User talk:Kuphrer

Regarding subjectivity
In your recent edit summary on list of common misconceptions you asked "What authorization do you have to decide subjectivity?" I'll try to clarify.

Manual of Style (words to watch) is the "authorization" you asked about.

The examples provided in that guideline aren't exhaustive, but generally one should avoid using imprecise terms like "very small" when a more precise wording is possible. The word "very" almost always adds no informational value to a sentence, and "small" by itself conveys little meaning. Instead of saying "the coriolis effect is very small", one could instead write "the coriolis effect is too small to affect the direction of water flowing down a drain." This puts the word "small" into a context, making the meaning more precise, and it better represents the cited source too. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I see no "very" in the cited page, and the "not exhaustive" saying is not very plausible for such a common word, which will certainly be mentioned if it is in any way not advisable to be used. Besides I cannot agree to the idea that terms such as "very" should be avoided, which has its irreplaceable importance on certain occasions. You were missing the exact point of using "very" here to point out the big difference this misconception dissolving item wants to convey, and a mere "small" were not enough to express the idea, and may result in confusion and misunderstanding, as if the C. effect has only mild difference of degree in bathtubs than in the wind. I can consent to the "too...to..." saying, it expresses the idea precisely, and avoids any confusion, and is actually nowhere different than a "very".Kuphrer (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your understanding.
 * I found it curious that the word wasn't mentioned in the guideline either, but its absence doesn't imply that it's acceptable. Possibly it could be classified either as weasel words or as editorializing. It's certainly imprecise because it lacks context. I have brought up usage of the word "very" on the guideline talk page so others can weigh in. I would advocate having the guideline mention it.
 * I'll add that multiple English teachers in my lifetime have stressed that using "very" is sloppy writing that seldom adds value to any sentence and one is better off omitting it, particularly in formal writing, which is what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be. If I see the word in an article, I find that the sentence is always improved by removing it and rephrasing the sentence. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to believe this is just your subjective opinion which is formed by repeated, with all due respect, doctrines. I'm sure a lot people would disagree. I've seen a lot of good articles and pages with properly applied "very". See Earth, the best featured article with lines such as "The shape of the Earth is very close to that of an oblate spheroid, a sphere flattened along the axis from pole to pole such that there is a bulge around the equator.","Local topography deviates from this idealized spheroid, though on a global scale, these deviations are very small: ","All the other constituents occur only in very small quantities.[71]" et cetera.Kuphrer (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And even if "its absence doesn't imply that it's acceptable", your inability to accept it doesn't mean it's unacceptable either. Just keep an objective mind for what it's worth.Kuphrer (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are all a product of the sum of our past experiences. Point taken.
 * In the example of Earth, the sentence is just as meaningful if "very" were simply omitted. The clumsy passive-voice phrase "is very close to that of" isn't what I'd call compelling prose that meets featured article criteria. It could be tightened up by replacing those six words with two: "closely matches" or "closely approximates". Even my adverb "closely" isn't necessary. Saying "The shape of the Earth approximates an oblate spheroid" would do just as well. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

How come the voice should be "clumsy passive"? Where on earth was that conclusion drawn from? Could you explain that? I'm really missing it. I must be lacking a mysterious sense! Despite my apparent deficiency, I still believe the apparent reasonable practice, when encountered with something I don't like/understand, should be to first assume a mistake on myself rather than mistake on others. If I really believe otherwise, I shall find a proof. From this point of view, I think your practice on editing really wants some improvement. Do not change other people's work just because you think they aren't PROSING elegantly!Kuphrer (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC) If you really think "the sentence is just as meaningful if "very" were simply omitted", you should really just leave it be. Won't make any difference except for your slight uneasiness for its unacceptable prosing style. But of course no one can stop you from changing it with the certain outcome that it will easily become another person's unacceptable prosing style.Kuphrer (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That should have been "clumsy AND passive", sorry. Clumsy, because it consumed six words where one would do just fine. The practice of tightening prose is well recognized as something to strive for; I refer you to The Elements of Style by Strunk &amp; White for the classic definitive guidance. Passive, because it is passive, obviously, and changing to active voice serves also to tighten up the sentence. Not that there's anything wrong with passive voice, but when active voice shows a benefit, there's no reason to avoid using it.
