sections completed before 22 May2007 Singapore time.[reply]
(Because of the rapidity of User:Perspicacite's deletions, comments may not be in strict chronological order. Please do not edit or make corrections here but instead alert me (Alice) on the talk page for this project!"Alice.S 12:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you either file an RfC, rewrite the poage as a draft RfC citing original diffs, or request deletion. We do not allow laundry lists of grudges, for good reason; we do allow good-faith attempts to work at correcting an identified issue with one editor's interactions with others. Do make sure that you stay on the correct side of this distinction, won't you? Thanks, Guy (Help!) 12:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly try my very best. As you probably realise, I'm a newbie here but I assume you will allow me a few days to decide whether Perspicacite has continued his previous pattern of damaging reverts coupled with a consistent tendency to remove comments left on his user page without adequate reply.
I'm sure you will agree that I am archiving all of his deletions from his user talk page after the chosen start date - not just comments which are grudging, but also those that are complementary. If a resource like this had been available to the wheel-warring admin that reversed his previous block he might have come to a different decision, don't you think?
Might I suggest that a better place to discuss this would be here?
If you strongly disagree, you are very welcome to apply the appropriate remedy... Alice.S 13:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Last edit was quite good, but partly unnecessary. SmackBot automatically dates the fact templates every 24 hours or so. On the issue of linking years, I agree with you but there is significant support for linking all years. The issue came up recently in the FAC for Governor General of Canada. For now it's fine if they're delinked but at some point one may be asked to re-link them. Perspicacite19:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noted.
(As regards the better fact template, you are partially correct, and this is yet another reason why it is better to progress with incremental and co-operative edits rather than unilateral and un-discussed reversions.
"Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted, by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking." and
"Do not autoformat dates that are:"
"in article and section headings,"
"on disambiguation pages,"
"within quotations (unless the original text was wikilinked)."
"in date ranges" and
"Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic.") Alice.S 02:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there some reason you seem to be calling out other editors in article space? ("However, according to Perspicacite...") Or keeping an indefinite "evidence" page, targeted at the same user, with no apparent intent to use it in any upcoming request for comment or arbitration proceeding? I understand that disputes can get stressful, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. I'm very concerned by this, and I'd appreciate some explanation. – Luna Santin (talk)09:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little surprised you claim to read the future or my intentions. Please assume good faith and read carefully the blue text. Is there some sort of deadline I have to meet. I also think you should not believe everything you read but carefully assess the evidence. I'm going away soon, but I may have time when I come back to deal with these nonsensical allegations. Alice.S 09:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You will have to make time in the very near future, or I'm going to delete the page. I'll be happy to restore it completely at such time as you can explain why you need it, or if you are currently preparing a relevant RfC, ArbCom case, or other relevant proceeding -- until then, I see little option but to class it as an attack page. As I said, I'm looking for an explanation. Please provide one. – Luna Santin (talk)10:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly my intention - as it clearly states in the blue text right at the top of the User space page. Please read that text carefully and slowly. Alice.S 10:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I see. When will this case be ready? I notice when you tried to get him blocked by running to a specific admin outside of standard process at WP:AN/3RR, you neglected to add that the edits being reverted included character attacks the user in question took personal offense to. What's the explanation for that? – Luna Santin (talk)10:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the page at this time, pending more complete answers to some of my questions. I notice that User:El C has already blocked you for 24 hours, so I won't be demanding any further contact for a bit, but please be aware that I'll likely be watching for any unusual incidents when you return to editing. Please strive to get along with your fellow editors. – Luna Santin (talk)10:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please would anyone of good faith post this defence to WP:AN/I#It never ends, since I am unable to.
This is the material that User:Perspicacite/Jose João inserted:[[Portugal]] annexed Cabinda from [[Belgian Congo]] in 1927.<ref name="belcab">{{cite book|last=Griggs|first=Richard A.|coauthors=Rachael Bradley and Clive H. Schofield|year=2000|title=Boundaries, Borders and Peace-building in Southern Africa: The Spatial Implications of the 'African Renaissance'|pages=8}}</ref>
and I think Perspicacite's edit summary says it all, really: "You know what's depressing is this is probably not mentioned anywhere in the History of Angola"
I can't find this novel material anywhere else and I can't find this book so that is why my edit inserted this:
Through the [[Treaty of Simulambuco]] in 1885 between the kings of Portugal and Cabinda's princes, a Portuguese protectorate was decreed, reserving rights to the local princes and independent of Angola. Cabinda once had the [[Congo River]] as the only natural boundary with Angola, but in 1885, the [[Conference of Berlin]] extended the [[Congo Free State]]'s territory along the Congo River to the river's mouth at the sea.
In 1975, the [[Treaty of Alvor]] integrated Cabinda into Angola, but this treaty was rejected by all Cabindan political organizations. These organizations argue that because they had no input on the document, it was, and is, illegal, and therefore does not bind them to Angola. However, according to Perspicacite, [[Portugal]] annexed Cabinda from [[Belgian Congo]] in 1927.<ref name="belcab">{{cite book|last=Griggs|first=Richard A.|coauthors=Rachael Bradley and Clive H. Schofield|year=2000|title=Boundaries, Borders and Peace-building in Southern Africa: The Spatial Implications of the 'African Renaissance'|pages=8}}</ref>
retaining his citation. However our other articles do not mention this so called annexation!
