----- Original Message ----- From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: I have unblocked Blair P. Houghton. Re:[WikiEN-l]Unreasonableblock of user Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:41:32 -0500 I really don't think this is helpful. I sense that Blair can be a useful contributor to Wikipedia. He is new and can be engaged. I've seen those more agreesive than he become valuabled members of the community. I would like him to calm down and work with the community, and also for the community to not go out of their way to bait him or any other honest user.
And as to the specific comment "Little clairvoyance is needed to know that the very first time you are reverted, it means that your edits are contentious and disputed." Nonsense. It can mean that, or it can mean that someone or more people editing the page feel invested in particular wording and are dismissing someone out of hand, or a combination of the two.
Sometimes I have excised entire new sections from an article, but I carry them over to Talk, and explain why they are incorrect or problematic and try to suggest ways to make them better.
--C
From: "Blair P. Houghton" blair@houghton.net
JAY JG wrote:
I hadn't heard "Be bold" referred to as Wikipedia's "prime directive" before; I'm not sure everyone here would agree. In any event, while I don't know the details of this particular case, it amazes me how often people attempting to make major, usually contentious, and often highly POV re-writes to articles cite "Be bold", yet fail to note that the majority of that policy is devoted to when you *should not* "Be bold". In particular, much of the policy clearly points out that on disputed issues and controversial subjects one should, instead, get consensus on Talk: pages first.
Clairvoyance isn't my strongest skill. I don't know who will complain until I do what I have a right to do. And I suspect I'm "only human" in that regard, as is everyone else.
Little clairvoyance is needed to know that the very first time you are reverted, it means that your edits are contentious and disputed. And it's a bad sign when people start taking about what they "have a right to do" on Wikipedia; as far as I know, editing Wikipedia is still not covered under the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or similar legislation.
I believe we are straying into "argument from silence" logical fallacy territory here.
It's the basis for most of the Wikipedia. What doesn't get munged is accepted. And if you see a problem, you fix it. Has a lot to do with the way life works, too. Which is one of the attractive features of the place.
As soon as you are reverted, the "argument from silence" is obviously no longer correct.
Cooperation is something that comes from both sides; it cannot be unilaterally imposed by "Bold" individuals.
Tell that to the guy who reverted me, hollering "consensus!" from the back of his mule, then having me jailed for arguing the point, then including everything I added
Referring to one's opponents on Talk: pages as "juvenile delinquents" and oneself as the "teacher" is a particularly bad strategy for getting cooperation.
(but retaining a bit of stuff that is soon to be gone anyway).
This statement is an ominous sign.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jim Cecropia wrote:
I really don't think this is helpful. I sense that Blair can be a useful contributor to Wikipedia. He is new and can be engaged. I've seen those more agreesive than he become valuabled members of the community. I would like him to calm down and work with the community, and also for the community to not go out of their way to bait him or any other honest user.
One of my favorite parts of the whole debacle was when GeorgeStepanek claimed I was a newbie. His account is dated December 10. Mine is dated January 1, but if I look around I can find edits I made over a year ago without having created a login.
Quite the guffaw around my keyboard, I can assure you.
Oh, and check through my contribution list. I'm well-engaged, almost whoring myself for barnstars, and not a little peeved that the people railroading me didn't see what they were doing to my reputation.
--Blair
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
Jim Cecropia wrote:
I really don't think this is helpful. I sense that Blair can be a useful contributor to Wikipedia. He is new and can be engaged. I've seen those more agreesive than he become valuabled members of the community. I would like him to calm down and work with the community, and also for the community to not go out of their way to bait him or any other honest user.
One of my favorite parts of the whole debacle was when GeorgeStepanek claimed I was a newbie. His account is dated December 10. Mine is dated January 1, but if I look around I can find edits I made over a year ago without having created a login.
In all fairness, how could George possibly know that?
Oh, and check through my contribution list. I'm well-engaged, almost whoring myself for barnstars, and not a little peeved that the people railroading me didn't see what they were doing to my reputation.
Ignoring the implicit personal attack there, don't be pissed you haven't got a barnstar. I've written two articles featured on the main page, and several more that have been voted as featured articles (which makes them eligible for featuring on the front page). I don't moan about a lack of recognition. Keep up the good work you've been doing, though; some day, our work will be acknowledged. Take pride in the fact you're contributing to history, and write good articles anyway. Barnstars are an important incentive for writing, but shouldn't consume you. Just focus on doing a good job, and slowly acclaim will come to you. :-P
Best of luck, John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
John Lee wrote:
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
Jim Cecropia wrote:
I really don't think this is helpful. I sense that Blair can be a useful contributor to Wikipedia. He is new and can be engaged. I've seen those more agreesive than he become valuabled members of the community. I would like him to calm down and work with the community, and also for the community to not go out of their way to bait him or any other honest user.
One of my favorite parts of the whole debacle was when GeorgeStepanek claimed I was a newbie. His account is dated December 10. Mine is dated January 1, but if I look around I can find edits I made over a year ago without having created a login.
In all fairness, how could George possibly know that?
So it was a private joke. The question is, why should it make the slightest bit of difference? Character is behavior, not attributes. If he'd bothered to read my history instead of jerking his knee towards cognitive closure on the first trivium he could leverage against my reputation, he'd have reached a different conclusion. I certainly never took him to task for that silly suit he's wearing in his profile picture. Only for his behavior towards me, Dan100, and the page.
Oh, and check through my contribution list. I'm well-engaged, almost whoring myself for barnstars, and not a little peeved that the people railroading me didn't see what they were doing to my reputation.
Ignoring the implicit personal attack there, don't be pissed you haven't got a barnstar
You keep seeing personal attacks where there are none. And I'm not pissed I don't have a barnstar. They're awarded arbitrarily so I expect if I ever get one it will be for randomly pleasing someone who knows what they are and feels inclined that day to throw one across the room.
I've written two articles featured on the main page, and several more that have been voted as featured articles (which makes them eligible for featuring on the front page). I don't moan about a lack of recognition. Keep up the good work you've been doing, though; some day, our work will be acknowledged. Take pride in the fact you're contributing to history, and write good articles anyway. Barnstars are an important incentive for writing, but shouldn't consume you. Just focus on doing a good job, and slowly acclaim will come to you. :-P
"Take pride in the fact you're contributing to history."
Nicely mentioned. It's the only reason I intend to stick around in this Lord of the Flies backwater.
I get to remember the feeling of improving the Eddie Merckx page and fixing a problem on the pages for every member of the group of men who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Barnstars are arbitrary kudos. Setting the truth right in places it's desperately needed sets your soul on fire.
--Blair