User talk:Buster7/Archives/2008/October

The Primary Role of the Arbitration Committee

 * retrieved from Jimbo's talk page

Do you see the primary role of the Arbitration Committee as having a policing function in which breaches in policy are investigated and prosecuted; or primarily having a dispute resolution function where interpersonal disputes are investigated and appropriate remedies applied? Martintg (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see the primary role of the Arbitration Committee as having a dispute resolution function. However, I think that the ArbCom can and should take whatever actions are wise to ensure the smooth functioning of Wikipedia.  As a trusted group of users with deep experience, I think they can and should sometimes take on some investigative roles and enforcement roles.
 * In my experience, when people ask questions like yours, they are usually not so much asking about the general philosophical or constitutional question, but rather expressing a concern about a specific case. Did you have something in mind?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, my question was derived from a particular case, but it is more a question of principle rather than of concern. One particular participant claimed the primary role of the Arbcom is to establish if policy was breached, rather than investigate interpersonal disputes. This put some doubts in my mind, despite what Arbitration policy on scope says, hence the question here. Martintg (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Primarily, ArbCom deals with editor conduct problems, as opposed to content disputes. If user conduct policies are breached than sanctions might be given. Often interpersonal conflicts between two or more users are involved, but not always. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then Arbitration_policy needs an update from "The Committee will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes" to "The Committee will primarily investigate editor conduct problems". Martintg (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Silent sombrero
 Hello Buster7/Archives/2008, 夢草 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. --Yumegusa (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

strawman/edit warrior
Don't try to pull the soapbox strawman. I've expressed legitamate concerns with the reference being used. If i'm alone in consensus, fine, i'm not an edit warrior, check my record, but don't attack my motives.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

White Privilege

 * White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
 * White privilege is when you can call yourself a "f____n' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend\fiance does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their f____n' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot s__t" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

Concensus

 * From SP article;
 * As far as I can tell, in every case that someone has objected that the proposed passage violates a policy, either the passage was modified or it turned out that in fact the passage did not violate any policy. This is how we build consensus. So, please show us which sentence violates which policy in which way! If any such sentences still exist, we will either change them or delete them, but first you have to demonstrate that a specific sentence violates a specific policy in a specific way. If you cannot do this, then that means we have consensus to include the passage. Simply objecting, on no grounds, is an attempt to veto (which no wikipedia policy grants to anyone, not even the exalted Jimbo), not a lack of consensus! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A request;
 * When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.


 * Some more conversation;
 * I agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! I put back in a sentence that was removed because it was redundant. Since that time, the sentence that made my edit redundant (which I agree was problematic)has been removed. I have re-added my sentence, which no longer can be faulted for being redundant. It is necessary to explain why, after bringing up her religiosity at the RNC, she later denied being a Pentacostal - she was responding to concerns that had been voiced publicly, including in a report on Americas national public radio station. The sentence I added simply reports - accurately - why people had concerns and is precise about the nature of those concerns. Now the following sentence, in which she denies being a Pentacostalist, makes more sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have again removed it. Please do not add it back until we reach consensus in our discussion above. Fcreid (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You should not have removed it, since I addressed the objection given when it was removed. That is how consensus works: we discuss and address objections. You can't remove it without explaining exactly what policy it violates and how, and if you really believe in a consensus-building process, suggest ways that you could see it complying with policy. "Consensus" does not describe a situation where one editor has a veto over content; it describes a collaboration between editors trying to work together. The sentence expresses a notable view and has a verifiable source. If you object to the wording, how would you express this notable view that comes from this verifiable source? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty simple. If it omits the venue and the audience, it's wrong and POV. Both of those elements are equally reliably sourced. Discussion continued above. Fcreid (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Deus ex machina edits serve no one well, and serve NPOV quite poorly. Collect (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's it? Really? If you knew that, why did you delete it? Why didn't you simply add the venue and audience? Or don't you care about building consensus? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of that was frustration and the other part just me being an idiot on how to make all the links and such work. You're right. I shouldn't have removed it, but I thought I had already conveyed my additional concerns above which were summarily ignored. My apologies. Speaking of which, I'll see you up there, okay? Fcreid (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Youp, I just commented up there - anyway, I am pleased with Ferrylodge's changes and glad to see that it really is possible to use the idea of "consensus" as something that encourages people to collaborate and not just to antagonize. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

