User talk:Rogala

Welcome!
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions or place   on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Reconsider !  04:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Shakespeare authorship question if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The committee's full decision can be read at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question. It is important that you are aware that repeatedly raising unfruitful topics on a talk page can be regarded as unhelpful and even disruptive. In particular, uses "WP:CIVILITY" and "WP:BITE" in a manner which suggests that other editors have been uncivil and have bitten a new user. Considering the very detailed and informative discussion in response to your earlier comments, such usage may be regarded as an attack on other editors. Reading Talk:Shakespeare authorship question shows that your suggestions have received deep consideration with helpful, civil, and on-topic responses. Please confine any further comments to the topic (see the talk page guidelines), and ensure that such comments account for the responses already given. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback. I am well aware of the arb com decision.  In response to your specifics:


 * 1) I did not raise the topic even once, let alone "repeatedly". Tom Reedy raised it and I engaged in it with very specific comments at exactly the section of the SAQ which he asked about.


 * 2) The comment you mention was a general comment urging all to stick to the content, not past "bad blood"...of which I had no part.  It is restated here and is very "plain English":


 * "Also, Can we PLEASE stick to the CONTENT here not past editing history ?? I've read it all and, while it does not reflect well on a number of people who WERE there, I was not one of them, so please: WP:CIVILITY and, with regards to this topic WP:BITE."


 * Rogala (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq, I am puzzled that you have put this threat on Rogala's page but not, as yet, on the page of someone who accuses Rogala of being less than ingenuous. Poujeaux (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

SAQ talk page reply
In response to your post on my talk page, Wikipedia works on consensus. The SAQ page represents a remarkable achievement because of the huge amount of work that has gone into it (including a case before ArbCom, which is as close as Wikipedia has to an elected governing body / supreme court). While everyone has the right to their opinions, I am not surprised that your long Open letter to Tom Reedy, which proposed scrapping several sections of the SAQ article and a major reorganization / rewrite, was not met with agreement. As for the more recent suggestions you have made, the consensus of those contributing on the talk page is again not on your side.

I am not an expert on Shakespeare, though, in the interests of full disclosure, I think it is obvious that the man from Stratford-on-Avon wrote the works with his name on them (guess that makes me a Stratfordian). While I think I understand the most recent point you want to make clearer, it also seems to me that the current wording in the article is flexible enough to cover the concepts of both those who simply doubt that Shakespeare was the author, and those who also have another candidate in mind (to put it mildly). One problem is that Wikipedia articles are pretty short, especially compared to books (or even most chapters in books), and so they often must summarize and not cover every possible detail.

I also know that it has been a long and exhausting process for the editors involved in getting the SAQ article to WP:FA status, and do not doubt that they are more than a little worn out at this point. My guess is that the last thing they expected after the article was promoted was to have to lengthy discussions on the SAQ talk page (yours and Ssteinburg's (sp?)).

My suggestion is that you familiarize yourself more with the workings of Wikipedia. Pick a topic and write or expand an article on it and try to get it to WP:GA and even FA. It would improve the encyclopedia and hopefully be fun for you too. I hope you enjoyed the play. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your advice as an admin regarding the SAQ article...definitely a "thorny area" even now.  Here are my thoughts:


 * 1) I am working right now on an article on Dr. Alister MacKenzie which is the primary focus of my current Wikipedia efforts and I am going to try to take it through GA and FA as you suggest. I would LOVE to get your help on that if you would be willing.


 * 2) I clearly sensed Tom Reedy's irritation regarding my re-org suggestion right before the FA was complete, so I dropped it and decided to wait until after the FA status was given to even potentially chime in on the SAQ talk board. I completely recognize the work which went into it by the editors...most especially with regard to sourcing, hence my willingness to "back off" until the FA was settled.  I am a "tread lightly" type of person.


 * 3) It may not be immediately clear to you, but I only chimed in as a direct response to Tom Reedy's original post in the Loose Ends section, wherein he was soliciting feedback on that exact section of the SAQ. This was the first time I ever chimed in on any SAQ topic.


 * 4) I admit to being EXTREMELY surprised by the length of the discussion on the relatively simple issue which I pointed out, and I think the point I was making is obscured by the length of those discussion. In one sentence, here is what I am suggesting: The first sentence of the SAQ Overview should use the definition of "anti-Stratfordian" as provided in the first sentence of the lead source which was cited - "The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms". That's it.


 * 5) To me it is axiomatic that if one cites a dictionary as the source for a definition, one should use the definition printed in the source, not a new definition synthesized from several sources and possible WP:OR.