I really can't see how crediting the author of a novel theory can be a personal attack - but I've only been here 5 weeks! Alice.S 10:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
So when the target of your attack took open offense, you decided the appropriate course of action was to reinsert it? Regardless of whether your original intent was to attack someone, I can't see how someone acting in good faith would intentionally cause such an offense without trying to talk things through in more depth. – Luna Santin (talk)10:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Google Books, I have now read pages 6 thru 8 of Boundaries, Borders and Peace-building in Southern Africa: The Spatial Implications of the 'African Renaissance' by Richard A. Griggs, Rachael Bradley, Clive H. Schofield, a 30 page pamphlet.
This work does not support the original thesis of Perspicacite that Portugal annexed Cabinda from Belgian Congo in 1927.
I'm sorry, what exactly is "the attack" here?
Perspicacite consistently reverts other peoples edits (including mine) with summaries like "rvv" (= revert vandalism). So it was not obvious that he was taking any more than usual offence to anyone editing his contributions. I did not remove his unusual statement - only balanced it with the more commonly held sourced viewpoint to be found on all our other articles on Cabinda and Angola.
As for talking things through in depth, Perspicacite has banned me from his talk page (I'm not the first) and that's one reason I'm keeping my archive - to show a pattern of non-discussion and intransigence and calling good faith edits "vandalism" and "stalking".Alice.S 11:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This is the material that User:Perspicacite/Jose João inserted:Portugal annexed Cabinda from Belgian Congo in 1927.[1]
and I think Perspicacite's edit summary says it all, really:
"You know what's depressing is this is probably not mentioned anywhere in the History of Angola"
I can't find this novel material anywhere else and, at the time of my edit, I couldn't find this book so that is why my edit inserted this:
Through the Treaty of Simulambuco in 1885 between the kings of Portugal and Cabinda's princes, a Portuguese protectorate was decreed, reserving rights to the local princes and independent of Angola. Cabinda once had the Congo River as the only natural boundary with Angola, but in 1885, the Conference of Berlin extended the Congo Free State's territory along the Congo River to the river's mouth at the sea. In 1975, the Treaty of Alvor integrated Cabinda into Angola, but this treaty was rejected by all Cabindan political organizations. These organizations argue that because they had no input on the document, it was, and is, illegal, and therefore does not bind them to Angola. However, according to Perspicacite, Portugal annexed Cabinda from Belgian Congo in 1927.[1]
retaining his citation. However our other articles do not mention this so called annexation!
I really can't see how crediting the author of a novel theory can be a personal attack - but I've only been here 5 weeks!
Thanks to Google Books, I have now read pages 6 thru 8 of Boundaries, Borders and Peace-building in Southern Africa: The Spatial Implications of the 'African Renaissance' by Richard A. Griggs, Rachael Bradley, Clive H. Schofield, a 30 page pamphlet.
This work does not support the original thesis of Perspicacite that Portugal annexed Cabinda from Belgian Congo in 1927.
So I'm sorry, what exactly is "the attack" or "WOP:POINT" here?
Perspicacite consistently reverts other peoples edits (including mine) with summaries like "rvv" (= revert vandalism). So it was not obvious that he was taking any more than usual offence to anyone editing his contributions. I did not remove his unusual statement - only balanced it with the more commonly held sourced viewpoint to be found on all our other articles on Cabinda and Angola.
As for talking things through in depth, Perspicacite has banned me from his talk page (I'm not the first) and that's one reason I'm keeping my archive - to show a pattern of non-discussion and intransigence and calling good faith edits "vandalism" and "stalking".
Decline reason:
You were blocked for violating WP:POINT; it seems like a valid block to me. I suggest using the time to read up on our policies and to think how you will interact with others on your return. What you added to the article could never have been a valid addition to it, and does indeed look like you were making a point. I see nothing in the lengthy statement above to indicate that you have learned from the many bits of advice you have been given. It is time to do so now. — John19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I did think you had an interest in African affairs, John, and I am somewhat amazed that you believe that this addition, putting the consensual view amongst most historians (see here, for example:http://countrystudies.us/angola/16.htm or http://www.chez.com/cabinda/english/history.htm) can "never have been a valid addition to it, and does indeed look like you were making a point." The only source for the claim that "Portugal annexed Cabinda from Belgian Congo in 1927." is Perspicacite - which is why, when I retained it (just adding the definite article to his sentence) in all my three edits - I gave him credit for it. Otherwise it would have had to come out as unsourced. I'm really being genuine when I say I have not been able to find the policy which says I must not credit editors on Wikipedia with their opinions, when they are the only citation one find. I'm really genuine when I ask for your help in finding this policy so that I can understand how I was wrong to include it in my first two edits ( I replaced "Perspicacite" with "some commentators" in my third edit since I do not like to simply revert folks).Alice.S 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Claims in Wikipedia articles that are contested or likely to be contested must be capable of being sourced to a reliable published source. Note we are not referring to talk pages or user space. Note that claims no one is likely to question are not being described. Note that they must be capable of being sourced - we don't go around deleting claims we believe are true, just not yet sourced. Note the reference that we believe to exist must be published so that others can look it up and verify it. And finally the source needs to be reliable for the claim being attributed. Wikis are not reliable in general cause they can be edited and changed by anyone; but one could reference a particle history version of a page to verify user so and so claimed such and such. But the idea is for wikipedia to establish credibility by attributing claims to sources outside wikipedia, so it is almost never done to attribute a claim to a version of a wikipedia page (history of wikipedia etc). Further, while we do use "X said Y", the importance of X saying Y must be established for the subject of the article and I don't think you have a published source for that users opinions to be considered important enough to the subject of the article for what he claims to be published in that wikipedia article. Of course, the easy thing is just to write what an encyclopedic article would say, and you know that that is not what you wrote. I highly recommend you edit articles where you are not in a conflict with other editors on that article - at least until you get the hang of wikipedia. WAS 4.25022:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently think well of me, since you link to my essay on your user page, so perhaps you'll listen to me when I agree with some others above that citing and linking to another user's page as the source of a fact was not appropriate. Other Wikipedia users are never a proper source for facts. Well, some of them might also be "real world" authors who are sources for facts, but then they'd be cited under their real names and outside publications, not as a Wikipedian. I'm sorry that this misunderstanding on your part led to a block. *Dan T.