 * I disagree with your opinion that leaving in unnecessary words is acceptable. Your argument is easily turned around: Omitting it won't make any difference except for your slight uneasiness for its prosing style.


 * As someone who has worked professionally as a copyeditor in my past, and who has written articles for scientific journals, I respectfully must disagree with a subjective personal assessment of my "practice on editing" from someone who is clearly unfamiliar with my work. You seem to be new here, so I'll point you to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and request that you remember to comment on content rather than on contributors. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, reason won't work, and now he's pulling ranks. Whatever. The rich get more vote, right?Kuphrer (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't act as if I want to argue with you in any way. I would be really happy to just leave you alone, as long as you don't come mess up with my work with your so called "subjectivity" and "prosing" excuses, which clearly has dominated your mind and spoiled your sense for literary accuracy as to think "very" is more imprecise. Just don't come near my work, you can have whatever prosing style you like. I hate most those people disrespecting other people's work just out of their subjective and unrelated judgement of insignificant trivia, so no civility with you, just not interested.Kuphrer (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been civil with you. I have addressed each of your arguments with references and examples. And yet, you refuse to accept that someone else may have a point, and instead fall back on ad hominem argument.
 * I also refer you to WP:OWN. You don't own any work you do here, you have no proprietary right to it in any way, and anyone, including me, is free to improve upon, or revert, any edit you make, especially if rationale is provided, as has been done by me and others.
 * It is unfortunate that you deliberately choose to ignore, not just a guideline (WP:AGF) but an official Wikipedia policy (WP:CIVIL), which is a blockable offense. Please take care in your interaction with others, and always assume good faith, which you are failing to do. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you are pulling those friendly yellow books, here is one for you: Manual_of_Style. With respect to argument type, I might have a sarcastic tone, that's just my prosing style, and the whole "dominated your mind and spoiled your sense" stuff was incited by your own ad hominem attack that I am "someone who is clearly unfamiliar with my work" and "seem to be new here", thus questioning my "characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise", and which you have been doing since the "As someone who has worked professionally..." stuff. I can apologize for my tone, on the condition that you apologize first, but the banning threat won't work. So ban me! That's how Wikipedia works? "You have tried to be civil with me", no need to be civil to me, don't turn to civility, try to reason instead of stating that I "refuse to accept that someone else may have a point", I have always been reasoning with evidences and references, and all you are doing is just quoting your personal prosing style, if it is ad hominem just to point out this.Kuphrer (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I might be new here, but at least I've read all the proper rules and the most important rule to ignore all rules when defending Wikipedia quality asks for it. I hope you read all the rules too? The rule I cited above?(Sorry I gave the wrong link and it should work now.)Kuphrer (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And what a perfect argument to cite the WP:OWN stuff to justify arbitrary messing up with other people's work. I may not own it, but I will resort to any means to defend it from arbitrary changes based on "mere choice of style", which is totally legitimate, and if you don't agree, let's find some administrator or arbiter or whatever, if that is ever possible.Kuphrer (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And the "comment on content" stuff. The current content has been whether it's appropriate to change an article just because it doesn't fit your style, which you have always been arguing with statements essentially the same as "because the style I have accepted as right, scholarly, cool" etc. and it's obvious I will have to argue by pointing out it's only your own taste and not a justification at all. If that's called ad hominem, I can say no more.Kuphrer (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant no attack or disrespect; if I came across that way I do indeed apologize. That is never my intent when interacting with others here, although I am known to be rather firm or brusque at times. I was merely making observations: