User talk:El duderino/Archive 2

{ end Dec. 2011 to end Apr. 2012, and 2013 } << for Archive 1

in re OWS, NPOV and consensus

 * { { tb } }

To Becritical:

Hi. I want to clarify this line of argument here instead of at the talkpage because, though we apparently disagree about the concept in abstraction, as I said I agree with your caveat "in this case NPOV is not obvious, so consensus determines what we accept as NPOV." I think it's too easy for others to ignore that point and see your validation of the misleading "NPOV trumps consensus" phrasing. (Incidentally, I will no longer reply directly to the other editor as we have been advised to avoid each other, as he escalated a previous content dispute with false accusations of personal attacks and harassment, and never owned up to his part in the dispute.) I don't agree with your follow-up comment that "it goes both ways: NPOV trumps consensus for POV pushers and NPOV pushers alike" -- and I don't quite understand the latter part, as if "NPOV trumps... NPOV pushers"? My comments to which you're replying include a quote from NPOV: "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." To me this means Consensus does not override NPOV. It does not necessarily mean NPOV overrides consensus, especially when it surfaces in this context:

Editor A: "I said there was no consensus for your change."

Editor B: "There doesn't have to be consensus to NPOV an article - NPOV is policy and policy trumps consensus."

...See how editor B is ignoring a fundamental policy (consensus) by invoking the absolutism of NPOV? And how do we determine NPOV if not by consensus? One editor's opinion? Of course not. This is why it's dangerous to validate that kind of abstract reductionism at a controversial article's talkpage. As I said at Talk:OWS, you're giving license to POV pushers to fight consensus as long as they think they are right. As I'm sure you know there is plenty of debate over policy interpretation throughout WP which may explain the point I'm trying to make here better than I can. -El duderino (previously Anon 98.92..) El duderino (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC) revised 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I meant that for those who want to make an article NPOV, it's a good thing that NPOV trumps consensus sometimes. Re the context, there are times when NPOVing an article allows you to go against consensus.  The most obvious example is in BLP issues, where even WP:3RR can sometimes be violated.  We agree on everything else, except I don't feel like the article is actually in any danger.  If there were actually any danger, I think WP:MAJORDICK would quickly apply, so again probably no danger.  As they say, "it's the quiet ones you gotta watch."   Be— —Critical  04:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't accept that interpretation of what WP:NPOV actually says. To me, NPOV is the (ideal) end result, consensus is the means. One is not above the other. Consensus changes. NPOV doesn't. If one editor feels an article violates NPOV, the burden is on him to persuade others to a point of changing the consensus, or to seek outside help. Ignoring current consensus is not collaborative. El duderino (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited Meriwether Lewis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transcontinental (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"cheers"
You have to learn to ignore Collect's attempts to get you to respond in anger to him. The "cheers," is just an attempt to get you to rise to the bait - don't. You'll see the bait again below - ignore it. Hipocrite (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yea I know. It's poorly-used sarcasm and diluted by overuse. That's what my comment was meant to convey -- not anger or frustration, which is what I see from him and other misguided activists facing resistance. I may choose to ignore it eventually but for now I think childish behavior needs to be addressed or else they continue to think it's okay. El duderino (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No Country...
I'm not warring at all. We are editing the article. It's inappropriate of you to accuse me of warring. This subject is very familiar to me. If you have something you'd like to say about it, feel free. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes you are WP:Edit warring. If you really don't think so then you need to read 3rr. -El duderino (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's funny. You want to ignore two other editors and someone else is warring? Who believes that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I just replied to your incorrect assertion on your talkpage. It is you who is ignoring other editors. Please use the article talkpage or your own talkpage for any further comments. Do not post here again. El duderino (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ring Cinema


I am also thinking of reporting him, I just improved the plot for Godfather after hard work and input from another editor but he keeps coming along with hardly any insightful input and reverting everything for no reason, not improving anything. I do not think he understands how plot summaries work. Just thought I would let you know as I saw your comment. JTBX (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, I noticed he was editing there too because it's on my watchlist. He also does not seem to understand the collaborative process. My hunch at this point is that he likes to argue semantics and exert himself on the articles, violating not only common sense but Wp:ownership issues. What's odd is that he has switched positions around over the past few months on a particular point, not realizing it perhaps and in a classic projection has accused me when I agree to compromise. Not to get too pop-psych about it, but there may also be a certain lack of self-awareness which prohibits him from collegial editing. idk yet.


