User talk:A F K When Needed

Signature
Hi all, just trying out a very basic signature :-) --> A F K When Needed 10:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings... Hello, A F K When Needed, and  welcome to Wikipedia! 
 * To get started, click on the green welcome.
 * I hope you like it here and decide to stay! Happy editing!  Random  Time  18:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, welcome to WP, as nobody has said that to you yet, it seems. Hope you have fun  Random Time  18:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay, I'm not rejected anymore! :D A F K When Needed 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pregnancy.org
Please reverse the edits you made on Pregnancy.org. Thank you. Molleeb (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't do that.
 * I shall ask others to attend to the issue. A F K When Needed 22:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do, it isn't right that you edited what was correct factual information. I complied with the changes that had to be made. Please reverse your actions. There are real sites that are in huge violation of wiki policies. This one is not. The corrected information, not what is there, complies. Thank you. I have sent you an emai. It won't be fair to judge the page with the information you removed. Molleeb (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * People are capable of accessing previous revisions and viewing them, which will be done by at least one Administrator.
 * The article is blatant advertising and you are the only one trying to keep it. A F K When Needed 22:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with your assessment. If I am not in compliance than neither is Babycenter, ivillage or the other 100's of websites here on WIKI. It isn't fair to remove my edits which made the entry comply with the wiki rules when other companies grossly get away with major advertising, like Johnson & Johnson. Molleeb (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish to suggest deletions then by all means do so.
 * It's not singling out that article; it merely happens to be the one I am aware of. A F K When Needed 22:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Look all I am saying is I didn't create the page in the first place. I am just trying to edit it so it complies with rules. Please go back to the edits I made because that follows wiki policy. Molleeb (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I had 2 admins approve the page last night. Due to your inexperience, the page was deleted without warning sometime before morning. This is greatly disappointing and frustrating. It complied with the notability and verification, it was re-written to be more encyclopedic and comply with the rules at wiki. I have every right to remove, edit and change my words as I wish just like you thought you had every right to delete an entry. You also spelled pregnancy wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moleeb (talk • contribs)
 * Please stop attempting to remove comments from my talk page - thank you.
 * For one thing, I am not the one who restored the delete tag. I never put a delete tag on that article, so I would request you avoid attributing it being deleted to "me and my inexperience". Perhaps if you were more experienced yourself you'd know to check before the page got deleted.
 * It was considered to be blatant advertising in the view of a contributor on-wiki I've never spoken to, a neutral Administrator, at least one user on the IRC channel and (almost certainly) a great deal of others. You're clearly the owner of the website, so please accept your bias appears to be influencing you. A F K When Needed 12:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and yes, I did accidentally typo that word, thank you for that. A F K When Needed 12:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I formally insist you delete the conversation here since you won't allow me to. It doesn't really appear to be relevant at this point any more. I did everything the 2 admins asked me to. They removed the delete tag. It wasn't put back. The entry was encyclopedic as of 10:30 pm EST last night, there were verifiable links added and notebilty. I did everything that was requested. Your note to NawlinWiki however, had him just go in and delete the page with no warning to me or the creator of the page. I did NOT create the original page. I did however make the entry comply with the rules. Your deletions of the edits I made didn't allow for the other admins to see the content. Molleeb (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Request denied.
 * If you stop avoiding reality and read it again you will see where someone else tells NawlinWiki they intend to tag the article for deletion. The tag was reapplied, and then deleted. My only communcation with NawlinWiki was a brief "thank you" message for stepping in and making a judgement call on this issue.
 * As we are not going to agree, I hereby request that you stop editing my talk page and e-mailing me.
 * Thank you. A F K When Needed 12:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I request the same. You obviously are sophmoric and rude. Molleeb (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually blatantly lying after reading the talk page of an Administrator, as well as interfering with the talk pages of several users after being requested not to, is extremely rude and arrogant.
 * I have tried to drop this but you would appear to insist on arguing over it. A F K When Needed 12:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Message.
Sorry, don't quite understand your post on my talk page...? · AndonicO  Contact. 17:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm
Hi AFK. Welcome back to WP after your long break. I have read your comment on my talk page - thank you for your thoughts.