you have a short editing history, and you were casting aspersions on me personally, suggesting that you know something about me when you are unfamiliar with my history here. The user rights I have earned here don't come without close familiarity with the policies and guidelines, so yes, I am familiar with what you reference. That bit on stability isn't quite in the context of what we're discussing. It's about allowed variations in styles already defined in the guidelines, such as using BC/AD or BCE/CE to indicate eras, or using British versus American spelling. Ignore all rules, in actual practice (as far as I've observed) is a last refuge, not something I've ever had to invoke, and certainly not a rationale to buttress one side of a disagreement. I also made no threats. You seemed unfamiliar with a policy, so I simply informed you of a consequence of deliberately disregarding it. It would not be appropriate for me to block you, because I am an involved party in our dispute. Finally, the quote by Mark Twain that someone else left at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (words to watch) pretty much sums up my position better than I have made it so far. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added this page to the WP:3 page, although I have no idea how it works. First I apologize since you have apologized for whatever I say that might have possibly seemed uncivil, which might just be a natural expression of some certain emotions, and I hope you do not see them as personal remarks because they weren't. (However, I would really appreciate if you stop using those civility excuses as protections. May we try something more relevant to the topic?) As to the guideline problem. Although the jurisdiction was only about the "BCE/CE vs. BC/AD" problem, the final consensus clearly was a broadening as to cover, as the phrasing goes, "guideline-defined style", and a editorial preference on whether using sets of words including "very" or not is clearly a matter of style, being defined in the article as "consistent usage and formatting", and of which the article you cited WP:W2W is a subsection, which causes a clear contradiction if you are stating that they are now irrelevant.
 * Quoting the consensus:
 * Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.
 * To use Mark Twain's words as argument is really weak. Writers are reputably inclined to exaggerate and twist facts to create literary vividness and express a point which in a daily basis not, sometimes not at all, as serious as they've stated. It should be common sense that citation from a writer is often dubious and not a reliable source. You really need better argument than that.
 * It's also very important to notice the line "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it" at the very top of WP:MOS, and my common sense tells me that to use the word "very" or not in a general manner is indubitably defined as a matter of style. (It also tells me that the word "very" has its unique importance in the language called English, having a top-10ish word frequency.)

Third opinion
Greetings! I am impressed at the volume of discussion both of you have managed to produce over what, in my opinion, started as a very small thing. (Disclaimer - any attempts at humor in my comments are here to try to defuse, not belittle). Here are some thoughts I wanted to share based on reviewing the edits here and on the article in question: Regards! VQuakr (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a collaborative writing environment. Every addition someone makes to an article will eventually be edited beyond recognition. Therefore, changes to something you wrote should not be interpreted as a personal affront.
 * Kuphrer, you are very new. This is not an insult and implies nothing about your writing ability (and certainly nothing about how much your opinion matters), but it does suggest something about your level of experience with Wikipedia. Please take every opportunity imaginable to assume good faith when someone gives you feedback.
 * Using caps lock for almost anything except acronymns looks like shouting; doing so risks unnecessarily escalating a simple situation.
 * Getting upset over grammar is lame. Doing so repeatedly is likely to alienate other editors.
 * Finally, from a stylistic standpoint the less verbose versions of the section of List of common misconceptions appear better. WP:STABILITY does not apply here since we are not dealing with alternate dates or spelling, but simple copy editing. If someone simplifies something you have written, consider taking a few moments to read over the new version and see if it really should be reverted.
 * I'm new, so what? If that does not imply anything, and proves no specific point, don't mention it. Being "experienced" might be just being a lot more biased at certain things. Sometimes a fresh eye is needed.
