User talk:Yilloslime/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Please allow a balanced presentation

1. The controversies over Endosulfan are not universal. There are large numbers of people who use and support this pesticide. The statement of Endosulfan being controversial does not have a citation, so I feel that the qualification should not require it either. 2. All pesticides are inherently toxic. This is not unique to Endosulfan. 3. All development life forms are vulnerable to pesticides. All of them are capable of hormone disruption if they enter a blood stream. This is not unique to Endosulfan. 4. Endosulfan residues can be degraded by alkalis and microbes. I am willing to provide citations in support of this contention. 5. Annual reports of Endosulfan-producing companies have data on their production levels. The average dose is about 500 ml/acre. I can prove that more than 10 million farmers use Endosulfan every year. 6. I will willingly accept a ban from Wikipedia in the quest for truth. I do request that the history of the edits and responses stay on record. Satyabroto (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the appropriate venue, which in this case is Talk:Endosulfan. Yilloslime TC 23:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

X-Y relations commenting on !votes moratorium.

I'd like to propose a voluntary moratorium on commenting on each others' !votes in bilateral relations AfDs. At this point, I don't think there's anything to be gained from such comments--obviously no one is convincing anyone--meanwhile, the acrimony rises and uninvolved editors are discouraged from weighing in. See this masterpiece for a prime example. So how about we just don't comment on each others' votes? This moratorium would not cover general comments, i.e. those which aren't indented under and/or in response to a specific !vote (e.g. [1]), but these should be kept to an absolute minimum. I intend invite all of the "usual suspects" to join this moratorium. I've missed someone, please invite them. Yilloslime TC 16:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree as proposer. 16:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: I agree that some of these are getting out of hand. My question is how limited we are going to be. For example, if someone presented a "source" from a blog, could it be pointed out that the blog isn't a WP:RS? Or if, as we've seen before, the source doesn't actually point out what is being alleged? Or is this simply to eliminate all the personal silliness that is getting out of control? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Ideally, I think we should refrain from all such comments. But if you felt it was absolutely necessary to point out that a blog is not an RS, perhaps you could update you're original !vote, saying something like, "It has been proposed that such and such a source establishes notability, but it is blog, and thus not an RS". Or something. The point is curtail the out-of-handedness. Yilloslime TC 17:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree I see the rationale behind this. In fact, I agree that these discussions are out of control in that they are constantly straying from the subject matter and digressing into accusations about the skill of other users in interpreting policy. However, I must oppose this for three reasons. One, based simply on free speech principles that limiting debate in this way will ensure no one is convinced by the other side (although it hasn't happened often, it has happened). Two, I have concerns that putting this in place could come back to haunt editors when there is really something that should be responded to. You don't want to suddenly have this thing pop up to stop you from making a good faith comment (would your comment be removed under this policy?) Third, the deletion process is arcane enough. Maybe we (myself included) could just try to stay on topic a little better and cut out some of the the more pointed comments.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - maybe rather than a moratorium, a general plea for constructive, on-topic comments would be better. After all, I think the real audience is not the other side's voters, who aren't liable to change positions, but rather the closing administrator, who (at least in theory) weighs arguments based on their strength. - Biruitorul Talk 17:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Since it seems like no one is willing to agree to this, then perhaps we could all consider my effort here to be a "plea for constructive, on-topic comments". I 100% agree with you about who the "real audience" is (and for all our disagreements, I could not agree more with the quote atop User:DGG's page: "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience.") None-the-less, I think the "real audience" is being discouraged from participating at all when these AfDs turn into 3-ring circuses. So it's kind of self defeating.Yilloslime TC 20:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Question. What ever happened to the proposal to suspend the AfD nominations of the bilateral relations articles altogether; until this whole issue could be discussed from a broader philosophical standpoint? I recall seeing such a proposal around, but for some reason can't find where it was held. That would probably be a solution to a long-term problem, as opposed to this moratorium proposal, which I generally support but do not believe to solve anything apart from the short-term problem with tempers running high.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:37, July 16, 2009 (UTC)