I'm a little puzzled though. I've not greatly changed my thoughts on the matter you raised, but I don't recall our having discussed the subject before? I'm wondering why you raised it with me, and especially at this juncture, given large time lags. I note that you seem to be a teenager, and wish to be people's internet friend - nothing wrong with that, of course.

Perhaps you'd care to answer my thoughts - here, preferably? Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi!


 * I'm not entirely sure how the userboxen are relevant; they're part of a rather vague and half-hearted goal to seem "approachable". This is because I've often heard of new users being rather intimidated, so I appreciate the 'human element' I attribute to them. There's something about the combination of easily read information and potential of showing you've a shared interest with another, that I hope would make a new user more likely to approach me with any questions they may have. More than likely they will never make a difference, but I don't lose anything from their presence, either.


 * Thanks for the welcome back, apologies for the delayed response. I'm more of a lurker on wikipedia than I intend to be; the size is to the point where the project feels unwieldly to me, and I'm unsure of how best to be of assistance. As long as that remains the case [I don't see it changing] then I'll be unlikely to change; I don't have time to spare for unproductive wandering around the wiki. I've flirted with Twinkle before, and may make use of it again in the future.


 * From what I could see of you, you're a well meaning contributor of great value to Wikipedia, but I fear that you have that one habit which is potentially capable of causing damage. Unless I'm very much mistaken it is - while maybe preferred - not mandatory to make use of edit summaries. I found at least one contribution of yours which seemed to be misleading in that regard. I do consider it important that people are tolerant; and while informing others of the tool is useful, I for one consider any further messages to be bordering on harassment. Edit summaries are not obligatory, to hound others for not using them - kindly refer to the quotes in my previous message - is well out of line.


 * I'll be honest to say that I'm slightly saddened that your focus deviated from the topic at hand to discussing my userboxen; this strengthens some of my fears. There is nothing wrong with discussion, of course, but deviating from contribution to contributor can be frowned upon for good reason, depending on circumstance. A F K When Needed 02:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. A few unrelated points, then ...

I applaud your English - you write very well for a teenager.

Your userboxes are not especially relevant to our conversation, I agree - I mentioned them partly to show I'd researched your declared standing.

Thank you for your comments re my appearing well-meaning & "contributor of great value" - praise indeed! Those are traits I'd certainly wish to acquire & project.

I think we differ on views re Edit Summaries. However, one thing puzzles me. At what stage - and how - did you become aware of me & my views re ESs? I ask because I have no recollection of our having any prior discourse on this or any other topic. Did something happen involving you, just recently? Alternatively, did you stumble across my profile?

Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the compliment.
 * Would you mind expanding on how we differ with regard to Edit Summaries? You've yet to argue my point that they are optional; if they are indeed optional then I fail to see how multiple messages regarding them is appropriate.
 * The best of intentions can lead to the worst of actions. A F K When Needed 14:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not averse to discussing the merits of ESs, but first would you mind answering:
 * When - and how - did you become aware of me & my views on ESs? Trafford09 (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but for a multitude of reasons I'm afraid I can't answer that.
 * Regards, A F K When Needed 15:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I note your apologies, & also your genuine & laudable response to others - e.g. the User_talk:A_F_K_When_Needed interaction below here.

However, from my standpoint: a user unknown to me (or unable or unwilling to state their connection to me) has started a conversation with me. They express dissatisfaction with some of my views & M.O. on Wikipedia. They offer me further uninvited 'advice' when challenged on their page. However they won't or can't play their cards cleanly, it seems. One has to wonder if they have more than one WP account (which I understand is disparaged if not even a serious policy infraction). I find my usual wp:AGF challenged, here, and would urge you to be more considerate. Trafford09 (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I take that as an out-right accusation of policy? If one "has to wonder" then there must be strong motivation to do so.


 * I've no idea why you've suddenly become so hostile; I've certainly fallen far short from attacking you as a person / contributor, I've indeed praised you as one - which you yourself did notice. It is noteworthy to me that, while I focused on actions (e.g. edits) of yours, it was in fact you who discussed contributor instead of contributions. Even after I gently pointed this out in the hopes of discouraging it. A combination of this, and your musings on if I have multiple accounts — without evidence — are the only things that come even close to breaking policy. There is a subtle difference between discussing who a contributor is, and what they have done.


