User:Proofreader77/Back burner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Back burner

CLEAR UP THE COI/ADVOCACY HERE:

DCU

WAS THAT OR?

MISC

America Order of top two entries is contrary to Disambiguation guidelines[edit]

See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Order_of_entries


There is a reason the Wiktionary entry has no citations. The billions of entries for "America" referring to the United States would tend to bury the several orders of magnitude less number of potential entries (most involving the "discovery" of "the new world" a few hundred years ago) where "America" refers collectively to the continents of North and South America.

Clearly, this has all been discussed a thousand times (and still underway), but the simple fact is, frequency of usage should determine order. And, it will. Prepare for the inevitable. :)

To not apply common sense to this, will leave this page as an example that would tend to imply that the editors of Wikipedia have no common sense. That should not happen. And shall not happen. However, of course, it may be next year before I can direct a few thousand hours of attention to this issue— which is, of course, the amount of time required to repeat the above guideline a few thousand times, while completely exhausting the will of those who inflict the utter absurdity of the current order of the top two entries. Not now, but eventually. Perhaps next year. That will give those who disagree time to prepare themselves for the inevitable. :) The guideline shall be followed. Common sense shall prevail. Prepare to get used to it. :)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


To do (00)[edit]

P.S. American (word) mentions in recent/current dab-cleaning documentation (by User:Jerzy)
NOTE:: I am "in dispute" with the current dab-cleaning (by User:Jerzy with assist of User:Cuchullain), which is perhaps best highlighted by different perspectives on American (word)

American[edit]

There are multiple, recurring issues regarding the formatting of American that need to be addressed. Such issues include formatting, which entries to include (ie, entries that are not only referred to as "American"), whether certain entries should include inline citations, and recently, whether this disambig page should take the further, unconventional step of including a disambig hat note to deepen the disambiguation. Since it's such a high traffic dab page, we need to make sure it's clean and effective, and serves the reader in the best way possible. --[[User:Cuchullain|Cúchullain]] [[User talk:Cuchullain|<sup>t</sup>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cuchullain|<small>c</small>]] 16:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: matters of dispute[edit]

Discussion of the (more complex than usual) considerations involved with regard to the disambiguation page American (Americans also redirects there) has been in process (or suspension) for some time. Survey the talk page well before diving in. :) --Proofreader77 (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Methods of addressing recurring contentions of the page[edit]

citations on a dab page? (another "solution" is in place)[edit]

  • It appears the interest in adding citations flowed from the (understandable) negative reaction of (some, many?) readers/editors to referring to American English as simply "American."
  • Many editors seeing such an entry, deleted it on sight.
  • NOTE: I deleted it once myself while RC patrolling—which is how the page got on my watchlist.
  • BUT, the next time I happened upon the entry, someone had added a reference link to a dictionary, which stopped me from deleting it.
  • THEN, HOWEVER, the assertion was made that the guidelines prohibited references, and they were disallowed.
  • SO, we were back to the same problem.
  • ONE "SOLUTION": Acknowledge the "casual" nature of the reference to American English as "American" in the description/link. I.E., by giving readers/editors a cue that the people who have edited the page before understand and acknowledge the usage is not the pure formal construct they are used to as correct, they will think before they delete, and think, "OK, casual usage."

SO: If that solution "works" (it has, so far), then it seems we can forget about citations in this case.

NOTE: If you disagree that we have to think about things like this in this way (saying, e.g., that some people will always be dissatisfied), then we can discuss this further at greater length, elsewhere.  :) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

disambig hat note? (a link to an article about the "word" up top by wikitionary link)[edit]

  • American is an inherently contentious word, e.g., American hegemony etc.
  • Since this is one of the relatively rare cases where a disambiguation page has a related article explicitly addressing the various (conflicting) meanings of the "word" itself, putting a link to that article about the word up top beside the wiktionary link, quickly directs people who wish to contend over the meaning of America to the article, where such contentions may be addressed with more elaboration.
  • Cúchullain reference to this link to the article about the word's meaning as an "unconventional step of including a disambig hat note to deepen the disambiguation." A characterization which seems to imply "beyond the pale," "bad," "shoot it!." Is it? See previous bullet.