    • The proposed suspension was approved, but has since expired. Yilloslime TC 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure what the distinction is between commenting on someone else's !vote, or responding to a point that someone has made. I think that we all learn how to become more civil as time goes on, and we encourage newcomers to do likewise. Short of someone saying, "Mandsford, you're a moron!" I don't have a problem with someone responding to something I've asserted. You write that "obviously no one is convincing anyone", and although that may be true to the two people addressing each other, other people read the opposing arguments and are convinced by one side or the other. I respect the regulars in these discussions, and I try to take into account whether someone is a newcomer or an old hand if I feel the need to respond to them. Needless to say, I think that we should remind others to keep the discussion civil, even if they are !voting the same way that we are. Mandsford (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • comment I certainly do not think that additional general comments should be held to a minimum. The purpose of the AfDs is discuss whether the article should be deleted, and an exchange of opinions and further modifications often helps. And, if one is doing that, one can perfectly well word it to criticize others just as if one replied directly to them. The general rule which ought to hold in all afds is best: to comment on the issues, not the people. As for the closing admin the closing admin is supposed to follow consensus of the policy-based arguments, not weigh the relative strengths. The difficulty here is that it is not clear which of the arguments are actually policy based, as we do not seem to agree on the policy that should be used. The drift to having the closing admin decide whose arguments are best is using the admin as a judge not an umpire. DGG (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I think that everyone who's responded so far understands--and mostly agrees with--my intention behind the proposal, I also think that you all are viewing this as more of a Draconian measure than it really is. (Or maybe I'm underestimating it's potential impact). The proposed moratorium would not effect anyone's ability to write a well-argued !vote, or to subsequently amend that !vote. Plenty--probably most--Afd discussions close without anyone commenting on other people's !votes, and I think if we tried, we could do that with these AfDs, too. It's a voluntary moratorium--anyone could pull out at anytime for any reason without sanction. In practice, no one is going to want to be that guy (or girl) who breaks the moratorium, so it should still be effective in curbing the cycle of comments upon comments. I don't think that pleas for decorum and civility or for staying on topic are going to have that same effect. I also think that if someone (perhaps a newcomer to the debate who is not aware of or hasn't acceded to the moratorium) comments on your !vote, responding to that comments would not be "breaking" the moratorium. And while I think general comments should be minimized, this moratorium would not affect them. At any rate, I can't see the harm in trying this out for a week or two. Yilloslime TC 21:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • An additional thought: This proposal is an opportunity for all of us to agree on something--and in this environment of rising acrimony, such opportunities are becoming a lot rarer. We all agree that the goal is to preserve civility, keep debates from spiraling out of control, and not discourage outside views. But if, for example, DGG or Cdog or RAN makes a comment that I feel is borderline or over-the-line uncivil, and I leave him a message saying "please be civil, etc", is that editor really going to pay attention to my comment, give the rising tensions? Probably not. (Not to single out DGG, Cdog, or RAN--I think the converse is also true.) Point being: when a member of one "side" asks the "other side" to remain civil, to stick to policy, etc, it is not likely to be received well given the tension that exists. So a multilateral approach, such as this moratorium, is, I think, I nice alternative that actually offers a real chance at agreeing on something.Yilloslime TC 21:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment If you think that people are not paying attention to your requests to be civil, what makes you think that they would agree to a moratorium? Mandsford (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Me saying to you, "I think you're being uncivil, please stop" is inherently confrontational, no matter well intentioned or gently put. OTOH, me saying to you and everyone else, "Hey we're all kind of being assholes; maybe we can all agree to curtail certain behaviour" is, I believe, less confrontational and threatening and thus more likely to be well received. Yilloslime TC 01:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Disagree. An AfD debate is, or should be, just that - a discussion. Of course the "you are an idiot ... you are another" kind of comments are irrelevant, but the closing admin will surely ignore them. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree only the major bilateral relations are notable (e.g. United States-Philippines relations), which they existed the partnership of two nations since 1946 Fil-Am Friendship Day. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 03:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree to follow the voluntary moratorium on commenting on others' comments in AfD of X-Y relations, except in the cases an additional information is brought to attention or an answer is requested. Dc76\talk 06:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Other suggestions?

