This is about the second time that someone slapped me with a rule in Talk Page Guidelines. The one about revising your own comments can reduce revision rates to a snail's pace while you discuss them in e-mail. Please tell me that it is a joke that everyone ignores.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:21 AM, brewhaha%40edmc.net brewhaha@edmc.netwrote:
This is about the second time that someone slapped me with a rule in Talk Page Guidelines. The one about revising your own comments can reduce revision rates to a snail's pace while you discuss them in e-mail. Please tell me that it is a joke that everyone ignores.
I don't get what you're talking about.
In [[WP:REDACT]], a section in the talk space guidelines, the rules say you must discuss changes to your own words with strikeout text. I found it very awkward, especially since I hav been ignoring it, and replacing whole conversations with a one line note, for most of my time here. I was going to put a rule at the top of my page saying "In contrast with [[WP:REDACT]], you do not need my permission to change or delete your own words, here. I will not hold you to them. If there is a contextual problem that I see, then I will probably adjust my own text. If you change your mind and I even remember or the issue just comes up again, then you can either waffle or refuse to answer. You do not need to answer my questions on your own talk page, either. If it takes you more than a week, then you probably won't answer them on your own talk page, either, so you can delete them there, too. If it is important for me to ask, then I will ask someone else."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brewhaha@edmc.net Jayron32 did not like my parody of his sick cabal.
"Al Tally" majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote in message news:7c865bab0901260443v130064b2xf22c9ef7f20c12dd@mail.gmail.com...
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:21 AM, brewhaha%40edmc.net brewhaha@edmc.netwrote:
This is about the second time that someone slapped me with a rule in Talk Page Guidelines. The one about revising your own comments can reduce revision rates to a snail's pace while you discuss them in e-mail. Please tell me that it is a joke that everyone ignores.
I don't get what you're talking about.
-- Alex (User:Majorly) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Readers of this list might be interested in this editor's "contributions" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Brewhaha%40e... )
Seems they have been blocked indef for disruption and soapboxing on the wiki. Much like on this list.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:21 AM, brewhaha%40edmc.net brewhaha@edmc.netwrote:
This is about the second time that someone slapped me with a rule in Talk Page Guidelines. The one about revising your own comments can reduce revision rates to a snail's pace while you discuss them in e-mail. Please tell me that it is a joke that everyone ignores.
It's usually considered bad form to change your talk page comments, especially if someone has already responded to them. This is because such editing can change the tone and meaning of the other editor's comments. The usual course of action if you want to take back something you wrote is to strike it out and add material with your new opinion.
Elias Friedman A.S., EMT-P ⚕ אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי elipongo@gmail.com http://elipongo.blogspot.com/
"Elias Friedman" elipongo@gmail.com wrote in message news:365b4bc60901260454h7c0cbb66redb49907d22a03ad@mail.gmail.com...
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:21 AM, brewhaha%40edmc.net brewhaha@edmc.netwrote:
This is about the second time that someone slapped me with a rule in Talk Page Guidelines. The one about revising your own comments can reduce revision rates to a snail's pace while you discuss them in e-mail. Please tell me that it is a joke that everyone ignores.
It's usually considered bad form to change your talk page comments, especially if someone has already responded to them. This is because such editing can change the tone and meaning of the other editor's comments. The usual course of action if you want to take back something you wrote is to strike it out and add material with your new opinion.
I was aware of potential problems like that, which is why I e-mailed concerned authors with relevant text as it stood. It is also why I was conservative with my edits. The most significant edits I made to my own talk page only added text to emphasize my point, which I demonstrated more verbosely in text following a reviewed block. In another case, I added two words to specify what I meant. In another place, I made words more precise in a retort that had not been answered. None of it changed the meaning of text from my opponents. All this did was lend a feature of accuracy and organization to mine.
Say what you will say. Demonstrate it with an example. Summarize what you said.
Ironically, after Sandstein impeded my organization, Jayron32 accused me of incoherence. I think stuff like this is in keeping with how people learn to edit anything. [[WP:REDACT]] seems more appropriate for front space, where you might want someone to concur. In talk space, there can be no hope of agreement, so all you can do is suppress your point in front space or take it to someone else for review that might convince you.
Sandstein deleted my estimate of what we should do in the Grawp case as "inappropriate content". Does the rule against "outing" someone apply to an adult banned user? _______ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brewhaha@edmc.net
Seriously, it's MUCH easier to simply strike your old text and you save: Sending e-mails Discussing Spending all of your time on your talk due to totally avoidable discussions.