 * I apologize if I've offended you - I had until now little reason to believe I had - but I might point you to the fact that I'm far from the only one concerned. It is because I A) consider you a valuable asset to Wikipedia [which is why this is not the first time I'm saying so] and B) that nobody is perfect, that I approached you. You see, that's how people who respect one another handle things; a polite and hopefully beneficial discussion where both parties have the ability to learn and improve. I had thought (was I mistaken?) that you seemed to be more open to discussion than my interpretation of the average user - for which I again praised you.


 * What was the alternative? Approaching an Administrator with an assortment of links and asking them to throw their [lack of] weight around? Hardly beneficial nor respectful. You appear to believe that only those who you know (whose opinion you approve of?) may discuss your actions; I'm afraid that's not how things are done, it certainly strikes me as being close to censorship.


 * I do not believe at any point (am I mistaken?) I implied your behaviour of sometimes blurring the line between "mandatory" and "preferred" was intentional. Which is my main problem in understanding how you seem to have taken offense to my statements. The simple fact of the matter is that your talk page itself drives my point home - indeed the section immediately before my own (despite a period of time stretching months) is an Administrator pointing out the exact same thing. Yet, based on my interactions with you, you refuse to learn, and you refuse to improve. Your most recent response on my talk page does nothing to challenge the points I've raised; it merely attacks my right to hold and express an opinion.


 * I had hoped (somewhat against the evidence of multiple other users expressing the same problem) that a polite discussion between two people who have no past to cloud their judgement might be of assistance. It strikes me that I'll be unable to help by merely discussing things with you, sadly. While that does leave me with the belief continuing this conversation would be without merit, I would indeed welcome a response on the points I have raised in this edit; namely your accusation (or threat of same) regarding sock puppetry, exactly how it is I supposedly challenged your ability to assume good faith (what am I guilty of? how so?) and why it is you belittle my right to have a concern, and voice it. A F K When Needed 17:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's recap:
 * You initiated this discussion, by writing on my talk page. There, you used phases such as "outright[ly] confrontational", "force other users" & "unjustified". Your comments were not invited, but I nonetheless responded cordially. From the start, I've avoided discussing the subject you have raised, unless & until you answer my one question. I feel my Qn. is perfectly reasonable, yet you said you're unable or unwilling to reply to it. Is that a sound basis for starting discussion?
 * You continue - without answering my 1 Qn. - to offer me further pearls of wisdom & ask me further qns.

Well, your inability to answer my Qn. makes me fearful of your own M.O., and I have to ask myself what your real answer might be. Given that your used id. (the one I'm now talking to) is not one previously familiar to me, then why would you choose to pass judgment on me, or start such a dsicussion? One possible explanation (pardon my musings, but if you don't give an answer then reader(s) may reach their own conclusions) is that this may be a new a/c of yours? I note that you have spurned your first opportunity to deny such a possibility.

I believe in a level playing field, so, for my part, let me assure you that this is my only account - and indeed the only one I have ever had - my archives would attest to that being the case. In all good discussions, it may be a show-stopper if one party declines to answer a reasonable Qn.. Further discussion time may be unwisely spent, I feel, unless one party is trolling - but I know that some of your work is well above such a level.

However, you've posed some qns. & for now I choose to answer them. Here goes.


 * "Can I take that as an out-right accusation of policy [infraction]?": no, but please take this opportunity to explain on whose behalf you've started this discussion - if not your own but by another name.


 * "... why you've suddenly become so hostile": My stance has in some ways remained constant - from the outset I wanted you to answer my Qn.. Hostility is an emotional term - I accept that I found your reticence at my Qn. inconsiderate. IF you have offended me - & you were quick to assume you had - it's mainly because you started a conversation but wanted to play by your own rules.