*00:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your information - the graphic on page 8 of the book (on Google Books) claims that Portugal did annex Cabinda from Congo in 1927. Look at the last line of text in the graphic. Georgewilliamherbert01:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you waste your time on History of Angola, etc.? I'm just going to revert your stalking tomorrow. If you continue then I'll just revert you the day after that, and the day after that, etc. I also dont understand why you keep on violating WP:ENGVAR in the name of WP:ENGVAR. It just gets silly after a while. Jose João (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I wanted to, I could get you blocked for that statement based on WP:NPA, among other policies. I dont see any point in it though. I've come to the conclusion that since none of your stalking ever bears any fruit, there's no reason to care and therefore no reason to complain. I cant imagine how many hours you've wasted harassing me. Jose João (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Editconflict) I was already writing a comment on your user talk page when you left the above remarks. It seems rather ironic that you instantly revert this comment (again) rather than respond to it in a reasoned way...
I agree that editors time should not be wasted by your ignorant and lazy reverts. Please cease your disruption and name calling.
As for the WP:ENGVAR comment, I'm afraid it's just too cryptic - could you expand on it so that I can understand exactly what you're on about?
Lastly, please respect the conventions of this talk page and put your comments at the bottom of the section reserved for you: The "P Section". Alice.S 01:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you fail to grasp that this is a Wiki. I'm not stalking you. You exemplify a careless and sloppy pattern of behaviour that could be improved it you would stop thinking that you were the centre of attraction and edit rather than revert. Concentrate on what has been added or subtracted rather than who added or subtracted it and we will make a better encyclopedia. Alice.S 01:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
See WP:ENGVAR#Retaining the existing variety. You are attempting to change the spellings I used when I wrote these articles when Angola has no strong national ties to any particular type of English. They speak Portuguese in Angola proper and primarily French in Cabinda. While you are free to refactor your talkpage however you wish, and I am flattered by your decision to create a section just for my comments, I prefer not to alter my normal editing patterns to suit others' preferences. Jose João (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) If you fail to obey the conventions here I will raise this in an ArbCom. Please stop your incivility and respect the conventions of this page and this encyclopedia.
2) I know that you have stated that you have used other account names to edit Wikipedia. Are you stating here that you started our articles on Angola? If not, I don't know what you are on about exactly. I agree that no Angolan or Cabindan article is likely to have a strong link to any national variant of English (although both Governments have chosen the non-US variety for their government communications) so internal consistency within the article is the important point. (personally I think it might be useful to have a flag at the top of each of our articles to categorise whether it was written in US and non-US (and, if non_US, in Oxford or non-OED variant). Give my love to the Ambassador's wife! Alice.S 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall your attack page regarding arbcom being deleted. I'm under no obligation to place my comments in your special "P" section. I would prefer if you stop referring to articles as "our" or 'my' articles as this would indicate ownership and would violate WP:OWN. Angolans don't speak English. I would therefore ask you not to violate WP:ENGVAR in the future, changing spellings to your preference, as this violates WP:ENGVAR. I would also ask you not to post welcome messages to userpages. Actually, editing the userpages of any user other than your self is generally looked down upon. I highly discourage it. Jose João (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're being silly again. It's the inclusive "our" as in "all the editors that edit Wikipedia (not the sense of "yours and mine") as you well know.
If I posted a welcome message to a user (as opposed to a user talk) page then I apologise for my error. What a pity you did not act in a more helpful manner and quote a diff. so that I could correct my error.
If you continue to be uncivil and harassing by deliberately posting messages in the wrong place on my talk page, then I will take appropriate action. Alice.S 02:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have always edited and improved your simple reverts and never simply reverted to my own previous version. Reversion is for simple vandalism and your behavioural problems stem from intellectual arrogance, ownership of articles and simply being too lazy to examine properly your colleague's edits and read up on the documentation for template use and observe the Manual of Style - not from any desire to vandalize Wikipedia.
You are a prolific editor but your sloppy behaviour and unwillingness to carefully examine an alternative point of view mean that you risk causing widespread damage if these behaviours continue.
You, (User:Perspicacite alias Jose João), have been warned many times before about claiming ownership of articles and consequently reverting editors without examining the damage you are causing to our texts.
Please examine other editors actual contributions and improvements before mindlessly and ignorantly using the undo facility!
You have also been asked by me to post in the section reserved for you on this talk page and not to keep harassing me by continually posting in the wrong section and falsely claiming that it is forbidden to edit articles that you have previously edited. Alice.S 21:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I was too busy to comment on the first allegation, but did attempt to briefly rebut the second. The upshot was that both Perspicacite complaints were automatically archived after 24hours without further comment or action - whether because admins failed to notice the two complaints or whether they thought it was another case of crying wolf, I know not.