BOTTOM LINE: American is not a run-of-the-mill disambiguation page. Cúchullain believes that the disambiguation guidelines (with no adjustments for unique page characteristics) demand that the link to American (word) absolutely, positively cannot be at the top of the page ... and asserts his concern is for preventing reader confusion by following the wisdom of the "consensus" of the guidelines ... without adjustment, unless Cúchullain can be persuaded that the guidelines can be adjusted, which he will not consider, because he doesn't believe in adjusting the guidelines. :)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(meta comment)[edit]

COMMENT: Notice how many words I am being forced to write because of the assertion of the absolute unwavering authority of the disambiguation guidelines. It appears it will take a few hundred hours of my time to get this "clarified" from a policy perspective. One page is not the issue. This is not one particular content dispute. THE QUESTION is whether disambiguation guidelines can be used to browbeat (yes, browbeat) other editors into not making adjustments to pages that are in the best interest of the encyclopedia. (NOTE: Yes, the last sentence makes a rhetorical flourish at the end waving toward the greater good—similar to the one at the end of Cúchullain's last sentence—but mine is sincere. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

To do (0)[edit]

---

FYI: matters of dispute[edit]

Discussion of the (more complex than usual) considerations involved with regard to the disambiguation page American (Americans also redirects there) has been in process (or suspension) for some time. Survey the talk page well before diving in. :) --Proofreader77 (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(for the quick-and-fun-to-read sonnetized backgrounder)[edit]

See sonnet #001: User:Proofreader77/American warning#001 (With Cúchullain's continuing inspiration, we may get to #154 :)

  • NOTE: The "warning" was not issued by Cúchullain.
  • NOTE: I.E., Sonnet #002 is not about Cúchullain.
  • NOTE: Sonnet #003? Metaphorically about the big picture, inspired by the etymology of Cúchullain, and an English major's response to a sonnet. :)

Serious matters of contention may be handled heavily or lightly. I vote for light.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: a strict following of the guidelines would allow only 3 entries[edit]

Everything else is a partial match, or no match at all for "American" (e.g. United States, etc.) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I.E., Many disambiguation pages (do and should) have some "slack."

  • American is a particularly complex case.
  • Browbeating (yes, browbeating) editors about the "consensus" of the disambiguation "guidelines," is unconscionable in any case. This is a particularly misguided abuse of the word. And shall not continue.

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


Note: perfect conformance to the guidelines would allow only 3 entries[edit]

Everything else is a partial match, or no match at all for "American" (e.g. United States, etc.)
--Proofreader77 (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I.E., Many disambiguation pages (do and should) have some "slack."

  • American is a particularly complex case.
  • Assertions regarding "consensus" embodied in disambiguation "guidelines" used as a stick to force other editors to comply with one's interpretation of those guidelines (guidelines which explicitly allow flexibility to address varying circumstances) is, at best, misguided. At worst, an unconscionable abuse of one of the pillars of the community.

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

To do[edit]

response to Cuchullain's (terse, dismissive) justification for reversion[edit]

re: Cuchullain: "A dab page should be a list of pages with ambiguous titles"[edit]
  • NOTE: None of the links in the top section has the unambiguous title American or Americans—American (word), of course, being implicitly the exception (since parentheticals are accepted disambiguators)
  • NOTE: None of the links on the rest of the page technically require disambiguation either—the link to American (automobile) disambiguation being a similar exception to the above.
  • I.E. "A dab page should be a list of pages with ambiguous titles" is clearly not normative for this particular disambiguation page—which is clearly an exceptional case.
  • GIVEN THE ABOVE, the stating of that guideline has no applicable persuasive force with regard to this page.
--Proofreader77 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
re: Cuchullain: "You're making this more complicated than it needs to be"[edit]
  • The exceptional complications of this page are explicitly enumerated above. The assertion "You're making it more complicated than it needs to be," is a rhetorical waving of hands, which—especially in the presence of reasoned argument—clearly has no persuasive force in this matter.
--Proofreader77 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
re: Cuchullain: "... The onus is on users wanting the controversial changes to demonstrate consensus ..."[edit]

RE: Cuchullain's earlier edit summary (Revision as of 03:17, 27 February 2009)

  • Let it be noted that during the process of dab-cleanup for American (under dispute), there has been an undue burden placed on other "users."

    While the disambiguation page American clearly has its natural complications to be dealt with, "users" wishing to address those complications must "demonstrate consensus" to those demanding, apparently, that they are the arbiters of "consensus" (and apparently that has something to do with guidelines—which we have already seen above require the allowed flexibility).