 * Unfortunately my 3RR report has gone unanswered so far, for about a day. So if it becomes stale he may think he's free to continue in that tendentious manner. I would encourage you to post there to support the need for admin action. I may soon weigh in on the Godfather page. while tempted to make a bad joke about an offer he can't refuse i'll keep it courteous here . I would also note that he's been blocked before. El duderino (abides) 20:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I gave him another chance and he just reverted it back, looks like I will be reporting him. What you stated describes the situation perfectly and I have also mentioned the fact he has been blocked to another editor who was helping me with the Godfather article. The funny thing is if you read his recent revert on the article he says (the improved version) has been "rejected" already, but may I ask, rejected by whom? (lol). Only him. As I mentioned to the third editor, Gareth his name is (you can see on my page) that we are only interested in improving the article per guidelines and consensus, not what is approved by him, which is what he wants, playing semantics to place criticism on others. JTBX (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you & Gareth really going to put up with more of User:RC's bullshit? He acts like he owns these film articles and edit wars to get his way. There is no exception in WP:3RR for consensus, remember that. I'm done trying to reason with him. If/when you file a report against him, please let me know so I can weigh in, to confirm his issues of WP:TE and WP:OWN. El duderino (abides) 05:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support. Will liaise with JTBX, and get back to you.  I don't know if you remember,but you came to my aid earlier this year regarding the info'box on The Sopranos for which I am grateful.  Cheers,  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright guys, going to do it now, sorry for the late response. Going to just read through the policies now and go to resolution. JTBX (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Any relation to the fact that Ring has "Cinema" in his name and this WP:SPA?, just noticed. JTBX (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not likely, since Presumedly he edits more than a few articles. Btw, he posted here again despite being told not to, here and laughably called his version the facts. I have no interest in his fictions at this point. El duderino (abides) 17:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If he hasn't violated WP:3RR (again) then you might start with posting an informal summary of the issues at WP:EAR similar to what you've posted above. With wp:diffs pointing to examples of his worst behavior. I can help you draft such a report here, if you like. El duderino (abides) 17:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and you should check out Gareth's page. More nonsense from him, which I replied to. He dresses it up as he's the victim of an attack. JTBX (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reported him. JTBX (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus (dog) article
Thank you for all your assistance with the Seamus article and the Admin noticeboard discussion. There are two major issues currently being discussed regarding the Seamus article. One is to rename it, and one is questioning the copyright of the picture.


 * Proposal to rename


 * Proposal to delete picture Debbie W. 20:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

