User talk:Ebikeguy/Archives/2012/August

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks
The whole of this distraction from wikipedia's purpose is a personal attack on me. Marj (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that you might be frustrated, but I have not seen anything in 842U's edits that constitutes a personal attack. It appears that 842U's concerns and suggestions are genuine and intended to improve the article.  I know it is hard at times, but please try to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors.  Ebikeguy (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As 842U has insulted, harassed, intimidated, subverted and otherwise attacked me over a period of three years as a result of a dispute over the Dog Whisperer page I can no longer do that. Her drive to emphasise negative aspects of the ACD temperament is a direct response to my addition of new criticism of the Dog Whisperer program following the announcement that this is its final season. 842U has no genuine interest in the breed or the article. Marj (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I understand your frustration. However, all the material that I have seen 842U add to the article has been well-referenced with reliable sources.  You are free to question 842U's motives, but if she continues to edit within Wikipedia's rules, adding valid information to articles, her additions will be welcomed by most users, and reverting them will be unacceptable.  Ebikeguy (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You know I have not edited the article since her attack began. It is not valid to use decade old material which supports a particular pov, and ignore contradictory recent material from the same source. Marj (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Marj, I would love it if you added references to recent material that offered a counterpoint.  I don't think anyone would consider that to be part of the current edit war.  Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not going to help - this whole thing is 842U showing me that she can do anything she likes on Wikipedia, anything I added would only inflame her more. Dodobird got caught up in our personal war. Enjoy your holiday EbikeGuy, hope it includes some great rides if I interpret your username correctly. Do you log your rides on the Strava site if you are a cyclist? Marj (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Five
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!


 * Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteer who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
 * More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
 * Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
 * New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
 * Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. SarahStierch (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Misandry
The very concept of misandry is an anti-feminist one, as seen in just about all the references on its page. You cannot argue that it isn't an anti-feminist concept, when the only group advocating for its very existence are "men's rights" organizations. There is a reason it is considered a neologism, and has only been used by anyone criticizing feminism. Countered (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Misogyny is anti-feminist. Misandry is anti-anti-feminist...99.238.157.250 (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I just found where you added it back, when I removed it. It seems we have switched places. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misandry&diff=495152030&oldid=494172452 Countered (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Um... No.  Look at your diff again and you will see that it shows YOU adding the Wikilink back after I had deleted it. If you can find a reliable source that states that misandry is directly related to anti-feminism, then you may add language to that effect.  Otherwise, despite any conclusions you may have personally drawn on the subject, the link is not appropriate.  Ebikeguy (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right, sorry about that. I'll look for a good source. ThanksCountered (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SarahStierch (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Australian Cattle Dog
From what I can tell, the editors of the article seem to think that consensus means completely reverting all edits and references that expand on the breed's aggression. Apparently nothing came of the edit warring ANI. And apparently there is a brand new editor to the article with no prior editing history, who has jumped in and is now passionately editing the article -- and very interestingly, the Dog Whisperer article. I've just noticed the prior discussion here with you and Marj. Apparently Marj can directly denigrate me personally here and elsewhere, but if I criticize the article, she is free to interpret that as a personal attack on her "reputation." Something is happening with this article that is not right. At all.842U (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the work of the new editor, and it is concerning. However, I did not want to make waves until the RfC closes.  I think we should close the RfC soon.  I'm afraid that consensus suggests that a separate section on aggression is not warranted, but it also suggests that the article contains a much clearer paragraph on aggression within the Temperament section then now exists.  I am hoping that we will be able to enlist Dodo Bird to help us convince this "new" editor that his/her recent edits are not acceptable.  Ebikeguy (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The new editor was involved in the FA review and I asked him to take a look at the article as 842Us edits had left multi-topic paragraphs, combinations of US and Aus spelling, inconsistent referencing styles and other errors. I certainly agree that what 842U is doing with this article is "not right". I followed her example of personally inviting people to look at the article. Looking at contributions this 'new' editor edited two dog related tv program pages in 2010, and since then has only been involved in Australian Cattle Dog. Marj (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What's puzzling is this statement "I certainly agree that what 842U is doing with this article is 'not right'"... when no one said that for you to "agree with." But now that even more eyes are on the conversations surrounding the ACD article, I'm sure we can count on a new level of civility and no more ad hominum attacks, oblique or otherwise.842U (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your statements that consensus had been reached - the very last thing you did was to lodge a report on edit warring - that doesn't seem like consensus to me. Marj (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The two editors who were primarily involved had been reverting back and forth between versions that contained much more language on aggression than the current version. I didn't say that consensus had been reached in my recent post, only that a lot of work had been done toward achieving consensus.  Canine's recent edits have undone all this hard work.  Ebikeguy (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With more eyes on the article, a committment to police the ad hominum attacks in the discussion, and even more independent vetting of the sources brought to the article -- I'm sure we can reconstruct the progress we'd made.842U (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Having been out of town, and reviewing the recent edits surrounding the ACD article, I find extremely disturbing the notion that any editor has tracking my whereabouts. This behavior is on very thin ice, and goes behind ad hominum attacks.842U (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Australian Cattle Dog
Hi again, I'll have a look, but it may be a couple of days.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a few days, it's better if it can be resolved by those concerned rather than admin dictat. I've let Casliber know what's going on too  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If the Rfc is in fact closed, would you be willing to roll the article back, Ebikeguy, to a place that meets the criteria you put forth as reflecting consensus? Also, would both of you please comment on this, as reflecting the suspension of ad hominum attacks that is requisite for forward progress. From what I can tell, this is also in clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines.  842U (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If the RfC closes, I would be willing to edit the current version to read very similarly to the compromise versions of recent weeks. Looks like we should get all your refs reviewed by the experts before we use them.  If you think Marj has broken rules, report her.  Ebikeguy (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You will probably see this anyway. I'm not hopeful of progress, and I don't see yet that either your mediation or my threats are having much effect. I'll give it to the end of next week, mainly to give Casliber a chance to comment (perhaps he's away?) and then do what I've said  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ebikeguy, if you would roll the article back to a spot that reflected the RFC consensus, we can begin further vetting the resources. There is a concern that some of the formatting was incongruous with FA standards, which can easily be resolved -- maybe.842U (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I've userfied the Persian bit with comments regarding what was wrong. Also commented on ACD refs from FAC point of view, only one obvious problem, see the talk page. Thanks for help  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  07:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SarahStierch (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox software
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox software. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)