  • IE, "The onus"— My extended response to Cuchullain on matters which should not require all of these words, is part of the undue burden placed on other editors ... which is currently a matter of dispute.
--Proofreader77 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

therefore reverted[edit]

For the above reasons, edits removing the top-of-page "descriptor" link to American (word) (and reinserting an entry somewhere below) has been [REPLACE LINK HERE] reverted.

boxed analysis version[edit]

(analysis)[edit]

REPLACE WITH ABOVE ... NOTE: Using unanimated (is it smaller?)

ITEM (ref-CRRA2) - re: American (notification of involved parties, re prospective dispute for resolution)

RHETORICAL INTERACTION

ORCHESTRATION/ANALYSIS

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS (NOTES)
RE RESPONSE BY: User:Cuchullain - Revision as of 13:31, 3 April 2009

  1. "I disagree."
    NOTE: What is disagreed with is a detailed argument of some length, hereby tersely dismissed with the following waving of hands:
  2. "A dab page should be a list of pages with ambiguous titles."
    NOTE: The entries on this page do not fit that description. I.E., A normative statement applied to an obviously exceptional page has no persuasive force.
  3. "You're making this more complicated than it needs to be."
    NOTE: Rhetorical hand-waving of no persuasive force.
  4. "I re-added American (word) back into the list."
    NOTE: Taking action as if a case has been made (rather than a terse, dismissive comment based on an argument that does not apply) for a reversion, has no persuasive force.

SUMMARY:

  • a terse, dismissive communication
  • non-responsive to issues raised
  • implying the authority of guideline WHICH is ignored for (nearly) every item on the page.
  • used as a justification for presumptive action

REMINDER(S):

  • This is an editorial behavior dispute (in the context of policy regarding disambiguation page cleaning)
  • This is NOT a content dispute. (The behavior of dab-cleaners has an effect on content which can be analyzed—hence the significance of the changes to this page.)
  • The fact that the behavior in question includes the actions of editors who are also administrators implies a greater level of significance.

re: American (notification of involved parties, re prospective dispute for resolution)

COPY

RHETORICAL INTERACTION

ORCHESTRATION/ANALYSIS

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS (NOTES)
RE RESPONSE BY: User:Cuchullain - Revision as of 13:31, 3 April 2009

  1. "I disagree."
  2. "A dab page should be a list of pages with ambiguous titles."
  3. "You're making this more complicated than it needs to be."
  4. "I re-added American (word) back into the list."

---

  1. "civilized" (casting aspersions of not)
  2. "nonsense" (usually an inappropriate categorization of others' communication)
  3. "DICKish" (res ipsa loquitur, noting irony, and noting for the record)
  4. Mis-categorizes: THE PACE of dispute resolution (Ignoring the leisurely pace of events so far, see: User_talk:Proofreader77/American_warning_Archive)
  5. Mis-categorizes: THE TENOR of dispute resolution (Casting aspersions on the professionally executed, now-concluded, 10-day first stage of two-party Jerzy/Proofreader77 discussion.)
  6. Suggestion of "disengaging for awhile" is based on mis-categorizations 4-5 (noting for the record)

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

analysis C3[edit]

I don't know why you insist on communicating in such an abstruse manner, Proofreader, but it's very tiring for people who have less time than you do to edit Wikipedia. I can do little else to clarify my position than reiterate what I've (we've) already said. Wikipedia has quite a nice guideline for formatting disambig pages, a guideline derived at by the consensus (yes there's that word again) of the community over time, with the intention of meeting the readers' needs. I can't understand why you feel like this guideline is "ignored for (nearly) every item on the page)", it only include entries which share a title so that the reader who types in "American" can be redirected. You disagree, clearly, but your opinion alone does not trump the opinions of others. I also resent your innuendo about me as an administrator; not once in this conversation have I ever used or even alluded to my admin powers or any presumed authority I have because of them. As to the alleged terseness and dismissiveness of my reply, I'm sure you understand that not everyone can be arsed to write a sonnet expressing their feelings about Wikipedia disambiguation pages.--Cúchullain t/c 22:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ITEM (ref-CRRA3) - re: American (notification of involved parties, re prospective dispute for resolution)

RHETORICAL INTERACTION

ORCHESTRATION/ANALYSIS

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS (NOTES)
RE RESPONSE BY: User:Cuchullain - Revision as of 22:09, 3 April 2009

  1. "I don't know why you insist on communicating in such an abstruse manner, Proofreader, but it's very tiring for people who have less time than you do to edit Wikipedia."
    NOTES:
    (a.1) Third parties may judge if this form of information organization/analyis is "abstruse," or clear—the time invested in creating layout is intended to reduce the effort future readers must expend to analyze these interactions.