some more conversation;
In response to my support for "one little parenthetical to explain the nomenclature", Collect argued: "'One little parenthetical' is not the issue if you have been following the revision history of this section for the past three weeks." Well, actually, I wasn't trying to do a thorough historical analysis of the dispute. I was responding to what GreekParadise wrote, at the top of this particular thread, in response to Collect's denunciation of "adding 'Don Young's Way' to every mention" of the bridge. I was agreeing with GreekParadise's call for "at least a single mention". Assuming solely for the sake of the argument that the phrase "Don Young's Way" was used formally only in connection with the federal earmark, the fact is that many people have heard that term, and sources even into 2008 continue to use it. Therefore, our bridge discussion will be clearer to many readers if there's a parenthetical. Perhaps, instead of "Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young's Way)", the initial reference should be "Knik Arm Bridge (formerly Don Young's Way)" or "Knik Arm Bridge (designated in at least one bill as 'Don Young's Way')" or some such. If Ferrylodge is insistent that any mention of Young must be segregated from Palin, then we would have to get more elaborate: "Knik Arm Bridge. (In at least one federal bill voted on before Palin became governor, this bridge was designated as 'Don Young's Way'.)" I think that's more trouble than it's worth, even if the sources support so narrowly limiting the reference, which I'm not convinced they do. Ferrylodge gives this interpretation of consensus policy: "It means that info comes out of the BLP if there is not consensus to include it." That's not my understanding. The BLP policy states: "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." In the present case, there's no dispute that the term "Don Young's Way" has indeed been applied to this particular bridge. There's an editorial decision about whether to include it, but the process for making that decision is no different just because this is a BLP. The process is that editors are supposed to try to reach consensus. If we can't do so, I suppose we'll have to go to RfC on the point. The alternative interpretation would mean that anything in this article could be removed by one editor, or by whatever small number of editors is necessary to show the absence of consensus for inclusion, and the removal would be nonnegotiable and unappealable as long as Palin is alive. I don't think that's what BLP means. JamesMLane t c 06:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

more on consensus
The following (about consensus) followed slrubinsteins Wikipolicy essay
 * I pretty much agree with all that, but it seems incomplete. There are other important policies and guidelines.  For example, there's WP:Consensus, and WP:Summary style, and WP:Undue weight to name a few.  Just because some inserted material satisfies WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR does not mean that an editor can insist (repeatedly) on inserting it into an article.  And whether the material satisfies those policies should be determined not just by an individual editor but by consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, I certainly accept that other policies may apply. And I know you are acting in good faith with good intentions. But with all due respect, I think your message muddies the waters. First of all, "undue weight" is a subsection of NPOV. By my linking NPOV, I simultaneously included undue weight. The difference is, I made it clear that NPOV is the umbrella policy and "undue weight" is just a component of that policy and has to be interpreted in the context of the policy as a whole. You took it out of context which could mislead some people. Also, "Summary style" is not a policy. I was talking primarily about policies. Summary style is a guideline and it may be useful to editors but it does not have the force of a policy. Finally, I agree with you about consensus, but the consensus policy addresses a different issue than I was raising. My point was about what can go into articles. Consensus says nothing about what can or cannot go into articles. The consensus policy is about interpersonal behavior and process. The consensus policy is not about content; NPOV, V, and NOR are about content. It is NPOV, V, and NOR that determine what is acceptable and unacceptable content. The consensus policy lays out a process for resolving conflicts over content. But it does not establish principles for resolving the conflict. The principles remain NPOV, V and NOR. When editors get into a conflict, we should consult WP:CONSENSUS for ideas about how we can better work together. But before consensus-based editing, the first step to working together is agreeing to abide by the content policies, NPOV, NOR, and V. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "whether the material satisfies those policies should be determined not just by an individual editor but by consensus," but consensus does not mean unanimity (according to the policy), it is a process of collaboration. And to participate in this process everyone has to agree that "if content is a notable significant and verifiable view from a reliable source it will go in even if I do not like it," if they cannot say this, and mean it, they are not participating in a consensus process. And some people above have argued that content should not go in even if it is notable, verifiable, and from a reliable source. Those people are not participating in a consensus-building process. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

