User talk:Burham/Archive 11

re: Silesia
First point to consider: tables are bad style, and are discouraged from introduction by Manual of Style. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not found any prohibitions or "bad style" indication regarding tables. Could enlighten me? Any way thank you for your writings.--Burham (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I can't find a specific policy, I asked about this here. At the very least I can't recall any article which has a table in lead. Can you find any examples? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I found one, but probably it is not what you would expect. It is in lead to article 'Table' :). But I will search further. Take for consideration the word 'pervasive' in this article. I learn to use table in my works also very early, since they are 'pervasive'. In complicated info it make subject clear and easy to remember. --Burham (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Most important I would see many tables used presently on side of, for example zoological articles. They provide info in systematic method aside of lead instead in text. It is very handy feature(example: Lizard or Cat etc.

The article without subsection, only lead is: Table of Ranks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Ranks

1988 Summer Olympics medal table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Summer_Olympics_medal_table 1964 Summer Olympics medal table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Summer_Olympics_medal_table 1952 Summer Olympics medal table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Summer_Olympics_medal_table 1924 Summer Olympics medal table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Summer_Olympics_medal_table

Other kind of tables in lead: Multiplication table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_table This tables I found side of lead in form of picture format, since it was easier to do so instead retyping its. For example: Group (periodic table): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(periodic_table)

It is also very fast as a redirector and in lead as itself:. The copy is all over the anatomy articles body parts. The same way it can be used quickly in history time table if related to geographic regions.

To be continued below--Burham (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Template is also a form of table, althought specificly once for ever designed to be use in smaller variations. It is very popular to use. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intellectual/social/spiritual/artistic_reference_tables

List of production battery electric vehicles (table): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_production_battery_electric_vehicles_(table) almost exclusively table. Please note how easy go to point of issue.

Table of modes of mechanical ventilation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_modes_of_mechanical_ventilation Next good example.

Chevrolet small-block engine table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_small-block_engine_table same sort, technical, very informative leading from lead to a point of interest.

Matthew Passion/NBA BWV table in lead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Passion/NBA_BWV_table

Table of political parties in Europe by pancontinental organisation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_political_parties_in_Europe_by_pancontinental_organisation Very good example for my conviction in history/politic field

And finaly I am not obstinate to put the tablein lead. For me it can be subtitle just after the lead. Sombody who prefer text can read the text, if will prefere the transcript in form of tabele can go just one line below. Such example, translate in to table is much more often than table in lead. I see only POV dilike with the pushing out the historic timetable in article Silesia

If I did not convinced you yet, I will continue my search. I am sure I can found many others exemples. Best regards, --Burham (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It stands to reason that articles about tables may have tables in the lead. Also, you may be confusing onfoboxes with tables, see WP:INFOBOX. Note that here another editor agreed with me, saying it's "common sense" not to use tables in the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thus I understand that, although 1) there is no prohibitions regarding using tables in lead, 2) I show you that there exists many table types in lead, You figure out it is "common sense" not to use table in lead. Well I do not understand the so call "common sense". Any way thank you for exchange opinions. I will do what I consider the best for the reader - it mean clarifies the true, and expose blur demands and magnification nationalistic believes.--Burham (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucracy
Template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Forms_of_government#Bureaucracy

ProTime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prototime#Template:Forms_of_government

Your information should not go in the lead. Please see Manual of Style/Lead section Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your info not in the lead. Why?
Let me know why you think this information can not go to the lead. I see no reason. --Burham (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Your edit does not fit within this policy. CheersJim1138 (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It is what I would do. The definition of Bureaucracy would be: Bureaucracy - government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bureaucracy. with the addition: More recent theories have stressed the role of managerial cliques, occupational interest groups, or individual power-seekers in creating politicized organizations characterized by internal conflict.