 * What was the alternative? Approaching an Administrator with an assortment of links ...?": If you think I have behaved poorly against one user, then perhaps I'm open to putting my own case to you. Would you care to nominate such a user - and only one? I have a pretty clear conscience.
 * "You refer [I assume you meant prefer] to learn, and you refuse to improve.": one might level such comments at people who - unlike you & I - refuse to use any ESs.
 * "You ... merely attack my right to hold and express an opinion.": Really? I value free speech, I accept your right to your opinion, and your perceived reasons for having your concern(s), and you're quite entitled to hold and - with due consideration - express such.


 * I'll be unable to help by merely discussing things with you, sadly.": I haven't asked you for your 'help'. Discussion involves answering questions - unlike preaching.


 * "I would indeed welcome a response on the points I have raised ...": a fine sentiment - you could start the ball rolling by answering my one question.
 * "[How have I] challenged your ability to assume good faith?": Clearly, by starting a discussion with criticism, but then being unwilling to answer my one question.

A couple of further points: you seem to use the 'minor' flag for nearly all your edits - with respect, I feel you may be overusing it. Your last edit to this section contained a very long ES - some may prefer to see such commentary in the body of the edit.

Trafford09 (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I in fact meant to say 'refuse'; that has been changed in this edit. It was a reference to how multiple people have raised the same point with you, with no lasting [or indeed, any] impression evident. Apologies for being hurried in my rephrasing of the end; but my time for the project is more limited than ever due to exams.


 * The value of edit summaries varies from person to person. I, for one, consider them next to meaningless; truly a token gesture. If I see an I.P. remove half a page in an edit I won't be reassured by an innocent sounding edit summary. If an edit is suspect, the best action is always to take the time to look at what was actually done. I am unsure of the effectiveness of those who patrol edits but take probable vandals at their word. I can only assume that others who don't make use of them, likewise see them as not worth the time and effort. While I generally at least consider one while in the process of the actual edit out of respect for the view of others, I also expect my own view to be met with the same respect. It seems to me that you fail to respect the view of myself and others who don't view the tool as significantly helpful. To demand we use something we see as useless — for the sake of your own personal preference, and nothing more — frankly comes across as bordering [heavily] on ignorance. I don't mean to offend you, but until you reply to this section I will have difficulty in believing you pay as much respect to others as you expect them to pay to you, in this regard.


 * Your last edit walks a fine line; you refuse to accuse me of using a sock puppet, yet you all but demand that I state whether or not I do. I don't accept the view that my actions are so negative, clearly filled with bias and malice that such a believe is reasonable. Until I look back on my contributions and think otherwise — or am outright accused of it — I consider it to be a non-issue. Out of the untold millions at work on Wikipedia, one person has mentioned it... and even fewer [none] have accused me of it. "Is that a sound basis for starting discussion?" -- I don't see how who I am or why I'm here is in any way relevant. As I have stated previously, two users having no past interactions to bias them was a factor I had hoped would be beneficial. I certainly don't see how the opposite is true; yet you appear to imply that is the case.


 * Speaking of your last edit, I would have thought it somewhat obvious that I approached you after speaking with another. To go to the hassle of creating a new identity - only to restart old discussions using a new account - is so pointless as to be exceptionally unlikely. Your question, forgive me, seems rather obviously an attempt to break the confidence in which that person came to me in. I find it unfair you repeatedly paint me as the bad guy, in the same breath with which you encourage me to do such a thing. As for playing by my own rules... to abide by a vow of silence is proof of morals; not the lack of same. I find such a comment to be unfair and unreasonable. That I keep my silence and thus prove my word is far from meaningless should somehow challenge your ability to assume the best of me / my intentions, is something I fail to understand. How could you reasonably assume the best of someone who states they will keep the identity of someone anonymous, only to break that promise at the first opportunity?


 * You view ESes as helpful. Others do not. They do not bother you for using them. Why bother them for not doing so? To each their own; live and let live. Truly, tolerance is a virtue. A F K When Needed 18:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

AFK, when you presented yourself and your views on my talk page, I wondered why you felt you were qualified to do so. Thank you for now offering an explanation as to why you are acting as an interlocutor for person or persons unnamed - I may refer to them as 'your friend'. I must accept that you nonetheless feel a pressing need, whilst you're not directly involved, have time issues with your forthcoming exams, and know that months that have elapsed since any event to which you are referring.