The unfortunate consequence of Perspicacite alias Jose João's persistent failure to notify the victims of his (many) complaints is that I now regularly have to check his contributions record to see what he is up to so that I can rebut his false allegations quickly or correct his howlers. Alice.S 09:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
What happened in Rhodesia article is not a proper way of resolving conflicts. In the cases when there is no way to compromise, WP:THIRD opinion must be requested, rather than tug-of-war. There also further avenues of conflict resolution. Also, I suggest to edit in smaller pieces, adding simple, technical things first and then things that may cause objection. In this case it is easier for a third party to analyze the edit conflict. `'Míkka>t04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like good advice. Can you invoke this procedure for me? (I'm pretty new here with less than 2000 edits) and would welcome that someone scrutinises the mistakes that I am attempting to correct. I'll stop editing the article for a bit to give you a chance to figure things out. Alice.S 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
After reflection: If you examine my edits the mistakes I am trying to correct are mostly technical ones such as template usage (with the glaring howler exception of trying to get "Southern Rhodesians ruled themselves until 1923" replaced with the rather more correct text "Southern Rhodesians ruled themselves after self-government began in October 1923 under the first Premier, Charles Patrick John Coghlan."). Hopefully someone will come along and adopt me and give me the benefit of their experience...Alice.S 05:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Better? (I've struck "howling" and replaced it with "exception").
What would be helpful is an example of what you think is civil wording if this is still uncivil, Tony. Alice.S 11:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd miss out "glaring" in that context as well - that's POV. The important thing IMV is do not editorialise other's edits'. I'm not about to give you a look-up table for mapping "incivility" to "civility"; it's common sense. If someone is likely to be upset by your comment on the quality of their edit, don't make the comment (aka "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything"). Presumably you wouldn't be upset at one of your edits being described as a "glaring howler" or even a "glaring exception"; that's fair enough, however you can't judge the reactions of others by how you'd react, so the safest way (though agreed, it does make things a bit stilted) is to try to avoid commenting on the quality of others' editing except in the most neutral and factual terms. Tonywalton | Talk11:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's my philosophy too, in general terms. The devil is in the detail and not getting peeved when someone just trashes your hour long patient edit to a citation or coded table for the umpteenth time by hitting the revert button. I think I can genuinely say that there is only one editor that I have had a consistent problem with - even though I edit articles on controversial topics such as Scientology and North Korea. That's where I need a bumper supply of WP:AGF pills handy for a certain editor. Where I come from, after 2 solid months of assuming the best of someone our tolerance tends to wear a bit thin and extreme scepticism, cynicism and WP:ABF replaces it. Night Night.
(outdented)
Exactly, As regards your hour-long patient edit being trashed, meh? Reverts are cheap. As for the "umpteenth" revert, that's what AN/3RR is for. However yes, that bucket of AGF pills needs to be next to you - are they reverting just because they're prats, or are they reverting because they genuinely think you've got it wrong? Your reverts to their reversions come under 3RR as well, so who's wrong? On the second revert why not disengage for a while - to put it another way, why not really annoy the other party (you know you want to ☺ ) by refusing to rise to their bait? Another possibility (and it's happened to me, honest) is that you are actually wrong. I'm not getting into specific cases here as I'm no expert in your field, but it does happen that I, at least, give up for a bit (spitting and swearing offline about the sheer dense numskullery of some people) to return a while later with either a compromise or a realisation that they may just have a point.
I realise you and another editor seem to have a problem (and I don't propose to get into the specific edits, for one as I said, I just don't understand the content issues and for two there's just too much of it) but one's case is much better made if one can point (cooly) to where the other editor is being ranty, bitey and obnoxious while one's own edit history shows flexibility, an absence of "pushing their buttons", coolness and a respect (without Wikilawyering) to process. I hope I'm not getting on your nerves, banging on! Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk23:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the user I had in mind was not this one. Always hard to sort out the good guys from the bad ones. It's obvious enough when you engage with them: hopelessly incompetent, ungrammatical, illiterate, usually with some bee in the bonnet about something, impervious to any kind of logic, generally unreasonable &c. However the structure of this place makes it very hard to unravel the the thread. My solution is to construct a page of diffs of incompetent edits, obvious inaccuracies, any other bad behaviour. Then you have some evidence to present to admins, other reasonable people. I have an example here. Other good things to include are comments about unreasonable behaviour from other good editors. The problem is that if you ask an admin to help, the default position is that you are wrong for complaining about obvious trolls. edward (buckner)18:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My antagonist is actually quite grammatical and literate (however, when he's wrong he's very wrong).
I did begin to prepare the diffs for an arbcom in my user space but they were just summarily deleted.
Thanks for your prompt and considered reply, Edward. Alice.S 18:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for being too cryptic. The editor who has been persistently troublesome is Perspicacite alias Jose João and the example given is where he got the name of the ambassador (the subject of the article he created) wrong but still thought I was harassing him! Alice.S 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not necessary for me to comment on this bad faith attempt to circumvene an Rfc since your request for an ArbCom decision on my behaviour was rejected. Alice.S 07:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
{{helpme}}How can I make my name appear in red again?