This is a clear definition which differ ADMINISTRATION, as executive branch only, from illegal seize of political power by government non-elected officers i.e. 'Bureaucracy'. If you agree with the simplified above definition we can re-edit the lead. However because a few admires of the bureaucratic underworld I added several citation there. I will appreciate for you help with setting up a short lead plus supporting subsection, but if you do not want help me let me keep conversation with opponents on base of their own arguments. They needed this links to stop contradicting the pejorative meaning of word ‘Bureaucracy’--Burham (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Dukeofwulf - conversation
In response to your protests to my undo on Bureaucracy, please see the definition of the word. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bureaucracy?s=t

Pejorative meanings begin at the third definition. The word is sometimes, but not always, used pejoratively. As such, my opinion is that this description belongs in the body of the article, not in the header. If you insist that this is relevant to the introduction of the article, at least make the text relevant to general usage, not a particular person's observations. As it stands, your text IS NOT SUITABLE for an inclusion in an introduction.Dukeofwulf (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You are clearly not a native speaker, as I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say to me. You're right that I'm not an experienced Wiki editor, but I'm reassured that my point is correct since another editor reverted your change after you undid mine.

"Petty" is not favorable, but it is not pejorative. It simply means lower ranking. Such positions are necessary in a bureaucratic hierarchy.

I don't intend to argue this point with you further, but I do not concede.Dukeofwulf (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dukeofwulf, I see no of you contribution to Bureaucracy article until today. I think you are unfamiliar with the subject. Bureaucracy is in total pejorative word. Plese consider information and read the talk at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Forms_of_government topic 'Bureaucracy' for understanding why the word Bureaucracy is totaly pejorative and can not be mix with word 'Administration'.--Burham (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Seems to me we all do some mistakes. The ling I wanted to direct you was: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bureaucracy It start in first meaning: 1) "government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials." PETTY is not favorable word. Also the references which you removed are in main/first body of the Concise Encyclopedia cited by http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bureaucracy. Merrian-webster provided his own definitions, although giving also others like Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology. This is more specific to politics/sociology reference following newest trends and more authoritative definitions in the field than Webster.

From you edition on my front page I see you are not experienced Wikipedia editor. Regularly, and I think also principally you leave message for other editor on Talk page not on front one. If you would move you note yourself in preferable for you position I will appreciate for that. I want to do with you agreement and preference, although I could do it myself, and offend no of editor rules.--Burham (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I also encourage you to read the history of the word provided by me at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Forms_of_government topic 'Bureaucracy' The word was created as pejorative and only people who dislike this attempt to switch the original meaning. Please consider that ADMINISTRATION is exclusively executive branch of government thus will be named as Administration as long as will serve the legislation provided by democratically elected parliament. However if the people will serve their own business and comfort will be call BUREAUCRACY, unfortunately it is, so as possible employ of government administration you should be aware that you work is to serve the best for the society and country following strictly rules setup  by an democratic government. Honestly, if you consider that many democratically elected governments often betray the interest of society and nation for private interests I would not be happy in government office as conscious citizen.--Burham (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

>I'm reassured that my point is correct since another editor reverted your change after you undid mine.
 * Well following the others without considering the facts, and assuming that you doing correct is not good think. Is it? History knows many events when single person was right, and only by the reason that the individual followed the logic.

>Petty" is not favorable, but it is not pejorative. It simply means lower ranking. Such positions are necessary in a bureaucratic hierarchy.
 * You see I did not wanted to use aggressive words, In this definition: government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials. It is very pejorative. Petty officials or even administrators has completely no legal rights to govern. Govern is not absolutely their rule. Govern by executive branch is usurpation and crime.

> I don't intend to argue this point with you further, but I do not concede
 * Dear Sir, you need not concede. This is not election. It is scientific work. Only facts are counted. Beside, if somebody is very obstinate with his POV without reasons he becomes destructive. It is not good for him or anybody in fact. Is it? --Burham (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Silesia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Suggestion: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Jim1138 (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Show me rather that the consensus had been made on the base of Wikipedia rules and PARTICULARY what in this consensus is so logical that should sustain. Do not accuse me for obstinacy at illogical point of view. We will disagree with a point I will enter my arguments, you will enter yours. The reader will judge which the valid one is. WHY deprive reader valuable resources of information? Hmm... It is not ethical to kill FREEDOM of INFORMATION. Look somewhat like Communist censorship! I do not have license for only true, as well as you do not. Also, if majority has one opinion does not it mean it does not mean it is the CORRECT one. Only by freedom of speech the true goes up for the benefit of all.--Burham (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Mediran talk to me! 01:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ckatz chat spy  10:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