While the renaming might actually be a good idea, I'm not inclined to support it just yet because of how User:Kelly has approached the article in an uncollaborative manner, as is her style. I took a quick look at the image history and while its status seems uncertain, i'd be suprised if the Boston Globe didn't allow its fair use. El duderino (abides) 21:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking at these two issues. I agree with you about the name change.  I'm possibly okay with 'Seamus incident', but I am concerned that this is just an attempt by Kelly to get rid of this article.  Kelly commented on the admin board: Perhaps the content should be merged to some subarticle of United States presidential election, 2012? Kelly hi! 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)  I'm totally opposed with merging this with another article. Debbie W. 22:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * For some reason I overlooked its presence at the Romney 2012 campaign page. That's a good sign for the Seamus piece's survival as a separate article. I'd like to see a link there to the Seamus article. I'd encourage you to dig deeper for more coverage before this year, perhaps using Google news and/or Google scholar? As you can see from the See Also (link to dogsagainstromney) issue, others will be fighting alternative sources like blogs but they can be included with enough editorial support, if my reading of is correct. Guidelines are much more open to interpretation (and finding consensus) than policies. El duderino (abides) 22:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm very concerned about the article's survival based on all the delete comments at Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination). The existence of a section on the Seamus incident at Mitt Romney's 2012 page is very good ground for keeping the article.  There are a number of articles on Seamus going back to 2007 (see below).  I will say that I am surprised by the marked opposition to the article, even by people who aren't necessarily pro-Romney.  During the first deletion review back in January, Seamus had had far less news coverage at that point, and the article had far fewer references, but there was a decent amount of support for it.  As for blogs, it's a little ridiculous that we cannot have links to two websites that offer opposite opinions about Seamus.  Compare this to the article Gun politics in the United States, which has external links to Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Gun Owners of America, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition, National Rifle Association of America, Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Second Amendment Sisters, and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Thanks for your help. Debbie W. 02:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Jennifer Parker (June 28, 2007). "Romney strapped dog to car roof". ABC News.


 * Neil Swidey & Stephanie Ebbert (June 27, 2007). "Journeys of a shared life". Boston Globe.


 * Ana Marie Cox (June 27, 2007). "Romney's cruel canine vacation". Time Magazine.


 * Blair Soden (June 29, 2007). "Dog on roof? What was it like for Romney's pooch?". ABC News.


 * Ann Romney (June 30, 2007). "From Ann Romney". Mitt Romney - Road to the White House.


 * Scott Helman (July 10, 2007). "Introducing Seamus Romney, 'Mr. Personality'". Boston Globe.


 * Additionally, the book The Real Romney by Michael Kranish and Scott Helman covers the Seamus incident. The Real Romney

While I wouldn't know if there are more watchers than before, I suspect that there are alot more eyes on this article and the AfD, possibly under-the-radar -- not only because Romney is now the clear nominee, but also because there has probably been alot of canvassing both on- and off-wiki. I have some other thoughts on this but I am still formulating that part of my response here. Tbc.El duderino (abides) 06:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Kelly, Seamus etc


Looking at the history of Seamus (dog), it appears you've broken WP:3RR. I see you've been warned about that behavior before. Kelly hi! 03:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your count is off. Probably because you're only looking at what you want to see. Your uncollaborative manner at Seamus (dog) belies your bias. Your disruptive editing is a serious detriment to wikipedia. Do not post here again. El duderino (abides) 03:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: New message
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus (dog)
I noticed that you have made edits to the Seamus (dog) article. There is a survey to determine whether the Seamus article should be kept, renamed, merged, or deleted. Thank you. HHIAdm (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Seamus (dog)