As you acknowledged in your earliest talk with me, I "appear to be unusually open to discussion". That being the case, did you suggest to your friend that they might wish to put their own case to me directly? Of course, they are very welcome still to do so, at any juncture, and I always try to engage with fellow editors - indeed as I am doing now - even if I may occasionally disagree with them on some issue.

But, if you feel some intervention by a 'third party' such as yourself may help, that's fine by me - although as I say, my conscience is pretty clear, and if I were to know your friend's Id or IP at the time of the old event, it would assist our discussion - maybe even to your friend's advantage. You have just now said that you don't want to break your friend's confidence. Well, naturally I understand that and am sympathetic to the constraints which that would place on you. I'm happy to discuss my views on ESs and any perceived concerns you or 'your friend' may have on the issue, even though your a/c here makes good use of ESs of course.

One of your userboxes states that you want to be peoples' internet friend. That being so, I have to say I found your initial contact less friendly than it might have been. Indeed it acknowledged that it might be felt aggravating - a poor start to friendship. Another of your userboxes states you're a teenager, so I put some of your tone down to the confidence & self-righteousness of youth. May I suggest we should not assume we have the moral high ground, nor talk as though 'we know best', but instead have a polite discussion on an equal footing.

Now, your basic stance re ESs - as I see it - is that they are entirely optional - just as say the colour of one's signature. However, you do concede that some users value ESs, and your a/c provides good ES coverage.

But I have to disagree in some respects - and I'll explain my viewpoint piecemeal if you'll permit me - as I could envisage you'd wish to intervene before I went too far in my arguments, and I want to encourage your input to such a debate.

Whilst technically ESs may be defined as purely optional, Wikipedia (WP) does however a stated preference FOR using ESs. WP describes them as helpful. One wouldn't expect all editors to be helpful all the time. However, as a general rule helpful editing is rewarded - many of us of course like to applaud good work where we see it. Conversely, if an editor is hardly ever helpful, WP has standard TW messages etc. to politely notify them of better practise.

Such is the case, I believe, with the standard polite TW message: Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to WWW. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.

Such messages hopefully spur greater thought on the part of the editor reading them, and encourage them to be more helpful - or indeed to argue their own case for not doing so - free speech is greatly encouraged.

This is I think a good place to pause & see if you have problems with what I've said here so far. Over to you, & I'll resume later. Trafford09 (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Well, naturally I understand that and am sympathetic to the constraints which that would place on you." — I sincerely appreciate that, thank you.


 * "That being so, I have to say I found your initial contact less friendly than it might have been." — I made a genuine effort to tick all the boxes. I was raising what I consider to be a rather important issue, and I was also aware that others had mentioned it before. It can be hard, in such a position, to be particularly friendly while also trying to get across the importance you attach to the issue.


 * "Indeed it acknowledged that it might be felt aggravating" — It also apologized for the risk of same.


 * "nor talk as though 'we know best'" — My main concern is not that you give those who do not make frequent use of Edit Summaries a template on their talk page; it is what happens when the user both fails to respond and fails to respond to said template. It is not hugely unusual not respond to a template, and it is also not mandated by policy that you must make use of Edit Summaries. You have in the past - in my opinion - gotten aggressive and acted inappropriately in such a situation.


 * "However, you do concede that some users value ESs" — I certainly did not think of that as a concession. I do not view myself as obligated to meet the standards of every other editor on the wiki; nor shall I ever try. I do what I consider reasonable while attempting to respect those around me; I've always held that doing so should be enough 9 / 10 times.


 * "your a/c provides good ES coverage" — I appreciate your repeated mentioning of this; as I hope it puts my view in context, and may even help me seem slightly more reasonable as a result. It's even part of my own point of argument - those who consider it optional (me) can, and sometimes will, do so out of respect for others. I'll be blunt and say, so long as the opinion of those who choose not to use it are not respected, my interest in using them decreases exponentially.


 * "which you forgot to do" (quote from TW) — I've always considered this to be inappropriate. In the interest of assuming good faith, it suggests something about the user which may or may not be true. I dislike this greatly, and I plan on having it changed during the summer. If you wish I shall notify you when I do so.