 * Conclusion: I am going to (temporarily) take about your advice to basically "stay away from the SAQ page", and after merely copying #5 above to the SAQ page to ensure my point is crystal clear. I am going to return to "lurking" for a little to allow the current editors to "cool down".


 * I do have one concern: This episode makes me wonder if ANY suggestions for change AT ALL are ever going to be truly welcome by the group of editors who helped the SAQ through FA. IMO, it is natural for all human beings to feel proprietary about their work, but Wikipedia is not a place where one can realistically do that, as we all know.  Once the work is "out there" it is no longer ours but the community's.


 * I was thinking that after the FA was done, everyone would return to normal levels of WP:CIVILITY. Maybe it just is NOT possible for the people who lived through the whole SAQ experience to do so...I don't know.


 * Final thought: Change is inevitable in the Wiki process, therefore becoming too "protective" of one's past edits is unproductive in the long run.


 * Rogala (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. Regarding your more general observations:


 * I am not ashamed to report to you that I am extremely familiar with how Wikipedia works as I have been a user since just about "day 1". I have always an early embracer of new technology and Wikipedia was no exception.  I edited anonymously and intermittently from day 1 onwards, but only registered for my own account in 2009 as part of a planned collaboration on the technical aspects of heraldry (which is a hobby).  Even after I had my own account, I have preferred to edit other articles anonymously as I am not really interested in "credit" for edits.  I have been watching the SAQ for about a year, but have never commented before this week, as I dislike the type of ugliness which I saw going on there.


 * Regarding consensus - In the mid 1990s, I spent two years in a leadership role as part of the international consortium (a combination of government and business leaders) which established the joint specifications for the semiconductor industry's current manufacturing standards. Every individual company which participated was RUTHLESSLY tied to getting those industry standards written in a way which would benefit them. You can imagine how difficult it was to achieve consensus...yet we did so.  Something like the SAQ should be "small beer" compared to that. :-)


 * I mention the above by way of simple introduction to my own background as it is relevant to your comments...not puffery. I am sure many editors have much more impressive resumes than my own in terms of Wiki "street cred".  While I can DOUBTLESSLY "learn more about Wikipedia", I will modestly make the claim to have read and internalized every major section of the guidelines over the past several years.  As a PRECAUTION, however, I have also spent about 20-30 hours re-reading key sections in the past two weeks before chiming in on the SAQ.Rogala (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one example of how you have missed the mark: In the above you write 'to allow the current editors to "cool down"'. That is a personal attack (of course it's very mild, and it's not directed at a particular editor, so it's not a big deal). However, you are essentially saying that the people who have responded at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question have commented inappropriately and need to cool down. Wikipedians do not get excited by trivia and I am only mentioning this "cool down" comment as an example of how things work here: do not comment about other editors and whether or not they need to cool down. With certain exceptions such as some noticeboards and messages like this, no page on Wikipedia should be used to comment on anything other than article content. Of course you are convinced that you are correct and the dictionary definition should be used. Please consider what editors should do when person X is convinced of something, and person Y is convinced of the opposite. If you seriously consider that situation, and acknowledge that the standard Internet forum battling techniques do not accomplish anything, you will understand why things are as they are here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Point noted. I will abide by your advice regarding "cool down".  As you brought the topic up, could you also please give other parties OFFICIAL notice (in your capacity as an admin) not use the phrase "less than ingenuous" to refer to me on talk pages ?  I would not otherwise have mentioned it as the person involved was just mis-reading an edit history, but it does seem a bit pointed.Rogala (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Once your article is ready, submit it to WP:Peer review for feedback before submitting it to WP:GAN.
 * As a piece of general advice, the longer a post is, the less likely it is that most people will read it. In case you have not seen it, TLDR may be helpful. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * TY Ruhrfisch. I do tend to be wordy in my responses but I will work on being more pithy.  Just read TLDR now...which I somehow missed over the years.  I find it very helpful.  Good advice.  Rogala (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Re your comment just above: I am not an admin. It is standard for ordinary editors to offer suggestions or post notices or warnings on user pages. The community is the final arbiter on all day-to-day matters (other than legal) at Wikipedia, and with rare exceptions, there is no distinction between advice offered by a user and an admin. In practice, most administrators are too busy with routine management to do more than offer fairly standard notices. FYI you can see that despite being busy, Ruhrfisch is an exception to that: click Ruhrfisch's signature on this page to display their user or talk page. In the toolbox on the left you can then click "User contributions", and at the very bottom of the result, click "User rights". That shows that Ruhrfisch is an admin.
 * Re "less than ingenuous": comments have to be read in context, and a good argument could be made that the surrounding paragraph is not an attack on an editor (it is an attack on a proposal, and the repetition of a changing proposal—that kind of isolated comment is acceptable and standard). The only reason I mentioned "cool down" is to show that some core principles are hard to master. There is no need for a notice to be given to the others involved in the discussion because they are extremely experienced and have a good understanding of WP:CIVIL (although, of course, anyone can have a temporary lapse). To reiterate, my comments here have been entirely focused on explaining how things work. An exception is my notice about the Arbitration Committee: while that notice is a standard formality applied to all users who may tend towards behavior that arbitration has concluded is unhelpful, the notice has important consequences since sanctions can be applied if an uninvolved administrator believes the arbcom ruling has been contravened. All the others involved in the discussions that I have seen are formally aware of the arbcom ruling, and a notice for them would be superfluous. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, I somehow had the impression you were an admin...not sure how I came to that conclusion. I was 100% aware of the arbcom decision as I thought you knew from my previous "open letter..." comments (specifically the first sentence of those comments...upon which you had yourself commented prior to the notice).