consensus, cont,
Let me take this opportunity to make a point. A very important point. A point that is abused time and time again. When is consensus met and who decides?. I only counted from where Carl established a starting point: a point where carl, wisely, said "Let's see where we stand"...and he asked....Should the election bios stay protected thru the election. It was at this point where editors started to make a defintive, declarative statement about their stand on the issue in question. In bold they said what they thought...or they replied within this section. My "straw poll" does not attempt to judge what an editor MAY mean in his/her comments prior to carl asking his question. THAT is when consensus evaluation should begin. Not before. Not during the discussion. Those editors that hinted at support or non-support should have made a definitive, definite, no-doubt-about-it statement in THIS section. If they did not respond to carl's question, I did not include them in my tally. In my experience unless a clear, decisive BOLDED statement is done consensus is elusive because it is never clear and visible to all. --Buster7 (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC) From protection AN/I....

WIKIpolicies
Wikipedia is growing all the time, and many new people are getting involved in this article- that's great! But it means that some people do not understand our policies, and it is clear from the past few days' discussion that we need to sort some things out.

Core policies at Wikipeida apply to all articles equally. In other words, we do not distinguish between different types of articles because some policies apply to some and some policies do not apply to some. It goes without saying that only material that is relevant should go into an article. Beyong that, our core policies are WP:NPOV which states that all notable significant views about a topic must be represented neutrally; WP:V which states that all notable significant views must also be verifiable. This does not mean that they have to be true or right or good. In fact, Wikipedia editors are encouraged to add views you think are false, wrong, or bad - as long as they are notable significant and verifiable, meaning there is evidence available to anyone that people actually hold this view. Closely related to WP:V is WP:RS, which states that views should come from reliable sources. Reliable does not mean true or right or good, it means well established. The New York Post, The Daily News, The Village Voice, The Wall Street Journal represent a wide range of views and it is likely that everyone has contempt for at least one of these newspapers, but they are all considered reliable sources about the news. Finally, WP:NOR, no original research. Even if we read through lots of news reports and develop a sophisticated analysis of the news based on solid research, we cannot put it into an article. The bottom line is, editors simply do not put our own views into articles. That really covers the main policies that should guide us in writing this article.

Some people have thrown around the phrase BLP, which stands for "Biography of Living Persons." BLP does not refer to a type of article - like I said, from the perspective of Wikipedia policies, there aren't any different types of articles, all articles are subject to the same policies. BLP does not say that some articles are biographies; it says that sometimes we add to article biographical content and it provides some important points about how to do that. WP:BLP basically reiterates what I just said: we need to comply with the same policies we comply with in articles on gravity and Australia and golf. What the BLP policy says is that when we add biographical information to an article we need to be especially careful to use reliable sources, especially if the material is contentious. It doesn't say we cannot add contentious material, only that if we do we need to bend over backwards to make sure the source is reliable. Moreover, we should be careful not to write in a titillating or sensationalistic style. Likewise, when we add criticisms (which NPOV practically demands we will) we have to be sure they come from reliable sources.

Finally, some people may refer to WP:BIO. Again, this is not a policy about "biographical articles" - like I said, we do not make such distinctions at Wikipedia. mnoreover, WP:BIP links to a guideline, not a policy - it has no binding force. But it is a useful guideline. What is it about? It has to do with a policy I mentioned above, that views need to be significant. It raises a related point: articles have to be on notable topics. WP:BIO talks about what kinds of people are notable enough to merit inclusion in articles. One thing it makes clear is that politicians, probably of the rank of mayor and certainly of higher position, are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. So Sarah Palin definitely meets our notability criteria because of her political position.