 * "Whilst technically ESs may be defined as purely optional" — forgive me, but this makes me think of the phrase "peacock term". Either it is the case, or it is not. I see nothing technical about it. So long as something is not mandated by policy, giving anything more than one notification about the preference of others is inappropriate. More than one message is attempting to force behaviour which is not obligated - which should be an out-right violation of policy itself, if it is not one already. As you can see, I do feel quite strongly on this topic.


 * "if you'll permit me" — By all means, certainly.


 * I apologize for my delay in responding; my health has suffered greatly recently, and I did wish to put sufficient thought into my response to you. A F K When Needed 17:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Thank you for your points. Also, I note that the distrust between ourselves has dropped, and with it the tone of our talk - no recent mentions of hostility, attacks, accusations etc.. Thank you for your part in that, and I hope to play my full part in the ongoing constructive discussion. Sorry to hear your health is poor. Your speedy recovery is higher in my thoughts than WP & certainly higher than the promptness of your replies.

Whilst we acknowledge the other has perhaps strong but differing feelings re ESs etc., I am sure that - as in most potential disputes - the editors are essentially on the same side in the bigger picture. All want a better WP, for everybody's benefit, and we discuss merely the best way (& there may be 'equal' best ways) of achieving that. I expect you concur with such broad sentiments.

Before I resume my piecemeal analysis of how I may have conducted myself with the unnamed editor - the one with whom you say you have spoken - may I reiterate or elaborate on a couple of things. I have always been happy to discuss any matter a fellow editor cares to raise with me or reply to me about. I aim always to encourage discussion. I would urge your friend - or any other editor - to contact me directly, and they will have a full response. I'd go so far as to say that - should your friend or any editor still feel aggrieved at me, please would they let me know. I'll review my conduct with them, be happy to discuss it, and we can see if any or all parties can learn from it. And yes, if I feel I could have dealt with them better, I'll admit so and apologise accordingly for my part, should I feel that such is the case. With any editor, I first wp:AGF, but if I get no response or the response is non-AGF, I feel I should reserve the right to be assertive if necessary - I like to think that I am a non-aggressive person, and that aggression is a poor way to improve WP.

Now, I spoke last time about a scenario (I have to be vague, as you have not said who the editor is) where I may have posted a single std. TW message re ESs on that editor's talk page. I paused with you, at that point, to see if you had any problems thus far. You permitted this piecemeal pause. Whilst you commented about "more than one message" and offered your views on the latter, you said you had no problems with said single TW msg. being posted - fine so far, then - good to hear that.

Now it gets more complicated as, not knowing the editor's a/c, one has to guess at their response if any to the TW msg..

A good response would be where they were prepared to discuss the msg. - after all, TW says ESs are helpful & it gives reasons why. If an editor wants to say why they they choose not to be helpful, I'm more than happy to discuss that with them.

Another good if not better response would be where the editor chose to take TW's advice, and be (more) helpful wrt ESs. I would essentially be pleased, and feel no further cause to engage with the editor.

If the TW msg. was totally ignored, then - as in any case - the initiating editor (me) could simply walk away. On the other hand, they might (as I guess I would) assert their right - perhaps even responsibility as an editor who wants to see WP improved - to further support WP's preference for ESs. Would your preference be the first option - revert to the easy life & always walk away?

Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words.


 * Yes I do agree with your second point (first "on-topic" point, if you will, should you desire the clarification).


 * My preference? This rather ties in with your point regarding how we both wish to improve Wikipedia in different ways; I think I should first expand on my position. I don't view Edit Summaries as helpful outside the scenario of people going through the history of an article looking for a specific edit. It's a scenario I expect to be rare. The less common a scenario, the less I will prepare for it (of course there are other factors, but that is one of them). I've inferred from what you have said previously that you use it as a tool to filter edits when looking for vandalism; I don't trust people not to just mark something as a minor edit and throw in 'rephrasing paragraph' into the field when in fact doing something malicious.