 * Hmm. Smells fishy. Name similarity.. and only 80 edits or so when you started that survey. Someone else might want to take a look at this for possible SP issues. El duderino (abides) 22:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3
Hello El duderino. As you know you've been reported at WP:AN3. Though you haven't broken 3RR, you seem to be edit warring to include a link that may not meet Wikipedia standards. If you will join the discussion at AN3 and promise to stop adding the link until consensus is reached, the report might be closed with no action. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied there. And If you have no objection, i'd like to fold this thread into the one above started by Kelly. El duderino (abides) 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: New message
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my complaint
Well is there any way I can post a complaint on another board without cutting down?, though I will cut it down from there. JTBX (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I still think WP:EAR is the way to start, others there may be able to act as informal mediator or tell you a better avenue for WP:Dispute resolution though this is more than a content dispute and it spans (at least) two articles. What I learned from my 3RR report on him is that he has friends in the Film Project (whatever that is) who obviously think he contributes soemthing worth overlooking policy, so pursuing this won't be easy. Either way you have to keep the initial post on an admin board short enough so that other neutral parties will read it -- keep in mind that there is alot of other stuff out there, including crap and drama that many others don't care about or will only read quickly. You might also want to review the WP:DR steps when you get a chance. I'm not familiar with new changes there, yet. When I get a chance later maybe I can piece together something from what you've already written, as a sort of rough draft/suggested report. El duderino (abides) 22:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello JTBX and Duderino: I suggest opening a WP:Request for comment at Talk:Godfather. That is one of the recommended steps of WP:Dispute resolution. To get an RfC going, you would have to clearly state what the key item is which is in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And I agree. I also respect your even-handed approach at the 3RRNB. El duderino (abides) 03:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should we take this route then eldudrino? I have also chosen to disengage I think, with RC, he will keep weaseling his way out of this.--JTBX (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I will support your arguments against him but I don't know much about the process so I would leave that to you to decide if you want to start one. I also can't commit any time to it at the moment except for a brief comment to summarize my experience with him. Perhaps you can see from the film articles talkpages where he's been who else might be able to help. Or even EdJ he seems willing to answer questions. I don't why he said you were 'badmouthing' RC because all I saw was you calling him an edit warrior, which he obviously is. Good luck, keep me posted. El duderino (abides) 21:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that response, and yes I do not know either why EJ would write that though I did reply on the page, sort of my final reply. I will notify you if I make a Rfc report for you to have any weigh in. From what I have read, an Rfc on a user is also possible, which is convenient seeing RC's history of edit wars. JTBX (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * RE I know it's frustrating when admin-board threads don't come out the way we want. [ Believe me. I still think RC got away with edit warring at 'No Country,' which is part of the reason why i've taken a break from it, or am trying to. So I too was hoping that you would have more success than me. But this is an important point worth repeating: most editors -- especially busy admins -- don't want to read alot of arguing. And those project pages are more formal than user-talk pages, so you have to be careful how you say things (in re what can be seen as personal attacks, true or not). I didn't say you started the cycling.., but you kept responding. If you say A, and he says B, you can try to make your A point again by saying C, but let it go there. Wait for an admin or outside editors to weigh in. Even if he says D. Getting the last word in is not often in your best interest, and that tendency can add to the frustration when the other guy wants it too. See WP:Last word freak. Again, I know of what I speak. There are a few editors of political articles who are that way too, and I rise to the occasion (a.k.a. bait). See the talkpage of Seamus (dog) for my exception to my advice. (I have other reasons for doing that there, mostly to put up a mirror to that other editor's pattern of disruption and editorial activism, but I digress.)

So if you still want to proceed with the RfC at 'The Godfather' I think that's a good idea. Especially since that should open it up to outside editors and thus encourage more (informal) input -- and possibly a few other responses to RC's tendentiousness. Just let it progress naturally-- iirc, the inital RfC info (introduction) must be neutral and not mention his warring or argumentativeness. I'm sure that'll come out later. El duderino (abides) 03:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that response, read Gareth's talk page for what I have decided to do. Part of the reason I have chosen that was due to EJ's advice. JTBX (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: New message
I appreciate what you wrote to me yesterday but I would like you to read this section please! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I posted there and I'll be watching your page -- no need to put tags here when there's a new response. And just fyi, I may not post there again because I really don't want to interact directly with RC. El duderino (abides) 08:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I fully understand.  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Seamus Advocacy or Gossip?
There has been a major addition near the top of the Seamus AfD page that states that the grounds for proposed deletion is not a lack of notability, but that the article constitutes gossip or advocacy. Avanu, who supports the deletion of the article states that Seamus "is notable", but that that the article should still be deleted. This is a major change from most of the debate on the page, and I have responded to his claim. Debbie W. 03:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My short answer is no. Experienced editors are good at throwing out all sorts of objections that really shouldn't stick. Thy'll start with biggies like NPOV and then cycle through their repetoire. It's not always disingenuous, but often is. That's a part of wiki-lawyering. Arzel does it all the time. A good response is to ask them to be specific, what policy language are they referring to. I'll try to respond there soon. Still catching up with otherstuff. El duderino (abides) 04:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To illustrate my first point, see how many editors have cited NOTNEWS. Then OhioStd does a great job of breaking that rationale down.