That's really it about policy. Palin is notable because she is a politician, and any notable significant view from a verifiable source about her political career or campaign, or about her political views as expressed in her career or in the campaign, or any criticisms of her political career or campaign or views, can go in this article as long as they come from verifiable, reliable sources. If we add any biographical information, especially if it is contentious - and yes, WP:BLP allows us to add contentious biographical information - we DO have to ensure it comes from highly reliable sources. That's about it everyone, as far as policies go! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC) on Sarah Palin talk

Palin
Thanks for your kind words. I'm not sure the debates will change the focus of the Palin article, though. I think it's more likely that the whole focus of the campaign will shift back to McCain and Obama, especially in terms of how they respond to the Wall Street crisis. JamesMLane t c 07:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks from me, too. If Hobartimus continues to muddy the waters on the talk page itself, a word from you there might help; for now, I hope to contain the silliness to my talk page, so your note there is perfect. Homunq (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem
I didn't mind your comments at all. What got me bent out of shape was this comment by another editor. I wish I was an operative, really. That would be much better than a person who is on Wikipedia instead of doing the job he's supposed to be doing! I'm going to get into big trouble, if I don't start doing my real work. Ouch.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Deeply appreciate your comment, Buster. Level heads like yours will always prevail in the end. Fcreid (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

policy at Sarah Palin
Thanks! I know I make typos, if you just want to make copy edits feel free. As to where we go from here, I think, personally, we dispense with anyone who objects to content because it does not belong in a biography. The next step is to turn every discussion over specific content into: (1) is this coming from "reliable sources" according to Wikipedia's definition of the term? (2) what are the "significant" views that NPOV insists we include? The rest is style - how to word it so that it is clear, concise and neutral. For some topics it actually may make sense for some editors to focus their energies on spin-off articles ... and then report back and make sure that the spin-off articles are adequately summarized in the main article. As for what happens when what I wrote is archived, well, I sincerely hope that before then every active editor will have had time to read and discuss what I wrote. If a conflict comes up in the future where you think what I wrote is still important, you are welcome either to retrieve it from the archives, or to create your own synopsis. Frankly, I see no value in turning it into an essay because all I am really saying is read our core policies carefully. Virtually every newcomer to Wikipedia gets a welcome message inviting them to go to the Five Pillars page. If everyone did that and read all the linked articles, maybe I would not have needed to write anything! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I wish all of the nominees would be highly blocked during an election.


 * In any case, have you seen Alastair around? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Whip his Ass
'''"I'm gonna whip his you-know-what!" The last debate brought us, "That one"....before that..."He's not like us".'''
 * Considering John McCain's age I find it extremely hard to believe that he would innocently use the term "whip his (ass)". Didn't he grow up in The America before the 1960's civil rights movement? Doesn't he remember what it was like to be a person of color in those long ago days? Wait! He WAS a person of color...the Right color...White! His experience with racial epitaphs has never been as the receiver.
 * It is without a doubt another in what is becoming a long list of derogatory terms that both McCain and his sidekick, Saint Sarah, have chosen to spew. My fear is that some right-wing wacko is going to take their racist rhetoric as permission to do more than just "whip his uppitty ass". Also, let us not forget that in the "bad-old days" in America only "da massah" could whip his slave. So, additionally, is McCain lording himself over the lowly sub-human, Obama??? (I say that only as an explanation of more "unspeakable" meaning in McCains whipping comment) I had heard that the Republican Leadership had asked both McCain and Palin to tone down their communications. Maybe they are just ignorant of what others might hear. I somehow doubt it!--Buster7 (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"not funny"
I don't think ___________ is funny in any way either. But I think saying it on the talk page is totally uncalled for, and I would ask you to strike it out, rather than standing behind it. Homunq (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * about__________:

Bollocks. Who do you think you're kidding? Your absurd accusation of "stalking" has no possible foundation in NPOV. First you claim a mix-up over vandalism and when that doesn't fool anyone you affect concern for NPOV. (And to think I credited you with intellectual rigor!) Now that that hasn't worked, what's the next lame excuse for your unfounded accusation? — Writegeist (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rogue
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/12/174658/71 http://www.cafemom.com/journals/read/1251397/Through_the_Looking_Glass_With_Sarah_Palin

Sarah Palin
Thanks for the compliment, Buster7. You're cool under fire, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

response

 * It's OK. No hard feelings. Tempodivalse (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Buster7, I guess I owe you an apology. It wasn't nice of me to remove your comment. It's just that it seemed to me at the time that it was "irrelevant to the improvement of the article" and not "objective" (WP:TALK). But you're right, I should have waited instead of removing the thread. My apologies. Tempodivalse (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Rough Balance
Starting with the premise that in any controversial topic, some people will see POV in almost any statements, I would claim that "rough balance" (NPOV in WP terms) is all that is possible. I further submit that Sarah Palin is near that "rough balance" level. However, it appears some feel it is far from "rough balance."

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better.
 * unnessary comments deleted

[User:C--13:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to clarify one point that was raised at the opening of this thread. NPOV does not mean a "rough balance" of views.  It means (1) representing all significant views and (2) identifying when appropriate and possible majority and minority views, (3) as long as all such views come from reliable sources.  We should provide some context for any view - for example, it matters whether the view is of a representative of the Democrat or Reb=publican parties, the Sierra Club or the Chamber of Commerce or the NRA.  No view should be presented as "the truth," all views should be presented as someone's view.  That is it.  No need to worry about "balancing" views as long as the above conditions are met. Slrubenstein


 * You are again misusing policy to promote your own POV. BLP says that when adding biographical information to an article, we should avoid gossip, and be very careful to use reliable sources.  As a matter of fact, the policy makes it clear that opinions - yes, opinions - from major newspapers are examples of acceptable material from a reliable source 9a blog, however, would be less reliable, a third-party personal website downright unreliable).  Since this is an opinion concerning her political career and from a reliable source, it does not in any way violate BLP.  We ought to include it, but we do have to be careful to represent it accurately, and as a  point of view.  if there are opposing points of view from equally significant and reliable sources they too should be included. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Red pen needed
Hi there Buster7,

I was wondering if in your free time, you might want to copy/edit this section of an article. It's an article in its startups but there is enough prose already that need a good red pen.