 * My point? I find it a tool of exceptionally weak importance, as I've alluded to in past messages. I suppose my preference would be for everyone to make casual usage of it; but it's not a vision I'm willing to fight for. I feel that any effort spent on someone who is reluctant to make use of Edit Summaries is effort wasted, time wasted, and — worst of all — potentially creating bad will; which most certainly is unnecessary. One message is fine. If a user ignores it, that is their right. If a user continues to leave the Edit Summary field blank, that is their right. Stated preference or not, they're in violation of nothing. I have a serious problem with the repeated templating some people impose upon them.


 * I'll be honest and say, had someone attempted to impose Edit Summaries on me, I would not be the frequent user of them that I turned out to be. I don't agree that they are significantly helpful, so to force me to use them would be to force the opinion / preference of others on myself. I have a problem with that.


 * Your last message was exceptionally well thought-out, just wanted to say so. A F K When Needed 16:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My turn to thank you for the kind words. Apols. for the delay.

I picked up some points you made.

Different people hold different views of the desirability of ESs - some may even see them as an entirely useless facility which should thus be removed. But, overriding any individual preference is consensus, which tells us that they are helpful, and WP encourages all of us to use them.

Yes, ESs may be misused e.g. by vandals, but if they insert misleading ESs, they soon lose their AGF and are spotted for what they are. One downside (indeed - any no.) doesn't override consensus.

I spoke about the situation where an editor used no ESs, and appeared not to read a std. TW msg.. I invited you to state what you would then do - walk away or try again. Your reply stated what you wouldn't do (repeated templating - but I hadn't got that far in the scenario yet), yet didn't state what you would do. Please could you answer that question?

You referred to 'attempting to impose ESs' - well again, our scenario hadn't reached such a point (& I agree that imposing is neither desirable nor indeed possible).

Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If I knew a user was aware of the tool — and particularly, but not only, if they knew there was a preference for it being used by some members of the community — then I would leave them alone after my first message; unless they responded inviting further discussion. I don't agree with multiple templates, just as I similarly dislike repeated messages in general. It's on their talk page; they've read the message and gotten the point.


 * I'm not inane enough to suggest two messages is harassment, but I do believe that multiple messages borders on harassment. They've no obligation to heed the message or change their editing style. If they choose to ignore the first message it should be respected, and accepted.


 * There's a reason two reasons I'm highly dismissive of the preference; 1) Those who want something are always more vocal on the matter than the majority who don't care / dislike it. 2) It's never made it to being a policy - which reinforces #1.


 * I've every respect for those who value Edit Summaries. I respect their opinion. I respect their right to use the tool, as I respect to have my own valid, reasonable, good-faith views to be respected in kind. Multiple messages is not respecting the other person's wish - and right - not to discuss Edit Summaries. It's not respecting their preference to avoid using the tool. It is borderline aggressive. I find it offensive. A F K When Needed 14:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope this is a constructive discussion between 2 people keen to improve WP.

I still feel that you haven't answered my question; you refer only to a situation where you "knew a user was aware of the tool". But in the scenario I described, I specifically referred to where an editor "appeared not to read a std. TW msg.". In other words, one cannot know that they are aware of anything. You also said that "they've read the message and gotten the point". Well, again, in the scenario I described, there is no evidence to support either of the assumptions that are implicit in your last quote.

You leave me to guess what your course of action would be, in such a scenario. Do I take it you would walk away, rather than try something else? I'm not talking (yet - you said I was allowed a piecemeal defence) about multiple templates.

When you say you are "highly dismissive of the preference", do you mean you doubt whether consensus prefers the use of ESs? If so, I would argue strongly against your assertion. Trafford09 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh - I forgot about the point you raised in your ES: "If someone ignores your message; it is their right to do so. It is most certainly not your right to force the issue by repeatedly bringing it up. Particularly with the section header being the month of the year - that is most ignorant imo)".

(It's easy to overlook a paragraph in an ES - prob. better - for various reasons - to put the point(s) into the body of the talk page, and just use say 'cmt' as the ES.)