    (a.2) From the perspective of tactical rhetorical analysis, the allegation of I can't understand what you mean is a common ploy by those who employ such tactics of dismissal.

    (b) re: "tiring" — Ironic, given the undue burden Cuchullian is inflicting on other editors (including the burden of the present analysis).

    (c) re - less time than you do - res ipsa loquitur.

  2. "I can do little else to clarify my position than reiterate what I've (we've) already said. Wikipedia has quite a nice guideline for formatting disambig pages, a guideline derived at by the consensus (yes there's that word again) of the community over time, with the intention of meeting the readers' needs."
    NOTES:

    (Herein lies the crux of the problem, and will require more careful illumination - to be continued)

  3. "I can't understand why you feel like this guideline is "ignored for (nearly) every item on the page)", it only include entries which share a title so that the reader who types in "American" can be redirected."
    NOTE:
  4. "I also resent your innuendo about me as an administrator; not once in this conversation have I ever used or even alluded to my admin powers or any presumed authority I have because of them. "
    NOTE:
  5. "You disagree, clearly, but your opinion alone does not trump the opinions of others."
  6. "As to the alleged terseness and dismissiveness of my reply, I'm sure you understand that not everyone can be arsed to write a sonnet expressing their feelings about Wikipedia disambiguation pages."

SUMMARY:

  • a terse, dismissive communication
  • non-responsive to issues raised
  • implying the authority of guideline WHICH is ignored for (nearly) every item on the page.
  • used as a justification for presumptive action

REMINDER(S):

  • This is an editorial behavior dispute (in the context of policy regarding disambiguation page cleaning)
  • This is NOT a content dispute. (The behavior of dab-cleaners has an effect on content which can be analyzed—hence the significance of the changes to this page.)
  • The fact that the behavior in question includes the actions of editors who are also administrators implies a greater level of significance.
(INITIAL) POINT OF ORDER: Cuchullain's response ignores previous rebuttal —TO WIT:

re: the removal of the American (word) hatnote from the top of the page (and replacement with link somewhere below)[edit]

For "American" as a general descriptor, see American (word)

The above line has been removed from the top of the page, and
just "American (word)" stuck below "indigenous peoples of the Americas"
with the edit summary:

"(A disambig page shouldn't have a disambig hat note)" (dif)
I.E., The reason given is, it "shouldn't" be there.
  • I.E., the guidelines demand it not be there.
  • I.E., the guidelines trump all other considerations.
  • Or, that there are no reasons that would appear to outweigh following this guideline.

OK: Why put ... For "American" as a general descriptor, see American (word) ... up top?

1. Partly for the same reason that the Wiktionary lookup is up top, and not at the bottom (which, by the way, is where American (word) ended up in the first phase of dab-cleanup under "See also")
  • "American" doesn't refer to "American (word)" ... it is the word.
  • I.E., American (word) is the Wikipedia article version of the Wiktionary entry for American. It's about the word. Those should be together up top.
2. The "messiness" about the sometimes adjective American vs the always noun Americans is handled up top. If you're looking for American as a descriptor, go to American (word)
  • THEN we can focus on disambiguating the nouns. (Americans) (with a touch more flexibility around the first entry)
PREEMPTIVE REBUTTAL: Please note that the adjective and noun stuff does matter. It matters in how readers (and editors) perceive it.
  • If you you design the information "right" ... there is less contention.
  • If you give editors a signal/cue that common sense has been addressed in the design of the content, then there will be less impulse to change it.
  • If the reader is looking for the word "American," why should they have to look through a list of noun forms to find it stuck somewhere arbitrarily other than up top ... near the Wiktionary entry?
3. American and Americans redirect here. (See higher up the page.) NOTE that German and Germans do not redirect to the same page. The fact that America and Americans do, makes the top of the page more potentially confusing to the reader. That is part of the reason for that hat note up there.
4. "American(s)" is a "loaded" (with meaning, passion) word. American superpower status and all that, too. I.E., getting the top of this page right is more important, and more delicate than most other disambiguation pages. It is not a run-of-the-mill the-guidelines-are-good-enough kind of page.