Thanks, Miguel

Year 2003 and 2004 of the article are ready to whenever you have time. Thanks again! Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW Buster7, all descriptions are inserted now, feel free to copy/edit the whole article as you please. Thanks a lot! Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin - poll data
Hi Buster7- Please take a look at my comments on talk and edit to the campaign section. If the consensus is "no poll data", I felt the poll data that was still in the section should be removed. It's a two-way street, IP75 (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wives and Candidates...
Ours must be cut from the same cloth! :) Mine tells me not to try being witty or charming, but instead just be myself! :)  If I note anything occurring in your absence, I shall keep you apprised. Fcreid (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh! Fcreid (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This really has no end in sight until November 5th, does it? :( Fcreid (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Western non-interpolations
My question is very simple. What is better "Western non-interpolations" or "Western Non-Interpolations". I have decided to Western non-interpolations, but I am not so sure. Our friend Alastair is very busy now. He does not edit. By the way, probably you did not read my answer on Talk:Herzog_August_Bibliothek. My answer was lated. Sorry. My German is very weak. French is a little easier for me (and this is an evidence Bibliothèque nationale russe). Above all wikis I prefer editing on en-wiki. Why? A lot of reasons... but fr-wiki is very nice. It is my second target for now. With great regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick question
I think you have been here. I have been reverted several times by two editors that team-up against me, since it is written in one of their talk pages to team up together to go against my opinion. One of the editors is removing the whole "see also" section of an article, and I am simply against it. The proof is there, in their talk page and in all the edits when I am constantly asking to talk about it. What would you suggest to do? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First...make a file of their communications history (diffs and contributions) and hide it somewhere...I will be in touch...I will be away for awhile, so maybe can only investigate maybe Monday. I'll ask that you somehow let me know who "they are" so I can do some detective work...maybe via e-mail is best. --Buster7 (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was asking for advice on the process, since it is obvious in one of their talk pages that one is asking help to the other. I was clean and explain in that talk page that what they did is not cool. The talk apge got longer and somebody was willing to compromise, but as expected they did nothing. So I simply gave up and will no longer watch that page, I already told them that so good luck to them fighting vandalism. What I do need help is knowing what is the process to get somebody with "administrative rights" involved, because an obvious team up to go against another editor is not good. I am sure they both know it is not good. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Partition of Belgium
Dear Buster, I don't really understand your recent edits on partition of Belgium. Why do you insist on using the word Flemish instead of Dutch for the language spoken in the historic Netherlands? As a French speaker I don't really understand the nuances. For me Flemish is the name given to two dialects of Dutch (Eastern and Western Flemish) and, colloquially, to the variant of standard Dutch spoken in modern Belgium. However we are here in a encyclopedia and I don't believe we all the time need to use a colloquial tone. Could you please reread the article and justify why the word Flemish and Dutch should be used and where? I have learned at school that the word Flemish was considered as pejorative because this would mean the flemings would only speaks "dialects" and no "high" language. Now it seems the Flemings insist on the fact they speak Flemish and not Dutch because they want to insist on the fact they are forming a nation very distinct of the Netherlands. This discussion is therefore important in order to reduce the POV content of this very controvertial article. Moreover I am not convinced by the new paragraph: history of the region. According to me it belongs to the lead. All this content is explained elsewhere more detailed in the body. I think you may be right with the fact that the lead was to long. The question is whether the lead is not too short now. Could you please tell me your point of view on the overall structure of this article? What could we do to find a compromise on this point. Thanks. Vb 08:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.247.32 (talk)


 * I am more than happy to find a compromise and appreciate your good faith. This article speaks to a growing Flemish consciousness and the fact that more and more Flemish people are (re)discovering their identity. Invariably, this will also lead to a new language consciousness. For more than hundred years we (the Flemish) were taught not to write as we speak but to adopt a foreign language (Dutch). This impeded the development and standardisation of the Flemish language. Our Flemish language was (and often still is) regarded as inferior and 'bad Dutch'. Therefore everybody had to write Dutch.


 * Flemish is different enough to be considered a separate language, just as Catalan is compared to Spanish or Norwegian as compared to Danish or Italian compared to Portuguese.


 * Since 1973 the official name has no longer been "Flemish" but "Dutch", and the norm is the usage as in the Netherlands. For years the Flemings then tried to pursue a language ideal that was not actually spoken in their own land. However they gradually "had enough" of this position. The spread of education, greater mobility, the media, but also the industrialisation of an earlier mainly agrarian region, all gradually strengthened the language awareness of the Flemings.


 * The Flemish movement is a much broader concept than advocacy of Flemish independence (separatism, calling for the splitting of Belgium in two or more independent states). Where there is no majority in favour of Flemish independence, probably a majority of the "Flemish people" (so-called Dutch speaking Belgians) would defend their Flemish identity, as opposed to "Belgicism" or francophilia or "Dutchmen that speak Flemish".. Moreover, there is a Flemish cultural movement, totally distinct and not to be identified with any political point of view. Cultural, Historic, Communal...


 * I question the correctness of calling Flemish a variant of the "Dutch" language. Actually, it is the other way round...Dutch is a variant of the Flemish language. In Belgium the nomenclature for that entity is Flemish! It's similarity to Dutch is acknowledged, but its proper name is Flemish-always. That designation, Flemish, gives a name to a people...the Flemish people. Duly recognized thru-out history as a seperate and recognizable people. I respectfully request that you recognize this fact and resist changing it so that it is something that solely pleases The Dutch. It doesnt please the Flemish, to be sure......