 * You wrote: "The only reason I mentioned "cool down" is to show that some core principles are hard to master. There is no need for a notice to be given to the others involved in the discussion because they are extremely experienced and have a good understanding of WP:CIVIL."


 * Core principles may well be hard to master for some. I will try to do my part regarding mastery. The other extremely experienced party has already apologized for their remark and struck the comment. I accepted that apology today.


 * Regarding why you felt compelled to place the notice on my talk page...I want to respectfully point out to you this DIRECT quotation from WP:CIVIL which may be helpful in future: "Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). Consider using a personal message instead of, or at least in addition to, the templated message."


 * Next time, at least if it is me you are thinking about warning, please just follow the guideline/advice from WP and "Be careful...exercise caution...and...consider using a personal message" first. Thanks in advance.Rogala (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, but you should save it until you have quite a deal of extra experience. It is hard to comprehend how you could imagine that I am unaware of what WP:CIVIL says—I haven't come close to breaching any of the principles, guidelines or policies that apply here. If you read the notice above again, you will see that it presents an example where you claimed that other editors have been uncivil and have bitten a new user: the notice explains how that was inappropriate, and now you are repeating the procedure. Perhaps it would help if I mention that many editors are very talented people who are used to speaking directly, and it is common for the ideas presented by others to be ruthlessly torn apart—that is part of civil society here. Civility is breached when editor A comments negatively about editor B (but such claims with evidence and at an appropriate noticeboard can be made if done carefully). Problems also occur when an editor repeatedly raises an issue which has had no significant support when discussed previously. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just follow the WP guidelines, please. They are written in plain English. I never said you were "unaware", I did "respectfully point out" the section which you somehow missed or ignored before you posted the notice, and I asked you to follow the guideines next time with respect to me. A third party editor has already called you out on this once. Any critique of ideas is appreciated, ad hominems and implied threats are not.  They will be dealt with through the appropriate WP channels and escalated appropriately in every case.  I perceive that you threatened me once before with your "This is not going to end well" statementon the SAQ Talk Page, and I chose to ignore it, but I will not do so again.

contact
Dear Rogala,

On your talk page here I don't see the option to email you in private. I don't know if that is on purpose or not. If you go to my talk page, you should see that option on the menu on the left. I'd like to consult with you on some problems I have with editing in WP. If you're so inclined, please email me. Regards and kudos on your poise, knowledge, and cool temperament/attitude regarding WP in general. Sincerely, warshytalk 16:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * TY, I have been closely involved in consensus building efforts in the past involving multi-billion dollar corporations and their lawyers with each side fighting ruthlessly for their viewpoint. The environment I see here is often "interesting" even after my many years of professional experience in this field.  I will contact you.Rogala (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your reply, both here and on my talk page. I have now posted a reply to you there too, with more details on my initial request. I hope you can see better what I was referring to now. I think it is indeed "interesting" as you say, though it can also be quite harsh sometimes in my view. I don't think I have the experience of consensus building in the real world you mention, and neither here for that matter. I wish you much success in your endeavors. warshytalk 15:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

NOI
I is highly unlikely that any univolved editor will respond to your NOI request, because there is way too much detail. Editors there want a clear, concise summary of the issue. I would suggest that if you want to get other editors involved you submit the request again in a concise form. Paul B (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Northamerica1000(talk) 00:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Rogala/Rogala-Trembinski
User:Rogala/Rogala-Trembinski, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rogala/Rogala-Trembinski and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Rogala/Rogala-Trembinski during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)