THE GUIDELINES are guidelines—they are a great benefit, but they are not the highest priority. In this case, I argue, the particular challenges of the page (mentioned above) justify the trivial flexibility of putting ...

For "American" as a general descriptor, see American (word)

... up top, near the Wiktionary entry, for all the reasons stated above. AND, I assert, those considerations allow for that flexibility in the guidelines (which the guidelines allow for).

BOTTOM LINE: "shouldn't" is NOT a persuasive rebuttal to the above. Removing the hatnote from the top, and sticking American (word) somewhere lower on the page:

  1. Does not enhance the readers experience.
  2. Does not improve the quality of the encyclopedia.
  3. Does not do anything but be a blind following of a guideline.

That is most certainly not good enough reason to do it.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

THE GUIDELINES are guidelines—they are a great benefit, but they are not the highest priority. In this case, I argue, the particular challenges of the page (mentioned above) justify the trivial flexibility of putting ...

For "American" as a general descriptor, see American (word)

... up top, near the Wiktionary entry, for all the reasons stated above. AND, I assert, those considerations allow for that flexibility in the guidelines (which the guidelines allow for).

BOTTOM LINE: "shouldn't" is NOT a persuasive rebuttal to the above. Removing the hatnote from the top, and sticking American (word) somewhere lower on the page:

  1. Does not enhance the readers experience.
  2. Does not improve the quality of the encyclopedia.
  3. Does not do anything but be a blind following of a guideline.

That is most certainly not good enough reason to do it.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

more to do[edit]

3RR and patrollers[edit]

(ARCHIVE COPY)

Family Court with Judge Penny[edit]

Hi Slp1, just wanted to make you aware that I had blocked the involved parties whom were edit warring at the above article. Because of this, I am not particularly sure what full protection is accomplishing as neither of the parties are able to edit the articles talk page. I have no issues if you wish the article to remain protected, but I just wanted to let you know the main instigators are blocked in case you did not know. Cheers, [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 06:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I did realize that, though only later; it seems the issue was posted to various spots and I was responding to the ANI posting at which time it seemed that there were multiple editors and IPs involved. Ed Bever got caught up in overenthusiastic 'vandal' fighting, OhioRuthie and 65.7.128.164 engaged in the latest edit war, with 24.209.53.167 (Ruthie?), 69.119.246.108 and 98.73.17.44 involved too at various points. It looks like Ruthie, a very new editor, was making unsuccessful attempts to get in touch with others about her concerns, though not on talkpages, unfortunately. I still think it is worthwhile to 'force' some conversation after the block, given that the text (though sourced) seems somewhat problematic from a BLP perspective, and of undue weight if nothing else. I'll try and mediate something once everybody gets unblocked, if that's okay with you.--[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1#top|talk]]) 12:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me! Cheers, [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 18:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Follow-up analyis of that WSBTV video ref (No)[edit]

Hi, I was patrolling in the midst of that, and I too thought the ref was OK when I first saw it.

BUT ... no, it's tabloid noise. See my notes on talk -- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Ed Bever[edit]

  • Patroller (and his page said "an administrator on Dutch wikipedia and meta")
  • Blocked
  • Accused of being a sockpuppet
  • Denied unblocking
  • Stripped of rollback
  • Rollback userbox immediately removed
  • Loses sleep
  • Goes on wikibreak
  • Will never RC again?

Something graceful should happen now, yes? Proofreader77 (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your opinion on the talk. It is helpful to get other voices into the discussion. I will respond there. As far as Ed Bever is concerned, it is a very unfortunate situation. On the one hand, there was a lot of reverting going on, and unfortunately the removal of that section really wasn't vandalism, but in fact a fairly legitimate edit (in my view) particularly given BLP and the sourcing concerns. As you know, I didn't have anything to do with the blocking, unblocking, rollback removal etc, and my view is that page protection might have been a better solution given the number of editors involved. But that wasn't the decision of the admin involved at the time, and the decision to block was also very reasonable, given what was going on. However, I will drop Ed a line of encouragement, as I think you are suggesting. --[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1#top|talk]]) 12:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Based on our experience, we, the guardians of Wikipedia, all do the best we can in the moments of decision ...
With the more perfect knowledge of hindsight, let us ponder if something more can be done to repair the slight to Ed Bever's honor — who I believe felt he had earned the benefit of the doubt in moments of decision, and received the opposite ...
Not because of particular errors in judgment, but rather like the technicalities of the sinking of the Titanic, wherein sometimes all factors align negatively. :) Proofreader77 (talk) ~