 * We have a destinction that is negated when we are called Dutch...History calls us Flemish, not Dutch. So my conclusion is: Flemish and Dutch are two different and equal languages. One is not superior to the other.


 * As to my change here in this article...since it was a reference to a historic time when it was definitely Flemish (not the new creation) it would be inaccurate to call it Dutch. Also. a further point is made obvious by your early reference to "historic Netherlands". This adds to the confusion. Historic Netherlands...Spanish Netherlands...is not the same as Modern-Day Netherlands. It would be more accurate to say..."for the language spoken in the historic Flanders" rather than Netherlands. I would dare say that Flanders is MORE historic than the country that is currently called...The Netherlands. If what is called Belgium were instead called Flanders, perhaps there would be no confusion.Bedankt...--Buster7 (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back...
You missed the rape kit flap, but I actually think it resulted in a consensus edit. Neither extreme was happy, but isn't that the nature of the game? :) Fcreid (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Crapologist good or bad? Should I be proud or ashamed. :-\ Fcreid (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries at all, my friend. I'm not a thin-skinned person by nature, but I do try too hard to be likable. It's one of my many character flaws. I wish I'd never visited SP in the first place two months ago, and I instead let the MSM make up my mind about her for me. While I have deeply enjoyed the collaboration and occasional bonding with other editors, I have also dreaded opening WP in the morning to see where/how I misspoke and who has assaulted me the night before, and I just can't wait for this week to be over. Oh, and for what it's worth, I really am not a political junkie at all. I do have an opinion in this election, but it is based on matters that have never arisen on SP. In my experience, the "social issues" that seem to polarize sides during elections have never been settled by two people but rather the collective heads of 300 million. If it weren't for the permanance of Supreme Court appointments, our POTUS/VPOTUS would be the least influential factor in such issues. Hey, with all that said, I really do need to take a "Wiki-break" as I've seen them called. I actually do have a Real Job, and I've been giving it short-shrift for too long. Don't mistake my absence at any given time as either flirtatious or insincere. I really do believe words matter, and I wouldn't write a single one that I wouldn't later defend. Frank Fcreid (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Bogus call...get sum nu glasses, ump!" -- Watch the game last night? :) Fcreid (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Cubs are due... just wait 'til next year! :) Fcreid (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Did he have something to do with the full protection? That looked like an artifact from another candidate's article. :-\ Fcreid (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And best regards to you too, good Sir
I've only made a few edits recently and responded to a couple of requests.

I'm ridiculously busy in real life, but yes, network cabling problems put me off line for a week and other priorities have pretty much kept me away from Wiki. I've always been a bit of a "two month on, two month off" kind of editor.

How are things shaping as the big day for you and your team approaches? :) Alastair Haines (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
No, I don't think that was canvassing - you were just telling him that a discussion was going on, and you did so in response to something he did. You didn't know what his position would be on the matter. Canvassing would be trying to influence the outcome of a discussion by going to people you know would agree with you and telling them about it. At least that's how it looks to me. Tvoz / talk 07:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