re: Silesia
First point to consider: tables are bad style, and are discouraged from introduction by Manual of Style. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not found any prohibitions or "bad style" indication regarding tables. Could enlighten me? Any way thank you for your writings.--Burham (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I can't find a specific policy, I asked about this here. At the very least I can't recall any article which has a table in lead. Can you find any examples? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I found one, but probably it is not what you would expect. It is in lead to article 'Table' :). But I will search further. Take for consideration the word 'pervasive' in this article. I learn to use table in my works also very early, since they are 'pervasive'. In complicated info it make subject clear and easy to remember. --Burham (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Most important I would see many tables used presently on side of, for example zoological articles. They provide info in systematic method aside of lead instead in text. It is very handy feature(example: Lizard or Cat etc.

The article without subsection, only lead is: Table of Ranks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Ranks

1988 Summer Olympics medal table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Summer_Olympics_medal_table 1964 Summer Olympics medal table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Summer_Olympics_medal_table 1952 Summer Olympics medal table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Summer_Olympics_medal_table 1924 Summer Olympics medal table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Summer_Olympics_medal_table

Other kind of tables in lead: Multiplication table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_table This tables I found side of lead in form of picture format, since it was easier to do so instead retyping its. For example: Group (periodic table): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_(periodic_table)

It is also very fast as a redirector and in lead as itself:. The copy is all over the anatomy articles body parts. The same way it can be used quickly in history time table if related to geographic regions.

To be continued below--Burham (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Template is also a form of table, althought specificly once for ever designed to be use in smaller variations. It is very popular to use. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intellectual/social/spiritual/artistic_reference_tables

List of production battery electric vehicles (table): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_production_battery_electric_vehicles_(table) almost exclusively table. Please note how easy go to point of issue.

Table of modes of mechanical ventilation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_modes_of_mechanical_ventilation Next good example.

Chevrolet small-block engine table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_small-block_engine_table same sort, technical, very informative leading from lead to a point of interest.

Matthew Passion/NBA BWV table in lead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Passion/NBA_BWV_table

Table of political parties in Europe by pancontinental organisation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_political_parties_in_Europe_by_pancontinental_organisation Very good example for my conviction in history/politic field

And finaly I am not obstinate to put the tablein lead. For me it can be subtitle just after the lead. Sombody who prefer text can read the text, if will prefere the transcript in form of tabele can go just one line below. Such example, translate in to table is much more often than table in lead. I see only POV dilike with the pushing out the historic timetable in article Silesia

If I did not convinced you yet, I will continue my search. I am sure I can found many others exemples. Best regards, --Burham (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It stands to reason that articles about tables may have tables in the lead. Also, you may be confusing onfoboxes with tables, see WP:INFOBOX. Note that here another editor agreed with me, saying it's "common sense" not to use tables in the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thus I understand that, although 1) there is no prohibitions regarding using tables in lead, 2) I show you that there exists many table types in lead, You figure out it is "common sense" not to use table in lead. Well I do not understand the so call "common sense". Any way thank you for exchange opinions. I will do what I consider the best for the reader - it mean clarifies the true, and expose blur demands and magnification nationalistic believes.--Burham (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucracy
Template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Forms_of_government#Bureaucracy

ProTime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Prototime#Template:Forms_of_government

Your information should not go in the lead. Please see Manual of Style/Lead section Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your info not in the lead. Why?
Let me know why you think this information can not go to the lead. I see no reason. --Burham (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Your edit does not fit within this policy. CheersJim1138 (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It is what I would do. The definition of Bureaucracy would be: Bureaucracy - government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bureaucracy. with the addition: More recent theories have stressed the role of managerial cliques, occupational interest groups, or individual power-seekers in creating politicized organizations characterized by internal conflict.

