It seems Fred has it in for me - whether this is because he shares the views of the BCE/CE lobby and so is unable to step back and be neutral or because he still has it in for me over the CheeseDreams incident, I don't know. But it's getting out of hand.
Why can't the ArbCom just stop all the content argument? It's that (along with attempts to delete [[2005 English cricket season]]) that turned me off WP and made it no longer fun. That's why jguk isn't there editing anymore - because it's no longer fun, not because I am trying to use my editing absence as part of any greater ploy.
The content wars continue apace though. Those who oppose my view are trying to get ArbCom to decide I am wrong to espouse my view - though they have even more forcefully than me tried to impose their views over a much longer period than me. But, hey - that's political correctness for you - the PC lobby are not noted for their tolerance and understanding of others' views. It's coming to something when edits such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Msha%27sha%27iya&diff=0 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1879_in_archaeology&diff=prev&... are held against someone! I struggle to find how anyone finds those edits unreasonable - indeed, they very much do put usual formation of dates into the article! However, Fred and Jayjg think these edits are so bad as to actually be reprehensible! Surely this whole ArbCom thing has already gone beyond reason!
There is a straightforward question behind all this that the ArbCom has not even addressed - what should happen when some users try to implement a failed proposal and are reverted by other users?
Decide this question and leave all other issues alone (it is as unfair to admonish SouthernComfort as it is me - we were both hastened along quite deliberately by Slrubenstein as it is).
Jguk
--------------------------------- How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
No I don't have it in for you. When I looked at the case I had no opinion, had not even thought about common era notation or about you. I don't remember anything about you from CheeseDreams. Having spent a day going over your edits and those of the others involved and reviewing Wikipedia policies and locating a bunch of pages and votes on the topic I made some PROPOSED decisions. Not a final decision, just proposed decisions, which were never adopted, and it looks like won't be.
Based on the proposed decisions you decided to throw in the towel.
As to the underlying controversy, Wikipedia opinion is divided, apparently about equally. It is up to the community at large to determine how to resolve the matter. I have one suggestion, however: Having a definite decision is sometimes better than having the right decision. That said, deciding what notation to use for eras is a community decision.
My proposed decision simply stated what is true, that common era notation is finding favor in the scholarly community.
May I suggest you drop all this crap and go back to editing. I am bruised too but intend to consider the next case on the docket and do the best that I can.
Fred
On Jun 21, 2005, at 3:15 AM, Jon wrote:
It seems Fred has it in for me - whether this is because he shares the views of the BCE/CE lobby and so is unable to step back and be neutral or because he still has it in for me over the CheeseDreams incident, I don't know. But it's getting out of hand.
Why can't the ArbCom just stop all the content argument? It's that (along with attempts to delete [[2005 English cricket season]]) that turned me off WP and made it no longer fun. That's why jguk isn't there editing anymore - because it's no longer fun, not because I am trying to use my editing absence as part of any greater ploy.
The content wars continue apace though. Those who oppose my view are trying to get ArbCom to decide I am wrong to espouse my view - though they have even more forcefully than me tried to impose their views over a much longer period than me. But, hey - that's political correctness for you - the PC lobby are not noted for their tolerance and understanding of others' views. It's coming to something when edits such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Msha%27sha%27iya&diff=0 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=1879_in_archaeology&diff=prev&oldid=15475197 are held against someone! I struggle to find how anyone finds those edits unreasonable - indeed, they very much do put usual formation of dates into the article! However, Fred and Jayjg think these edits are so bad as to actually be reprehensible! Surely this whole ArbCom thing has already gone beyond reason!
There is a straightforward question behind all this that the ArbCom has not even addressed - what should happen when some users try to implement a failed proposal and are reverted by other users?
Decide this question and leave all other issues alone (it is as unfair to admonish SouthernComfort as it is me - we were both hastened along quite deliberately by Slrubenstein as it is).
Jguk
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It seems to have been adopted as part of the curriculum in the UK.
Fred
On Jun 21, 2005, at 10:12 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050621 23:45]:
My proposed decision simply stated what is true, that common era notation is finding favor in the scholarly community.
That's a bit US POV-centric. It's certainly not true outside the US.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jon wrote:
Why can't the ArbCom just stop all the content argument? It's that (along with attempts to delete [[2005 English cricket season]])
Thought I should just pop in here and point out that there's been no attempt to delete [[2005 English circket season]] that I'm aware of. A few have questioned whether Wikipedia should be going into the level of detail that the pages on individual cricket matches go into, but I haven't seen anything suggesting a large enough consensus for them to be successfully VfDed. The main issue with that group of pages is just their _format_, specifically the large-scale use of transclusion to put copies of articles into multiple other articles and the use of subpages. Changing those formatting issues wouldn't involve deleting anything.
The main issue with that group of pages is just their _format_, specifically the large-scale use of transclusion to put copies of articles into multiple other articles and the use of subpages.
Transclusion of article text is a VERY bad thing. It's basically a way to put a handle into lots of articles to change them without it showing on recent changes. I really don't see why wikiprojects think they can vote to pull shit like this, and why those templates shouldn't just be subst: and then promptly deleted.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Transclusion of article text is a VERY bad thing. It's basically a way to put a handle into lots of articles to change them without it showing on recent changes. I really don't see why wikiprojects think they can vote to pull shit like this, and why those templates shouldn't just be subst: and then promptly deleted.
I also think the transclusion is a Bad Thing, but I don't think the text should be subst:ed since that would leave Wikipedia with multiple copies of the same text scattered around. If they later need fixing it's unlikely that a new arrival will know where to find the other copies. I believe these transcluded articles should simply be linked to instead, just like every other similar case on Wikipedia where there's a "summary" article covering multiple detailed "sectional" articles (TV shows or movie franchises, for example).
The discussion of this issue seems to have petered out about ten days ago on all the talk: pages where I was following it, does anyone know if there's more recent discussion someplace I've missed?
From: Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk
Why can't the ArbCom just stop all the content argument?
I don't see this as a content argument, but rather an issue of someone attempting to impose a POV on hundreds of Wikipedia articles over a period of many months, even though he knows his POV is supported neither by policy nor consensus, and has been opposed by any number of Wikipedia editors.
The content wars continue apace though. Those who oppose my view are trying to get ArbCom to decide I am wrong to espouse my view
See above.
However, Fred and Jayjg think these edits are so bad as to actually be reprehensible!
How deceptive. Two edits aren't the issue. Over 1,000 edits on over 700 articles are.
There is a straightforward question behind all this that the ArbCom has not even addressed - what should happen when some users try to implement a failed proposal and are reverted by other users?
You must be referring to yourself here, as you tried to change the Manual of Style to promote your view that only BC/AD should be used, and were reverted by other users on that and on your subsequent attempts to change articles to follow your position.
Decide this question and leave all other issues alone (it is as unfair to admonish SouthernComfort as it is me - we were both hastened along quite deliberately by Slrubenstein as it is).
It all boils down to Slrubenstein does it? You've been deleting BCE/CE from Wikipedia for months before Slrubenstein made his proposal.
Jay.