consensus
Hi Buster, there are essays on consensus you should look for, star twin WP:CONSENSUS. I view consensus as a process, not a status, because wikipedia is an ongoing project, we consider all articles to be works in progress, and people are editing all the time. Under these conditions "consensus" signals a commitment to work with others. This commitment in my mind requires two things: a commitment to our core policies, because no matter how different our views those policies provide a shared point of reference, and a framework for working together, and a commitment to explaining the reasoning behind your edits, and a willingness to listen to the reasoning behind someone else's edits, and a willingness to seek a compromise when both sides are complying with policy. As far as I am concerned, someone who does not participate in this process cannot just veto edits and say "there is no consensus" - you have to be part of a consensus-building endeavor to count. When editing is especially contentions a poll can be useful; if all editors on a page agree, save one or two, most editors would agree that there is a consensus. But if editors are evenly divided or close to it, there is no consensus. At that point it is a good idea to call for a WP:Request for comment in order to draw more people into the discussion. These are all general points but I hope they help. Personally, I can understand why with the election four days away people may wish a freeze on the article. Consider the costs and the benefits. We want stable, accurate, NPOV articles. When a topic is highly contentious it can take a few days or longer to achieve that. Up until now I would have been all for an open article, because there would have been time to sort out any conflicts. But there is a real risk now that a reader will come to the article and read a version that is biased to one side or the other, because the two sides have not had time to work out a compromise. This is a situation I think is worth avoiding a few days before the election. I think the pressing question is, is the article NPOV NOW? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is fair to say: the more controversial an edit is, the more reasonable it is to remove it from the article to the talk page so that people can work together to craft what all or virtually all (all who are working in good faith) agree is an NPOV version, and then put it into the article. I have seen people do this at the Palin article, so it can be done.  But this does not mean that all editing must cease! Good luck!! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hi Buster! I'm glad you've met SLRubenstein. The two posts above are outstandingly clear descriptions of the Wiki ideal (imo). The first is particularly insightful. I've seen these ideals actually work in lots of places. And I've seen editors who bumble around a bit at first actually come to understand the ideals, appreciate their wisdom, and end up contributing constructively. Lots of people do appreciate the points SLRub is making, though I've never seen anyone articulate them with as much insight as SLRub does here.
 * The use of the word poll is particularly important, and the careful description of how it "can" be useful (often it is not particularly helpful). It is not numbers of editors that drive most accurate text, but numbers of sourced arguments from different POVs and the relationships between these arguments. It's amazing how new information from reliable, but overlooked sources can often help everyone start taking some common ground together.
 * I don't know your personal issues at whatever article you're working on at the moment (and would prefer not to know just now, 'cause I've got too many deadlines hitting me at once), but:
 * don't give up seeking sources and arguments to ensure a real POV you care about is represented (no censorship!), however
 * I trust an honourable man like you to conceed to others, what you claim for yourself (no censorship!).
 * Best regards, Buster, as always! :)
 * And congrats to you too SLRub, for an outstanding description of the rationale of consensus, the workability of the method, and the quality of its results, which outweighs the cost in time achieving them.
 * Concensus is like the "mills of God", which grind exceedingly slowly, but grind exceedingly small. Now who said that? :)
 * Alastair Haines (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Strangers in a Strange Land

 * The Memory Pills are not working. I moved it here so I wouldn't forget (when,who,why):

What I like most about the Sarah Palin article is that it puts me in touch with knowledgable editors like you. Your comments regarding the goings on at the rape kit thread are educational and informative. I also Wholeheartedly agree with your comments about editor:C-t. There is something more than meets the eye there. I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding C-t. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless C-t pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective). Sometimes the things that are found in an editors "contributions" can be very interesting.--Buster7 (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you do have some kind of relevant information, I'd caution you to take it to administrators sooner rather than later and avoid revealing it in a public context. It will lose a lot of credibility if you try to use it to torpedo the guy instead of going through the proper channels in a timely fashion. You might even get into trouble for it. As for my own sentiments, I just find the whole thing very frustrating. It's very hard to AGF. I feel if I were not devoting time to the article then a lot of massaging and reinterpreting and excluding of the sources would be taking place.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * please see [] here....and advise ASAP. What to do.....and when....it explains alot...confidential, please...I have shown only Homunq since he also has expessed problems --Buster7 (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just now shared with admin LessHeard vanU...thanks for advice--Buster7 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Much as I would like to view that as a gloves-off admission of an obstructionist editorial style, it looks more like a sarcastic commentary on typical edit-warring. I don't like the guy too much, and have suspicions about his motivations, but I really don't think you're going to get anywhere with this. I wouldn't even bother bringing it up.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your right. I didn't get anywhere but frustrated. Thanks for confiding and guidance. I'll drop it and move on.--Buster7 (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)