 * Or if they make a ridiculous claim like "the dog loved it" ask for a source on that.. which i know is absurd too, in this example, but it serves to put the burden of proof back on them. Or else one could make the argument that it's irrelevant to determination of abuse, or something along those lines.


 * At the current (2nd) AfD, JamesMLane makes some good points in showing a parallel to the Kerry-swiftboat and Obama-Ayers controversies. This may be a tack to pursue at the article talkpage. It provides context both politically and on wikipedia. El duderino (abides) 05:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * El duderino, I just want to mention that I'm paying close attention to your comments here and elsewhere, and I greatly appreciate them. I could say more but this is all I have time for right now, and I won't be available for a few days. But I just wanted to speak up and let you know that I have high regard for various suggestions you have made, and I will continue to pay attention to your suggestions. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting your assistance
I was editing plots today and came across No Country for Old Men. I edited to improve the plot by cutting back words from 717 to about 697. I want your opinion on the talk page, because guess who reverted it over 3 times in the space of two hours?. Also see the last discussion on Ring-Cinema's talk page. Gareth somewhat revealed his agenda, I feel awful. So what steps to take now? --JTBX (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#JTBX_on_No_Country_for_Old_Men_.28film.29 Ring has reported me, I replied, an adminstrator noticed Ring's history of edit warring. JTBX (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My response taken from EJ's page: I originally thought of engaging Gareth but as you can see on his messages to Ring-Cinema he has other plans, trying to court me along falsely so that they can continue editing the article as if they own it. Besides it was a suggestion to contact Gareth and not written in stone, especially if he is clearly no longer acting as a neutral member. Meat-puppetry?

If that isn't enough, Ring took the issue to the Adminstrators noticeboard wrongly, but admin Captain Screebo noticed he was a known edit warrior by looking through his history. We have already discussed it at Dennis's page, who noticed the same thing. Despite all of this, I still wanted to remain friendly with Gareth and reached out to him on his talk page, after editing The Godfather Part II, the second film, which had a plot of over 2,000 words. I cut it down after a lot of effort to about 1,200, but Gareth reverted my changes as unacceptable. Okay, I thought. But then I saw this User Talk: Ring Cinema, he immediately notified Ring and didn't even leave me a message, even though Part II has nothing to do with the conflict.

Lastly, if personal attacks mean anything, look at how Ring responded on Gareth's page to me. Thanks JTBX (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have taken an extended break, when you do return I will proceed. EAR? DRN? we will have to formulate something, this cannot continue. JTBX (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Msg to user:AnalysisAlgebra
Please do not remove other's comments at Help Desk/Math as you did here: This is considered bad form. At this point I can only assume it was a mistake. El duderino (abides) 11:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The irony. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand the word 'irony' since the above comment was not a personal attack. And by the way, your little emoticon tongue-wagging is overused and, nonetheless, doesn't excuse your rude comments at RefDesk. El duderino (abides) 00:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Msg to user:Reisio
Please see WP:No Personal Attacks. I believe your comment here has crossed the line and, as I said in the revert summary, this is not the place for your personal vendetta against Mac users. El duderino (abides) 18:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Repeating here, as just posted at his talkpage: { { npa2 } } I've already asked you twice to let it drop, then removed your personal attack twice. If you restore it again I will seek admin action. El duderino (abides) 01:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that. Takes two to tango. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that you enjoy this sort of battling as a dance or game, but I do not. I have asked an admin to step in at ANI . Please do not post here again. El duderino (abides) 03:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)