User talk:DSuser/Archive 1

Welcome
Why are you deleting the eu accession dates of countries? --RobertG &#9836; talk 14:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, RobertG. The funtion of the infobox is not to relay each and every fact about a country. Why not include date of membership of the United Nations (this being more relevant to status than membership of any given regional bloc)? We should also have standardisation across all Wikipedia country infoboxes, which do not included membership of regional groups. This line should not be unilaterally included without broad support from the wider group of contributors to Wikipedia country pages. Anything else is promoting a POV about the consitutional status of the EU. JamesAVD 14:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you please stop removing this info? Thanks --Guinnog 14:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi James, I'd like you to stop making these edits pending further investigation into your actions. Thanks. yandman 14:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to stop mentioning the EU accession dates in the infobox, please discuss at Template talk:Infobox Country instead of just deleting this information. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 14:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of EU accession date into the infoboxes of some European countries was done without the broad acceptance (or even, as far as I can see, discussion) amongst the editors of those pages. A mention in a subsection of some obscure template talk page does not justify such a significant and potentially POV change to what should be a standard Wikipedia infobox. It is this unsupported inclusion of a questionable line which I am reverting, and it is the inclusion of that item which needs to be justified as a deviation from standard practice. If you would like to include the EU accession date of any given country (or, perhaps the date of membership of NAFTA or ASEAN, or of membership of the Commonwealth), please discuss at the relevant country pages and gain broad support for the idea. JamesAVD 14:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that isn't how it is done. Surely you can see that having 25 discussions would be less good than having one? Your deletions are not helpful and I suspect you of trying to make some kind of WP:POINT. Please follow Kusma's good advice above. Thank you, --Guinnog 14:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, with greatest respect, the inclusion of non-standard and potential POV information in the infobox of a state needs broad support. It may not be efficient to have such discussions (democracy being quite an inefficient process) but it needs to be done. Please don't question my motivations when you fail to provide an response to any of my arguments. JamesAVD 14:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It has been broadly supported as it has been in the infobox since May and has been used on the country pages for months without a single complaint. It is you who has to show that consensus to remove this information exists. Kusma (討論) 14:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The EU, unlike NAFTA or ASEAN, isn't just a treaty between countries, it's a supranational and intergovernmental union of states. This means that the example to follow is Alabama. The inclusion wasn't unsupported in that it has been there for a while and everyone has agreed. Everyone except you, it appears. I ask you, once again, to stop making these edits for the time being, lest we take you for a vandal. Thanks. yandman  14:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points, both of you. It might also be worth pointing out, James, that Wikipedia is not a democracy but rather an attempt to construct a free online encyclopedia. The EU accession dates are clearly encyclopedic. Your attempts to delete them without discussion are, in my strong opinion, not. Don't do it again please. --Guinnog 14:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Silence does not imply consent. I've only just noticed the change myself. The consensus remains (as can be seen by a look at any country infobox which has not been non-standardised) not to include misleading and POV information. Simply because you have a POV on the consitutional status of the EU (which is, in fact, incorrect, as the EU depends on the authority of the member states as signatories to the treaties) does not make it so; the constitutional position of Poland is in no way parallel to that of Alabama (for instance, Alabama not having a seat at the UN). This is an encyclopedia and we should pay close attention to the smallest of details. Please refrain from imposing your points of view on the broader readers of this encyclopedia. JamesAVD 14:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from imposing your points of view on the broader readers of this encyclopedia. Kusma (討論) 14:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Err...As far as I see it, there's four of us and one of you. The consensus seems obvious. yandman  14:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing information which is in dispute and potentially POV, as well as non-standard, is quite clearly not imposing my view on anyone else. Inclusion without broad support is doing precisely that. I respect your opinions, but you need to defend your position on this.

And as far as I can see, the weight of my arguments far outweighs the unsubstantiated and POV arguments presented so far by the four of you... JamesAVD 15:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help then if you were to review Consensus. --Guinnog 15:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And still you fail to address the arguments. The consensus which needs to be reached is not on the talk page of one user but amongst the contributors to the pages of the various countries, preferably in an efficient a manner as possible. JamesAVD 15:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As this is a question of standardization, it is best to centralize the discussion by inviting people on the relevant country pages to a central page such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries or Template talk:Infobox Country where that matter can be settled in a uniform way. Kusma (討論) 15:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget 3RR... yandman 15:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not top-post
New comments go at the bottom of Talk pages, not the top. I have moved some of your commetns to the proper place. Kusma (討論) 15:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Gottit. Didn't know. Thanks for that. From now on at the bottom! JamesAVD 15:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Warnings
You have removed several user warning templates from your user or user talk page. This is a bad idea. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they are put here because other editors think that your behavior needs improvement, and we're giving you the courtesy of letting you know. Please respond by changing your behavior, and please stop removing the warnings. Thank you. yandman 15:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Removing legitimate warnings from your talk page is considered disruption. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. yandman 15:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I find your use of these images patronising and believe that your are motivated by a desire to enforce your point of view on the contributors to Wikipedia pages. I have reported you to the relevant administrators. Please desist from your actions here. JamesAVD 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the red and yellow caution signs which user Yandman has repeatedly placed on my talk page. In my view Yandman has failed to identify which of my actions are in any way outside of Wiki norms and is using his admin powers to bully and push his own POV. I have reported his actions on the administrator pages. I find this signs unsubstantiated and deeply patronising, and the threat of blocking incredible. JamesAVD 16:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yandman - you need to leave JamesAVD alone regarding removing warning templates from his talk page. It's a common misconception that it's appropriate to try to force users to keep some kind of brand of shame on their pages. Please see "User space harassment" in Harassment, and several threads currently on WP:ANI, e. g. this and this. The templates about not removing warnings, and the block threats, are for anonymous vandals, not for cases like this. He has a right to remove anything he likes from his userpages. Rarelibra 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)