Before, when I didn't have a user page, my name appeared in red in my watchlist. Now, even though I've deleted my user page, it is still the same old boring blue. How can I get it back to red again?Alice.S03:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Links to pages that exist appear as blue and links to pages that do not exist are red. Blanking your userpage doesn't delete it. You can request that your uerpage be deleted by adding {{db-user}} to it. Alternatively, if you just want your signature on talk pages to appear red, you can add [[User:Alice.S|<font color="#CC2200">Alice.S</font>]] to the signature box in your preferences (remember to check the raw signature box. That code will make your signature look like this: Alice.S . Hope this helps. :)WODUP(?)04:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you must be the most helpful person on Wikipedia, WODUP!
That's done the trick for my signature (on this page at least) but how do I get my name to appear red in my Watchlist? Is the only way to do it the {{db-user}} trick? Alice.S04:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you probably realise, that is beyond my capabilities, so I've placed the code you suggested on my user page, WODUP. Thanks again for your very prompt help and assistance! Alice.S06:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I found something that may work: User:Ais523/highlightmyname2.js. This script highlights your username on pages (including your watchlist). If you want to try it, you can add
That works wonderfully - I've changed the code to show my name with a background in a fetching shade of Coral Pink - you really are the cat's whiskers, WODUP! Alice.S 07:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits at de facto appear to have changed many non-italic text bits to italics. This is in contradiction two principles. (1) If it's in an English dictionary, it's appropriated and should not be italicized (this is the Chicago manual of styles definition of appropriation, but Wikipedia does not have one to the best of my knowledge and it's a good rule of thumb), and (2) the exclusion for the topic of the article in WP:ITALICS#Foreign_terms. Would you mind fixing the article so that neither de facto, nor de jure is italicized? Pdbailey13:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view.
My reasoning was as follows:
1) a) Is "de jure" a phrase or a word? I decided that it was a foreign phrase (in latin) that did not (yet) have everyday usage (other than in legal and constitutional, etc, circles) and, therefore, that "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages...". Adding weight to this argument was that de jure is usually italicized in legal texts
b) an additional consideration was that, throughout our article, de jure is contrasted with de facto and it is helpful to italicise to emphasise the distinction.
2) I did not italicise de jure in the title of the article as perWP:ITALICS#Foreign_terms but think that in the body of the article the italicisation is clearer and thus trumps any style preference but realise that this is a fine point.
I have, therefore, copied this passage to our article's discussion page for further input from other editors. That being the case, I would prefer not to self-revert until consensus has been achieved but do feel free to revert me if you are utterly convinced I am wrong since I am very new here!
Alics.S, in your post regarding this same topic on the talk page you mentioned interest in WP:IAR. You may find that the WP:IAR? an interesting read. My interpretation is that there is no reason for a rule to make Wikipedia not all that it can be. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia.
BTW, I generally put comments not about a article on the talk page, and comments to an editor, or unrelated to a specific article on the user's talk page. However, I generally request what I consider to be clear candidates for reversion on the talk page if the edit appears to have been made in good faith--but with a misunderstanding of the rule or policy in question. I'll admit right off the bat that i don't always know the policy as well as I think, so it's fine to challenge me, and it was fine but not necessary (in my opinion) to move that challenge to the talk page of the article.
I'm very sorry if I did something wrong by trying to discuss things on the article's talk page - I really don't wish to challenge you in any shape or form and please forgive me as a newbie if that's how it appeared. I just assumed it would be OK to have a public discussion since I didn't think it right that just some of the occurrences of de jure should be italicized but not others.
I think we are poking at the underbelly of this particular policy. Usually when I do this I get one short response from one other editor over at the guideline page and it's often not all that well thought out--but sometimes I get a gem. BTW, you are far from falling out with me (quite the opposite), I was trying to say thank you and give you a tip as to how things usually proceed because you appear to be new and curious about how Wikipedia works. Pdbailey06:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do really apologise for the misunderstanding - it may be a gender thing or the fact that I am very new to online argumentation - it's quite difficult when there are no smiles or tones of voice to give you a clue.
Thank you very much for being patient, tolerant and understanding with me. Please feel free to correct my howlers - I'm trying to learn as much as I can as quickly as I can. Alice.S06:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's easy to forget that jargon and abbreviations are not easy to recognize by the new. "rv" just means revert, which I did because I think "European ethnic groups" is not an appropriate place to direct readers to. Ethnic groups did not colonize Vanuatu, it was European nations, and "Europe" is what most readers will expect to find when they click that link. If there's anything else you need, feel free to ask.--Cúchullaint/c21:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying both the abbreviation and the reason for the revert that I queried at your user talk page.
I would slightly disagree with you that these were all national government sponsored and organised expeditions - some of the very first landings were by privateers that would have been executed by their respective (European) governments if they had been caught- but no matter. There was also a distinct feeling of ethnic superiority and solidarity amongst the colonisers which many Vanuatuans feel is still relevant. Alice.S21:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome, and please do feel free to do modifications as you please. This is your talk page afterall, and a beautiful one at that! Meanwhile, I notice you still appear to have some problems with the signature part. You only need to insert --~~~~ behind your comments. No need to manually type in your name and timestamp. Hope this helps!--Huaiwei01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... good question. To be honest, I didn't have a specific definition of Pacific in mind when I made the category. I initially used it for articles relating to the history of NZ in the Pacific islands, but articles on NZ's relationship with countries like Japan do make some sense being in there (but not - as Gadfium says - articles like Japan itself). Thanks for the comments on the paintings - I should take that banner off my talk page, the exhibition finished a couple of weeks ago! It went well, though with fewer sales than I would have liked. Lots of good comments and a couple of good reviews, though. I have quite a few on my paintings up at my website here and follow the links to the "by year" pages :) Grutness...wha?23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do like Liz and the reiteration of the Sydney Harbour Bridge is wonderful, James. "Life's a long song" is really poignant, too. Have you ever shown any stuff in Singapore - there's lot's of folk with high disposable income here now...