 * You have most certainly missed my recent arguments. The idea that WP:STABILITY is only about "alternate dates or spelling" is a misinterpretation caused by the fact that it was decided over the "BCE/CE vs BC/AD" problem. Although the jurisdiction was only about the "BCE/CE vs. BC/AD" problem, the final consensus clearly was a broadening as to cover, as the phrasing goes, "guideline-defined style", and a editorial preference on whether using sets of words including "very" or not is clearly a matter of style, being defined in the article as "consistent usage and formatting", and of which the article formerly cited WP:W2W is a subsection, which causes a clear contradiction if stating that they are now irrelevant. It's also very important to notice the line "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it" at the very top of WP:MOS, and my common sense tells me that to use the word "very" or not in a general manner is indubitably defined as a matter of style.
 * This is a very small thing, and it's very simple. The other editor changes the phrasing out of a merely personal dislike of the original one. The facts are simple and clear, and the motivation strongly opposed by me, so there's no need to assume good faith, because it is a representation of clear editorial ego and presumptuousness showing a clear preference of one's own style, which is very annoying. I have not taken anything as personal affront, and it's only because it causes my resent on the blatant self-assertiveness of the editorial behavior I see that I act so sharply. It can easily also be a very big issue, concerning the appropriateness of editorial changes based on whim.
 * Getting upset over grammar is lame, I totally agree with that, and it's really absurd to have such a big problem on simple English usages and to force others to conform to one's pedantic and dogmatic writing style. I can happily live with usual and normal English, and I think it's enough for our use.
 * Since my version are generally longer, I'm assuming that you are in favor of my version in this case. Please point out if otherwise.
 * I mentioned that you were new because it was applicable. Wikipedia has a unique culture to which it is not necessarily easy to adjust. Specifically, new editors may not be used to having their contributions modified by subsequent edits and I wanted to emphasize to you that this is normal. Assuming good faith absolutely does apply here, please consider re-evaluating if there is a way it could be applied to this situation. As for your question about versions of the section, there were several edits and several versions so I do not want to oversimplify but I did just revert one of your changes in the article and tried to give an adequate edit summary. I will follow up with you in more detail time permitting, but it will not be tonight as I have to go. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that every addition will be edited does not imply that every edition on an addition is justifiable, and you are making a basic logical mistake here. The fact that many newcomers get upset when they see their changes reverted does not imply every revert to a newcomer is totally justifiable and not to be questioned by the said newcomer. A systematic bias towards new users and their additions, and the tendency for old users to be more presumptuous as to implicitly think they have more power to revert and change other people's work according to their own will is a clear problem, and The wikipedia has realised this problem clearly, so much so that a message to community about community decline was discussed intensively. So you should really rectify your argument, and assume good faith when someone might be just wanting to point out some malady practice among the community. The fact that you are focusing on my newness instead of any relevant topic seems to be telling something. Why don't you comment on Amatulić's opinion? Isn't a third opinion supposed to be neutral? I'm waiting for your further updates.
 * I can happily accept the fact that my additions become totally not recognizable through a constructive process of editing based on the substantial improvement, but I will not tolerate whimsical changes purely out of a dislike of a certain English word or two, they should just leave those personal dislikes at home.
 * Your implication that Wikipedia editing requires a fair amount of experience so as not to be questioned is unfounded, and refuted by the line "You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right" in WP:IAR?(first sentence), in which there's also a sentence stating "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule.", and both of them can further support my opinions in the last paragraph. Actually, although I have no real inclination to point out, it's an implicit form of ad hominem arguments, and is advised to be left out if possible, which is why I said "don't mention it". The unique culture statement is not a good argument when a so-called "culture" may only refer to a set of doctrines, prejudice, and most infamously, caste systems.
 * I guess I need to quote the original lines:
 * Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.