-- Alvaro
On 26-01-2009, at 22:05, "brewhaha%40edmc.net" brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
"Elias Friedman" elipongo@gmail.com wrote in message news:365b4bc60901260454h7c0cbb66redb49907d22a03ad@mail.gmail.com ...
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:21 AM, brewhaha%40edmc.net <brewhaha@edmc.net
wrote:
This is about the second time that someone slapped me with a rule in Talk Page Guidelines. The one about revising your own comments can reduce revision rates to a snail's pace while you discuss them in e-mail. Please tell me that it is a joke that everyone ignores.
It's usually considered bad form to change your talk page comments, especially if someone has already responded to them. This is because such editing can change the tone and meaning of the other editor's comments. The usual course of action if you want to take back something you wrote is to strike it out and add material with your new opinion.
I was aware of potential problems like that, which is why I e-mailed concerned authors with relevant text as it stood. It is also why I was conservative with my edits. The most significant edits I made to my own talk page only added text to emphasize my point, which I demonstrated more verbosely in text following a reviewed block. In another case, I added two words to specify what I meant. In another place, I made words more precise in a retort that had not been answered. None of it changed the meaning of text from my opponents. All this did was lend a feature of accuracy and organization to mine.
Say what you will say. Demonstrate it with an example. Summarize what you said.
Ironically, after Sandstein impeded my organization, Jayron32 accused me of incoherence. I think stuff like this is in keeping with how people learn to edit anything. [[WP:REDACT]] seems more appropriate for front space, where you might want someone to concur. In talk space, there can be no hope of agreement, so all you can do is suppress your point in front space or take it to someone else for review that might convince you.
Sandstein deleted my estimate of what we should do in the Grawp case as "inappropriate content". Does the rule against "outing" someone apply to an adult banned user? _______ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brewhaha@edmc.net _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What if the action was to withdraw an argument that cut into civility? I do not see how that could be controversial. In particular, I am thinking of when I said my review "attacks me without evidence". I changed it to "beyond evidence". IOW, it was not exactly a lie, and the scope of his claim against me was probably beyond his view.
When I ADD text, I test the potential for contextual problems that only exist in the minds of the reviewer. In WordPerfect, there were two kinds of text that I never used until I got to the internet: one was redline; the other was stricken. I still do not really know the purpose of redlined text, and proposed additions makes sense, now. You could even put it into talk pages for things you want to put into an article.
"Alvaro García" alvareo@gmail.com wrote in message news:2F1FAACF-93A4-49AE-9094-C6A9CECC61B7@gmail.com...
Seriously, it's MUCH easier to simply strike your old text and you save: Sending e-mails Discussing Spending all of your time on your talk due to totally avoidable discussions.
-- Alvaro
On 26-01-2009, at 22:05, "brewhaha%40edmc.net" brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
"Elias Friedman" elipongo@gmail.com wrote in message news:365b4bc60901260454h7c0cbb66redb49907d22a03ad@mail.gmail.com ...
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:21 AM, brewhaha%40edmc.net <brewhaha@edmc.net
wrote:
This is about the second time that someone slapped me with a rule in Talk Page Guidelines. The one about revising your own comments can reduce revision rates to a snail's pace while you discuss them in e-mail. Please tell me that it is a joke that everyone ignores.
It's usually considered bad form to change your talk page comments, especially if someone has already responded to them. This is because such editing can change the tone and meaning of the other editor's comments. The usual course of action if you want to take back something you wrote is to strike it out and add material with your new opinion.
I was aware of potential problems like that, which is why I e-mailed concerned authors with relevant text as it stood. It is also why I was conservative with my edits. The most significant edits I made to my own talk page only added text to emphasize my point, which I demonstrated more verbosely in text following a reviewed block. In another case, I added two words to specify what I meant. In another place, I made words more precise in a retort that had not been answered. None of it changed the meaning of text from my opponents. All this did was lend a feature of accuracy and organization to mine.
Say what you will say. Demonstrate it with an example. Summarize what you said.
Ironically, after Sandstein impeded my organization, Jayron32 accused me of incoherence. I think stuff like this is in keeping with how people learn to edit anything. [[WP:REDACT]] seems more appropriate for front space, where you might want someone to concur. In talk space, there can be no hope of agreement, so all you can do is suppress your point in front space or take it to someone else for review that might convince you.
Sandstein deleted my estimate of what we should do in the Grawp case as "inappropriate content". Does the rule against "outing" someone apply to an adult banned user? _______ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brewhaha@edmc.net _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l