I'm going to try and make the category description a bit more explicit - just correct me if I do anything you don't like.
I'm also going to take a look at some articles (beginning with Samoa) to see if they can be appropriately added to your category (which looks a bit on the sparse side...). Best wishes! Alice.S 07:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fair. As far as I'm concerned, any articles directly connected to NZ's links with Pacific Island or Pacific Rim countries are probably suitable. Any articles on Samoan links are definitely woith putting in there, since Samoa was a New Zealand territory at one time, though again, the category would be more for things like History of Samoa than for Samoa itself. I'm glad you like my art - no, I haven't exhibited outside New Zealand yet, though several people from other countries have bought my work either through my website or through seeing it in galleries while visiting New Zealand. Oh, and it's "Kia ora", BTW, though it's normally used more as a greeting than at the end of a message :) Grutness...wha?23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your prompt and helpful reply, James. I've already added the History of Samoa to your category (that article seems like it could really do with some knowledgeable editors - I'm certainly not one) and I'll watch out for any others.
Sorry about the "Kia ora" (maybe now you understand the "Bimbo" stereotype about beauty pageant queens...) What would be a good thing to say at the end of a message to someone from New Zealand? Alice.S 23:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
:) That's ok. Other than the standard English sign-offs, I'm not really sure what you'd use. "Haere ra" is used when you've been talking to someone in person (sort of the equivalent of "farewell, be seeing you"), but I'm not sure whether you'd use it on a written message. I have seen "Na tou hoa" used, but it's a slightly different sign-off (literally "from your friend"). "Kia ora" does work, but it's less common as an ending than as a greeting (confusingly, it's also an affirmation - you can use it to interject and show your support for what someone's saying, like the old "hear, hear!"). Grutness...wha?00:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's really lovely of you to help me with this, James. I'd love to come and visit your wonderful country one day and "Kia ora" sounds like a very useful word for a forgetful person like me.
Is there a place on the web that I can learn to pronounce it properly? Hopefully Maori is not an intonal language like Chinese where slight changes are crucial. I suppose the weather is wonderful now on your southern island? Alice.S 01:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not intonal (thankfully! I've been trying to learn the basics of Mandarin Chinese, and the tones are thoroughly confusing me, as is remembering the difference between ch, sh, q and x!) I don't know anywhere on the web which has Maori pronunciation guides. Very approximately, Kia ora is pronounced KEY-uh AW-ruh (key as in door-key, aw as in saw), though it's often pronounced KEY-AW-ruh - and there's a very slight trill on the r, like in French. As for the weather, it's typical spring here - warm sunny days alternating with cold wet days. Today was sunny but windy. Hopefully it'll soon settle down into long warm periods as we get nearer summer. Grutness...wha?08:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you sound like such an interesting fellow, James. Are most New Zealand people like you - we tend to lump you in with Australians but I guess you're very different and probably a bit more cultured - if that doesn't sound like an offensive stereo type. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful that we get to meet and co-operate with people from right across the world to make a better information source!
Thank you very much for the pronunciation guide - I'll try it out on the first guys I meet who I am sure are from New Zealand (off to check the differences in the Flags... ah yours has red stars).
It must be nice to have the weather to talk about - Singapore weather is so reliably predictable - even when we have those dreadful smogs from Indonesia. Thank you so much for being helpful - as you might have noticed from the section above, I was beginning to think that Wikipedia is not really the place for me! Thanks for brightening up my afternoon! Alice.S 08:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And no need to pull your punches - it was pretty stupid of me not to have read the whole debate before I commented and your succinct and accurate summary of the process jolted me out of my laziness. Sorry again and thanks for the "wake-up at the back" comment! Alice.S 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I'm a slow typist and folks seem to be very quick on the draw. Thanks for keeping an eye on things, Gwen! Alice.S 03:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It was my mistake Alice, and I deserve no congratulations for reverting it, though I appreciate your kind words at my talk page. I apologize for not looking closer at what you were actually doing, and you have my sympathies in your current dispute with Perspicacite. I've watched the dispute a bit, and it appears you're on the side of angels there, so-to-speak. Keep up the good work of encyclopedia building! Best regards, K. Scott Bailey06:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closer, I realize Encyclopetey beat me to the revert, so it wasn't actually my undoing of my mistake. Again, though, I take full responsibility for not looking closer at what you were actually doing. K. Scott Bailey06:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, dragons are busy creatures and it can be hard to spot the detail sometimes when you're flying at such dizzy heights (grin).