 * Glad to hear that you do not object to editing of your contributions, but you will not have control over other editors' level of whimsy either. The MOS guideline you pointed to before clearly is intended to address format changes such as dates, color vs colour and other similar interchangeable formats. It clearly does not apply in the case of editing wordy sentences and similar copy editing, and it is not within the spirit of the guideline to stretch it so. As for the edit count comment, please allow me to rephrase - It was apparent to me which of the two of you was more experienced without checking, based solely on your reaction to User:Amatulic's (and others') mundane edits. You are not being targeted because you are relatively new, and no one cares how many edits you have performed so far. As far as Amatulic's edits, I suppose he or she allowed the discussion here to become too heated too rapidly. None of Amatulic's related edits to article space appear whimsical or inappropriate to me, which is why my focus has been on you. In any case, I think the benefit of a third opinion has about run its course here, if you would like to draw additional attention from other editors, please consider editor review, or of course another form of dispute resolution. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt if you have seen the whole and most important problem. I might be responsible, too, for not having presented the problem properly. I really don't want to draw too much attention in the first place, but if Wikipedia is not a place that can control editors' level of whimsy then it might be time for a change, otherwise it will only become a hodgepodge formed by an arbitrary set of people's arbitrary whim, such as the typical one presented here about an editor's eccentric dislike of such simple words as very, which is mocked by a few others in The Word Very.


 * This is not a matter of "whimsy" or personal dislike of a particular word. Your repeated characterization as such indicates a failure to assume good faith and, to put it bluntly, an obstinate refusal to acknowledge alternative point of view. This isn't a matter of personal preference. Rather, this is a matter of editorial improvements. My arguments have centered around the necessity of the word as well as the benefits of tightening up wordy prose. Please stop emphasizing on your personal views versus my personal views. Our personal views are irrelevant, and they have not been the focus of the points I have made. Your dismissal of those points, given to you by me and others (including Mark Twain) seems out of hand.


 * I'll point out that this is a consensus-based project. You have been reverted twice, by different editors, on list of common misconceptions based on what was seen as subjective wording on your part. You have received a 3rd-party comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (words to watch) that disagrees with your position. Finally, you have asked for, and received, a third opinion here, agreeing with my position that tightening wordy prose is beneficial, especially in scientific or technical articles. You can continue getting opinions (try WP:RFC next) but there comes a point where you have to decide when it's time to recognize alternative points of view and go with community consensus. There are many things about Wikipedia that I disagree with. I either go with the flow, or work through proper channels to make changes. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to stop here, wait and see how many others will continue mocking your proposal to advocate that the word ("very") be listed as something to avoid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuphrer (talk • contribs)
 * It seems inappropriate to characterize the edits of others as mocking, as this gives the appearance that you are accusing them of being uncivil. I do see other editors that disagree with Amatulic's opinion, but we appear to be discussing the merits of a suggestion and not trying to have a battle. VQuakr (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a strange political correctness culture here. Why so focused on how I'm arguing rather than what I'm arguing? Which one exactly is more important? Where's the good old Free Speech thing gone? Why don't you just ignore how I'm saying it and focus on what I'm saying? Isn't that also guidelined in WP:CIVIL? If I've got a point, focus on the point. If the said disagreements indeed contained satire, then there's no semantical problem for me using mock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuphrer (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, I thought your use of "mock" accurately characterized one of the comments there. But VQuakr also makes a point: It may have felt good for you to write that, but was it necessary? How you argue here does matter. Sarcasm doesn't transmit well in a written medium, and belittling others has no place here. This has nothing to do with political correctness or free speech. Think of it as an exercise in diplomacy.
 * And, by the way, free speech isn't a right on Wikipedia; it is curtailed here by the WP:CIVILITY policy, the behavioral guidelines, admin actions, and ArbCom decisions. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The relevant info page on free speech is actually here. In a nutshell, that right is a restriction on the federal government of the USA (with parallels in various other countries), not to encyclopedias. How you say something is a critical part of WP:CIVIL, and I am surprised you would bring it up in the context that you did as the policy seems to clearly address that both the content and presentation of how your communicate are important. That being said, civility (as you say, political correctness) is absolutely essential in a collaborative writing environment and yes, it is part of the culture here. VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it ok to close the session here?
The discussion has obviously gone off-topic, let's forget it.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 10:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)