As no one seems ready to agree to this, but many of have at acknowledged that there is a problem, does anyone have any other suggestions for how to deal with this issue? Yilloslime TC 02:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to go along with your good attempt to restore some order (thanks), if others wanted. However, the opposing comments are pretty persuasive and it looks like you have accepted that it won't happen. It is absurd that the same keep/delete arguments have to be trotted out in each case, with variations depending on the details. During the AFD moratorium I speculated that the two admins (DGG and Stifle) might like to mentor a page where the "keep" side polishes one set of arguments (that is, why the marginal relations articles should be kept), and the "delete" side polishes an opposite set of arguments. I'm not at all sure this would be useful, but I hoped that it might get the two sides to confront the opposing views which conceivably could lead to some accommodations. Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe if we had a template placed at the top of the AfD page that listed the standard keep and delete arguments, the contributors could refer to them by number.
    E.g. Keep 1,4,6 or Delete 3,5. Just a thought. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • See above. My first template. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak broken

When you return from your Wikibreak if this message is still here you will notice someone has been making edits on your account during your Wikibreak. Hyacinth (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No it's me, it's not someone else. Thanks for your concern, though. I'm trying (less and less successfully, apparently) to take a real break, which is why I've left the banner up there even while sporadically editing... Yilloslime TC 18:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Procrastination

Here's a fun way to waste time a work. Go to flickr.com and search for "tea party DC". Sort your results by date, so that photos of this weekend's protests come first. Now for the challenge: try to find a non-white teabagger. This is guaranteed to keep you occupied for hours! Yilloslime TC 17:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rachel Carson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. (warning both parties) tedder (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, reverting vandalism[2][3][4][5] is not subject to 3rr. The edits in question were blatantly disruptive: changing birth dates to obviously wrong years, inserting grammatical errors, and substituting wikilinks with broken redlinks. Yilloslime TC 00:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The first one was obviously vandalism; the last three were not so obvious. Again, note I said "warning both parties". tedder (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The other edits may not have been the of the typical "LOrI is Teh Gay" type, but I fail to see how inserting "Fish and Wildlife Services" into the occupation line of the infobox or changing earth biology to global biology or deleting punctuation is constructive. And given the editor's previous contributions I wasn't inclined to give him/her the benefit of the doubt. Yilloslime TC 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Yilloslime

I see you recently contributed a well-thought-out comment to the talk page at the article about an anti-Beck spoof wesite. Actually, this note is just a heads up that, WP:Naming conventions, I'd moved the article's title to Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy, which I belive to be something less imprecise and ambiguous than the name it had before.

In any case, since we need more editors working on the article, I would simply like to implore you to please feel free to do whatever strikes your fancy with it, to improve its writing or coverage (which invitation, as far as I'm concerned, would even include your moving its name to something else, if you can think of something more appropriate.) The article has been barely worked on by anybody -- which, by a certain measure, shows its subject matter to be of less interest to WP editors, for whatever reason (and perhaps less notable?), than I had previously thought. (It is a pretty crass joke/parody.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks. I think the name is fine. I'm definitely not suggesting that we rename it to the name of the website. I don't have a ton of time right now, so I figure I'll wait for the AfD to be resolved before putting much effort in. I know it's lame, but my time is too precious right now to put a lot of work into a page that may end up deleted. If I wasn't about to go to a big family event and then head out of the country for work, I'd have more time to spent on it right now... Yilloslime TC 23:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Understandable. Thanks, Yilloslime.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The article was kept by default, there not being consensus to delete.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yilloslime/Archive_5&oldid=1140951688"