So - about the e.g. "April 2011" section header. Have you used TW yourself? Didn't you know it generates such a heading automatically, with any std. msg.? If I create a header myself, I do try to be more imaginative. Trafford09 (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "I hope this is a constructive discussion between 2 people keen to improve WP." — Indeed it is. Again; I believe something done in good faith can be damaging and not worth the trouble it causes. You have, as far as I can see, yet to fully accept that point, though I have raised it before. I do hope that's not another jibe. Disagreeing with you - and feeling as strongly on the matter as you yourself appear to - is not due course to begin deciding if AGF no longer applies. I'm abiding by that policy myself; I'm clarifying to avoid confusion while also assuming such clarification is unnecessary.


 * "you refer only to a situation where you "knew a user was aware of the tool"." — After you message them - particularly if using the standard Twinkle message which even links to Help:Edit summary - they are aware of Edit Summaries.


 * "there is no evidence to support either of the assumptions that are implicit in your last quote" — It is on their talk page. I know of nobody who disregards the orange banner; neither do I know of anyone who is unsure of what it means. The chance of someone not having read the message is tiny. Some people like to discuss things; others don't. If you showed up on my talk page with that standard Twinkle message, I would read it. I would not respond. I would be offended if you came back later rehashing the same point you made the last time. A lot of messages on talk pages never get a response. Again I say: The user is neither obligated to respond nor comply with your wishes. You don't seem to find this end-result to be acceptable. Forgive me, but it's really not your place to decide that. You can be quite hostile, intentionally or not, and it is with regret I become so myself in an attempt to get my point across (since you, unlike the hypothetical user, have expressed some interest in discussing it).


 * "Do I take it you would walk away, rather than try something else?" — Yes. I've said every time - and will continue to do so - one message is enough. Additional messages are somewhere between unnecessary and excessive.


 * "do you mean you doubt whether consensus prefers the use of ESs" — I doubt that the vast majority of people editing Wikipedia could care less if I edit an article and don't use an Edit Summary. I doubt if they'd be particularly bothered if I never once used a single one. My stance on the matter is that, of the people with such a preference, we have no way of knowing who considers it worth the time, effort and possible consequences of messaging those who don't use them. Of the ones who think one message is reasonable, we've no way of knowing who would attempt to justify two messages. Three messages. Where does it end? At what point does the majority you invoke (as is regretfully a tad overdone online) cease to be on your side? Have you considered this? The point being you're seemingly black and white in your stance of "there is a preference"; I don't believe that extends to repeatedly messaging people the same point; again and again. Once is enough.


 * "If so, I would argue strongly against your assertion." — All facts and figures are most welcome. You've as much right to an opinion as I do myself; and yours is every bit as valid and respected as my own. However, if you wish to invoke a silent majority on your side, it is up to you to back that up; should you wish it to be considered seriously. Saying "I believe" is not enough.


 * "Have you used TW yourself? Didn't you know it generates such a heading automatically, with any std. msg.?" — I have used it extensively. I use it where I believe it is beneficial; and only so. If you consider the automatic section header to be undesirable, might I suggest thus not making use of the feature that implements it? Manual messages are still quite possible and far more effective, or at least is more customizable.


 * If I may say so, I believe you have difficulty in coming to terms with the fact I feel as strongly on this issue as you do. We all have our little preferences. I don't demand you abide by mine; I accept you as you are and respect you.


 * I am only presently arguing that multiple messages is unwarranted. That is not to say I believe one is. I have every intention of taking it to the Twinkle community at large before the close of 2011 and arguing my point with them. A F K When Needed 17:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mohammed Nabbous
As you have seen, Mohammed Nabbous, this amazing and unique young Libyan, was killed yesterday while recording events in or around Benghazi. Many people are asking where they can find the best links to understand who he was. Can we use Wikipedia to build such a page, including MANY embedded multi-media files (sound and video) or should we do it somewhere else and link to it? Many of us are convinced that Mo, as he was known, will have great historical significance, since he drastically advanced the concept of citizen journalism.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosherfrog (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Mujahid Kamran
[Edited slightly to make different topics discussed by different people be in different sections. A F K When Needed 15:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)] Whatever references were missing from the Wikipedia article have now been added. Please do not edit it again. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.52.154.118 (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I will edit Wikipedia as I see fit in accordance with both the letter - but particularly the spirit - of the policies. A F K When Needed 15:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)