P has been actually showing distinct signs of editing rather than reverting recently - I do hope I'm not grinding him down (wan smile). Alice.S 06:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been on the lookout for a userbox saying something like that for awhile. Where did you find it? And I hope you don't mind that I swiped the code to put on my userpage. K. Scott Bailey17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, you're very polite and friendly for a dragon! I'm afraid I've forgotten where I swiped it from, (that'll teach me to use better edit summaries) except that I'm fairly sure it was either GFDL or public domain. You might like to edit it to show the male symbol as slightly more prominent or keep it the same to reflect the female gamete's dominant role in our world (grin). Thanks for being so friendly! Alice.S 21:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Me too and how lovely for you to think of me! A very interesting new source for stopping me getting any work done! I think I need a sugar daddy so I can stop all remunerative work and concentrate on Wikistuff. This may get seriously addictive... Thanks for being nice to me. Alice.S 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. My editing today on a few articles may have removed or changed some of your material. Please don't be offended, but all I merely wanted to do was to remove any dubious unreferenced material. The worst though is that anon IP who turns out to be a block evading sock of the rude User:Domaleixo.
I'm not offended at all - that's what is so wonderful about Wikipedia: we can all stand on the shoulders of others and become GIANTS!
I'm sure that, given your evident cultural sensitivity, you will be aware that the IP (s)(socks or not) feel very strongly about the topics they edit on and that may lead them to be bit rash and loud at times - especially when it is evident that, like me, English was probably not the language they first learnt to read in. They have provided some good material, though, and the articles they have edited could definitely do with lots more citations.
Lastly, I'm intrigued as to exactly which message you did not understand - can you provide a diff? Alice.S 06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What North Korea thinks of itself isn't relevant to its well sourced government type. NK fits the very definition of communist, etc. If you would like to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page, that's great. But simply deleting sourcec information isn't appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.
But I do agree that it's more productive that we discuss this on the article's talk page, so I've added to the previous points I made on that discussion page here. Incidentally, your point had already been well discussed on the article's talk page by (you and) others, so please don't assume that I am ignorant of the background to your comment. Alice.S 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
My mistake then, I read your comment as implying that I changed the "label" in the infobox from a position of ignorance and without reading the prior discussions on the article's talk page. My change took account of those discussions (I don't have to participate in a discussion to be able to understand its drift). What I took offence to was the "simply deleting" part.
For the avoidance of doubt, I do believe that government's self descriptions are both illuminating and relevant; I will get seriously worried when the USA ceases to view itself as a democracy (whatever I may personally feel...) Alice.S 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. isn't a democracy. It's a republic. It's in the name. If you were aware of the talk page discussions, then why did you choose to delete something most editors believed belonged? Rklawton (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't usenet and I'm not going to debate politics here.
I chose to delete two words from a userbox description that was un-encyclopedic: "communistdictatorship"; used together they are inappropriate and a contradiction in terms. We don't label the Provisional IRA or Al Quaeda as terroristmurderers for the same sort of NPOV reasons.
Most Wikipedians are not telepathic and, without active canvassing, it's only a small minority of editors that will ever comment on an article's talk page. That's one reason that Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy and it is the arguments themselves that are important rather than counting heads. I know that's very difficult for most westerners to understand, but it's something very easy to understand in Asia.
You take a different view, even although there is discussion on the article's talk page that explains a view that runs counter to your own. I'm not vehement about this which is why I've commented as I have done there. Please make your points on the article's discussion page rather than here - that way your rationale (and mine, if I choose to contribute) will be available for subsequent editors to assess. The magic of Wikipedia is that it has developed mechanisms so that editors of all persuasions (and none) should be able to work together collegially. Alice.S 06:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Working together collegially does not include making controversial changes without discussion. It also does not include using the words "ignorant" and "bimbo" or accusing others of these presumptions. Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look Robert, we're in substantial agreement here that you didn't mean to offend me (and I certainly didn't mean to offend you) so let's give it a rest, eh?
Both you and I were wrong in being bold and changing the Infobox description without reaching a consensus. Now let's concentrate on the article's discussion page in proposing mechanisms for reducing to-ing and fro-ing in this infobox so we can reach a stable, good article...
PS: I did enjoy the Japanese motorcycle article you pointed to! Alice.S 00:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Alice.S, I never care what people call me, so it's completely up to you. I usually try to call people by their entire username unless they ask me to do otherwise (not that I'm suggesting this for others, it just what I do out of fear of accidentally insulting someone). Cheers, Pdbailey (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll call you Paul then (email me privately if it's really Peter or Patrick or Parthenon or whatever - I promise to respect the confidence. I have a mental image of a tweed jacketed, pipe-smoking Irishman originally from the Scottish lowlands that is ultra-reliable and patient - but that's just because of one of my tutors - cheeky grin).
I prefer to be simply called Alice. Thanks for giving me lots to think about in our discussions! Alice.S 03:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing Alice. I'll answer your question about the "red link bot" de facto here because it's less apropos to the article. Sadly, there is no red link bot that fixes them and makes everything all nice in the way you described (and I would argue that we don't want one because red links are good in a sense). But if you set up a redirect then it is seamless (i.e. try this link to Robert Zimmerman). Now try clicking on the link after "Redirected from ..." where you can edit the Robert Zimmerman page. Right now, it's just a redirect to Bob Dylan. Now, as far as I know, a bot would come along and fix that link to Robert Zimmerman were it in the article space (and not in the user space where the bot might not roam).
Back in the de facto* world, this means that de facto, de jure and the other one that I couldn't spell without looking at it all could redirect to one article transparently, saving many a neophyte the trouble of making a red link or having to look up the real article.
Since you appear to like to know about Wikipedia's clock works, I'll point out that sometimes people link to disambiguation pages, which probably isn't what the intended. These are all flagged and one can help by going through and fixing them to the author's intention, and many editors do (helpfully) spend time fixing these. Pdbailey (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* italicized because it's a word as a word ;)
I do appreciate the time and careful way you have explained this to me. It's much appreciated, Paul.