This is a clear definition which differ ADMINISTRATION, as executive branch only, from illegal seize of political power by government non-elected officers i.e. 'Bureaucracy'. If you agree with the simplified above definition we can re-edit the lead. However because a few admires of the bureaucratic underworld I added several citation there. I will appreciate for you help with setting up a short lead plus supporting subsection, but if you do not want help me let me keep conversation with opponents on base of their own arguments. They needed this links to stop contradicting the pejorative meaning of word ‘Bureaucracy’--Burham (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Dukeofwulf - conversation
In response to your protests to my undo on Bureaucracy, please see the definition of the word. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bureaucracy?s=t

Pejorative meanings begin at the third definition. The word is sometimes, but not always, used pejoratively. As such, my opinion is that this description belongs in the body of the article, not in the header. If you insist that this is relevant to the introduction of the article, at least make the text relevant to general usage, not a particular person's observations. As it stands, your text IS NOT SUITABLE for an inclusion in an introduction.Dukeofwulf (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You are clearly not a native speaker, as I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say to me. You're right that I'm not an experienced Wiki editor, but I'm reassured that my point is correct since another editor reverted your change after you undid mine.

"Petty" is not favorable, but it is not pejorative. It simply means lower ranking. Such positions are necessary in a bureaucratic hierarchy.

I don't intend to argue this point with you further, but I do not concede.Dukeofwulf (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dukeofwulf, I see no of you contribution to Bureaucracy article until today. I think you are unfamiliar with the subject. Bureaucracy is in total pejorative word. Plese consider information and read the talk at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Forms_of_government topic 'Bureaucracy' for understanding why the word Bureaucracy is totaly pejorative and can not be mix with word 'Administration'.--Burham (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Seems to me we all do some mistakes. The ling I wanted to direct you was: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bureaucracy It start in first meaning: 1) "government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials." PETTY is not favorable word. Also the references which you removed are in main/first body of the Concise Encyclopedia cited by http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bureaucracy. Merrian-webster provided his own definitions, although giving also others like Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology. This is more specific to politics/sociology reference following newest trends and more authoritative definitions in the field than Webster.

From you edition on my front page I see you are not experienced Wikipedia editor. Regularly, and I think also principally you leave message for other editor on Talk page not on front one. If you would move you note yourself in preferable for you position I will appreciate for that. I want to do with you agreement and preference, although I could do it myself, and offend no of editor rules.--Burham (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I also encourage you to read the history of the word provided by me at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Forms_of_government topic 'Bureaucracy' The word was created as pejorative and only people who dislike this attempt to switch the original meaning. Please consider that ADMINISTRATION is exclusively executive branch of government thus will be named as Administration as long as will serve the legislation provided by democratically elected parliament. However if the people will serve their own business and comfort will be call BUREAUCRACY, unfortunately it is, so as possible employ of government administration you should be aware that you work is to serve the best for the society and country following strictly rules setup  by an democratic government. Honestly, if you consider that many democratically elected governments often betray the interest of society and nation for private interests I would not be happy in government office as conscious citizen.--Burham (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

>I'm reassured that my point is correct since another editor reverted your change after you undid mine.
 * Well following the others without considering the facts, and assuming that you doing correct is not good think. Is it? History knows many events when single person was right, and only by the reason that the individual followed the logic.

>Petty" is not favorable, but it is not pejorative. It simply means lower ranking. Such positions are necessary in a bureaucratic hierarchy.
 * You see I did not wanted to use aggressive words, In this definition: government by many bureaus, administrators, and petty officials. It is very pejorative. Petty officials or even administrators has completely no legal rights to govern. Govern is not absolutely their rule. Govern by executive branch is usurpation and crime.

> I don't intend to argue this point with you further, but I do not concede
 * Dear Sir, you need not concede. This is not election. It is scientific work. Only facts are counted. Beside, if somebody is very obstinate with his POV without reasons he becomes destructive. It is not good for him or anybody in fact. Is it? --Burham (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Silesia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Suggestion: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Jim1138 (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Show me rather that the consensus had been made on the base of Wikipedia rules and PARTICULARY what in this consensus is so logical that should sustain. Do not accuse me for obstinacy at illogical point of view. We will disagree with a point I will enter my arguments, you will enter yours. The reader will judge which the valid one is. WHY deprive reader valuable resources of information? Hmm... It is not ethical to kill FREEDOM of INFORMATION. Look somewhat like Communist censorship! I do not have license for only true, as well as you do not. Also, if majority has one opinion does not it mean it does not mean it is the CORRECT one. Only by freedom of speech the true goes up for the benefit of all.--Burham (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)