A good (little) case study of several issues[edit]

1. RC patrollers, "vandalism," and 3RR

  • e.g., A patroller's judgment that a particular edit constitutes "vandalism," removes it from the constraints of 3RR (from the perspective of the patroller)
  • e.g., Unexplained removal of cited information = vandalism ... (Insufficiently justified removal ...?)
  • e.g., Another experienced editor treats the information as valid by coding the "cite" (NOTE: My "contribution" to the sinking, based on my first judgment that the video referenced was acceptable)

2. Providing (gracious) guidance to new editors (who err in ignorance of protocols)
3. (English) language proficiency

  • (not a judgment of Ed Bever's skill, but raising the issue that for judging some "rhetorical" matters, language mastery matters more.)
  • NOTE: I suspect that 3. may have hindered 2. in the interaction between Ed Bever and OhioRuthie (if only from the perspective of the increased level of effort required for sufficient employment of patience in the matter, etc)

4. (really #1) TV NEWS (news & noise mixed from a reliable source) (e.g., Not everything on CNN is news, but it's all on CNN, etc. etc.)

BOTTOM LINE: Please excuse this clump of notes on your talk page — not an intent to place a further burden on your attention, but rather a squeezing of the orange of "tragedy" for all the juice which can be gained. lol Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I really don't know what more I can do. I have long been a fan of taking some time for decisions, rather than responding quickly and impetuously, though I admit I have not always lived up to this ideal myself. In my opinion if everyone had taken more time to assess what was going on here then this situation would have worked out better. And I'll say very frankly that this includes you, since as your opinion about the source, as you admirably admit, changed when you looked at it again. I say this not in any way to admonish you, but just to illustrate that it is clear that quick decisions were being made all round. It seems to me that the posts of the blocking admin Tiptoety showed considerable sympathy for Ed Bever's situation after the fact, even though it is clear that Ed should not have done what he did (as Ed seemed to understand). All the same, if you want to pursue this, maybe you should talk to Tiptoety about your concerns? --[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1#top|talk]]) 22:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)</noiki> :::(sotto voce) It is only because of your assumption of the role of Solomon ''for the article,'' that I raise matters of wisdom ''to you.'' :) Fear not, I will clean your plate of these extra notes within the next few hours. The broader issue of "patrollers and 3RR," and specific remedies of restoring honor ... Elsewhere and in good time. ''Salute!'' [[User:Proofreader77|Proofreader77]] ([[User talk:Proofreader77|talk]]) 22:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Solomon?? That's a first!! Feel free to leave your posts here, however, and I will archive them myself in good time. I wish you joy in your pursuit of the issue for which I have some considerable sympathy. However, I will just add that these things are complex; compassion and understanding are important, but nevertheless, editors need be accountable for their actions, and should not get carried away with the righteousness of a cause without considering that another approach may be the more appropriate in the circumstance.<nowiki>--[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1#top|talk]]) 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Surely Solomon would agree there is at least a subtle distinction between crucifixion and charm school, or, um, flight school :) (Which, of course, means there should be one last meta-subtopic) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Speed[edit]

  • The plane named Wikipedia, despite what aerodynamic theory might suggest, flies!
  • But as with all aircraft, below a certain speed, it stalls.
  • We, the little rotors in the jets, spin furiously, at the required SPEED.
  • If we slow down ... yada yada yada
  • SO ... speed ... is ... required.
  • HOWEVER ... sometimes something other than air gets sucked into the engines.
  • It is not the little rotors' fault. And no, they must not spin slower so nothing else ever gets sucked in.
  • BUT while the rotors are paused for cleaning ... yada yada yada :)

I.E., If all of us do not proceed at cruising speed, the plane will not fly.

HOWEVER, there is no need to pretend that speed does not sometimes yield "unfortunate suckings."
LET US ALWAYS, AND QUICKLY ADMIT when we have sucked.
RATHER THAN quietly making barbecue of what got sucked (through our little rotors).

NOTE: This does not in any way imply that the rotors should be barbecued. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Proofreader77/Back_burner&oldid=303977459"