Where is the list of links awaiting disambiguation to be found, please? Alice.S 14:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't Wikipedia amazing! If there's ever insufficient work to do with the 120 articles I currently have on my watchlist I know where to look. Thanks again for being so helpful and informative, it's really appreciated! Alice.S 17:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You could also fix the one on this page. Hint: it's in italics against wikipedia's type setting rules (as defined by you). ;) Pdbailey23:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, there is a wikilink on this my talk page (written by me I guess) that points to a disambiguation page instead of to a Wikipedia page or redirect and it is in italic script? I can't see it but are you saying that there is some page I could go to or tool I could use to find it, Paul?
If you're talking about in extremis then I'm happy with the explanation given at the top of the disambiguation page for in extremis (and I personally use a different rule for italicization than that followed by our encyclopaedic articles). I'd still like to know if there is a tool or page to find these for a particular page, though... Alice.S 09:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was talking about. You're right that there is a dictionary entry there and no encyclopedia article that you might want to link to. I'm not sure what to say about that, it's a bit ugly (not what you did, the page and how it disambigs). Pdbailey (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! That's a relief, I can stop worrying that my growing reputation as a pedantic little minx is safe. I assume that there is no tool or page I can use to check out a page that you know about. Have you voted in the ArbCom elections yet? Alice.S 14:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well that's very sweet of you and makes a pleasant change from some of the comments that have been left in my "P section". I must admit I trembled a bit before I dared tickle the lead since I know diddly squat about the subject matter. Thanks for giving my spirits a boost! Alice.S 17:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm brand new here as you probably realised. Does that mean that the shortcut [[WP:WHY]] may change in future? Alice.S 11:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It may change but probably won't... the main reason you should redirect to the article directly is because MediaWiki won't finish the redirect wholly and will just halt at WP:WHY... which isn't the aim of a redirect (because then you'd have to click it manually to get to the main page). -- Mentifisto12:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for taking the time to explain that to me - it's much appreciated. (I have gone back to other 2 re-directs I created and, I hope, done the job properly now.Alice.S 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Folks were very welcoming to me when I first started 10 weeks ago and their welcome is archived.
More than 80% of the bulk of this page is taken up with the "P Section" but I am unable to archive that until the situation is resolved - hopefully next year in 2008. Alice.S 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
From my perspective that's a bit like asking the Polish Government on 17 September 1939: "Why is it you keep getting into conflict with your neighbours?".
Obviously I have my opinion, but it might be better if you form your own by reading my "P Section". Thanks for your interest! Alice.S 13:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome :-D Hopefully we can get the Singapore Airlines right and make it a great article and balancing veiled and explicit views of editors in the process! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the spirit! Isn't Wikipedia wonderful? What's your favourite airline if you're flying economy ?Alice.S 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
8.1) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective.
Especially when you are not dealing with some pimply teenager that can not take a hint. Why not ask Edward nicely first if you do not wish to receive communications from him? Alice.S 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Edward is passionate about Wikipedia. He has a stack of intellectual effort invested in it. Admins should only block serious contributors as a last (and not a first) response. Alice.S 19:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
In my mind, disrupting an open election through a smear campaign is a serious matter - especially if the perpetrator has been asked to stop, and has refused. >Radiant<22:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're assuming too much again. If you had bothered to read what is on the top of this talk page, you would be able to work out that I believe it's more difficult to have a dialogue when people are talking in separate rooms.
You may well have been privy to information that I wasn't but I just reacted to what I thought I saw. A rather veiled warning to Edward followed by a block a few minutes later. I'm probably getting a warped view of things but I see too many examples of lazy admins (not that I'm necessarily putting you in that category) who can't be bothered to attempt to engage a (possibly) problematic user in dialogue before reaching for the block button. I must admit that I'm not impressed by you removing the thread from your own user page so quickly and then suggesting that I'm "unwilling to respond".
Now I'm going away for a few days so I'd suggest a period of sober reflection to ascertain what you want from me before appearing on my talk page again - to swat me round the ear or to persuade me that I was in error. If the latter, then I'd very much welcome the courtesy of a considered reply (since I don't perceive any urgency about the situation now) rather than (what still appears to me as) a precipitate response.
By the way, I do like both the idea and execution of your "quilt". Alice.S 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It strikes me that if you disagree with a block on somebody, you should address the issue at hand, rather than copy/paste a bit of a policy page. I am aware that people shouldn't be blocked lightly; if you believe that I have acted too hastily, it is far more helpful to explain why you think so, rather than reiterate that blocks are a last resort. For what it's worth, after investigation by a few other admins, Dbuckner has now been indefinitely blocked. >Radiant<00:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think Edward went about things the wrong way (I voted for FT2). It might have been better if he had raised his concerns about bad publicity for Wikipedia with the ArbCom secret mailing list or the Foundation in confidence first. Equally, he may actually have done that and felt his concerns were not being timeously addressed or he may just have felt that confidential mailing was an underhand way of going about things. I don't know the guy, but from his postings he seems to be concerned with ethics. Whatever the sequence of events I do think it sad that things had to come to this. Anyway I do hope we can agree to disagree on some issues without rancour or grudges. Alice.S10:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^ abGriggs, Richard A. (2000). Boundaries, Borders and Peace-building in Southern Africa: The Spatial Implications of the 'African Renaissance'. p. 8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
