User talk:Titanium Dragon/Archive 2

This is my talk page archive from 2005.

Honorifics and titles
I have posted a proposal on honorifics in my user space that I would like you to read: User:Ford/proposals. Your brief remarks at Talk:Pope John Paul II seem consistent with this. Thanks. &mdash; Ford 22:48, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Relationship
Any relation to Gold Dragon, who does many edits of the Baptist entry?
 * No relation at all, other than both being metallics. I've never heard of them before. Titanium Dragon 05:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prefixed Style Discussion
I hope you realize that you and I are in agreement that we should not use prefixed styles in any cases. The point of the way that I am addressing the proposed survey is that by giving people more options than straight up or down, we allow a consensus to be formed that prefixed styles are undesirable. If you put the issue in diametric terms, you create dissension which blocks consensus. Whig 19:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you are not aware, voting is under way on the subject. Whig 04:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for telling me. I voted, and encouraged a few others to do so. Titanium Dragon 12:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I have largely ceased editing. I do not know when if ever my editing will resume. I have given you your vote, though, since of course I agree with you and your efforts should be encouraged. I was driven out primarily by the arrogance and dishonesty of Ta bu shi da yu on 2004 (and by the rousing reception that his abuse met with from other editors), but prior to that I had ceased editing a few pages, and specifically John Paul II, because fellow editors were so completely biased and closed to reason. This is not going to change. The policy I directed you to earlier on this page remains my preference, and the only one consistent with neutrality and accuracy. But the partisans of adulation will not be reasoned with, and having the same idiotic discussions with them over and over is far too frustrating and time-consuming. &mdash; Ford 21:19, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

On the style page thinger
[Edit] (You may, like Jerzy (t) 05:06, 2005 May 7 (UTC), prefer to forgo this transclusion lk:)
 * 3 edits, 00:48 thru 05:06, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
 * participants: Titanium Dragon (t) (*); Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t) (*); Jerzy (t) (*)
 * general topic: styles (honorifics) in bios

Consensus Closure
I note that you, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and I are currently preferring Alternative 4 to Alternative 3, which is part of the present cycle. I'm personally in favor of compromising for the purpose of closing consensus in our own ranks. Whig 20:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I think 4 is better than 3, because honestly, as others have pointed out, its probably unnecessary to include styles in most articles, as we already have articles on the positions and it seems to be a bit of a waste of space and a rather redundant sentence which needs to be added to a ton of articles. I'd rather leave it so that even mentioning the style is discretionary, you cannot preface their name with it, ect. because it seems like it would be a nightmare to have to go through thousands of judges and legislators' pages and add the sentence in with their style, and it seems unnecessary to me, particularly in the cases of some shorter articles with little information in them, such as some younger members of the royal family. I may change my vote, though. The bloc voting 3 as last, though, is what caused 4 to come up into this little triad; I honestly don't think it is going to matter, as three more 3 over 4 votes will bring it up, and if 4 actually does win, I'd rather like to see that, rather than manipulate votes. It is better to be honest with our voting rather than attempting to "game the system"; if 3 AND 4 come up as two parts of a triad of three winners, it seems to me that it would indicate that there is some amount of consensus on not prefacing names with styles, as 2 has very little support; many supporters of 1 find 2 quite unpalatable, and it seems to me that the number of people who like 3 and 4 better than 2 is quite large. Titanium Dragon 22:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Although I've been persuaded that Alternative 3 may be a bit prescriptive, I don't personally oppose and have ranked it most preferred for the following reasons (in no particular order):
 * It is a whole lot better than the status quo policy of prefixing styles
 * To the extent the policy prescription of Alternative 3 might be selectively enforced or disregarded throughout the Wikipedia, such inconsistency would not violate NPOV because the specified format is neutral in presentation
 * It is an unambiguous proposal that can go forward for possible ratification without substantial rewording if it prevails
 * It could be ratified even by a large percentage of styles advocates, if they are seen not to have even a possible consensus for the prefixed-styles, because this wording at least preserves the style information prominently in the biographical article, versus an indeterminate result of an unratified outcome where styles might be removed from the biographical articles altogether, for instance
 * A consensus outcome is the ultimate goal of the process, and compromise is essential to consensus
 * For these reasons, and some more that I could think of but don't want to go on at too great a length, I now personally prefer Alternative 3. Whether you agree or disagree, you should vote your own conscience. Whig 03:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II
Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to Inquiry
Dragon, you are cordially invited to join Inquiry. Adraeus 12:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sam Spade took over the project, and twisted its purpose. Unfortunately, the project can't be deleted; however, I'm moving it offsite so I can exhibit more control over the documentation and membership. Adraeus 13:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC Lulu of the Lotus Eaters
I saw your endorsement of Mel Etitis' comment on Whig's RfC. If you feel like moseying over to the similar RfC that Jguk wrote against me (and that Mel Etitis left an identical outside view on), I'd appreciate the extra endorsement. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:33, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Manual of Style vote
I understand now - thanks for explaining that. I appreciate it. :) --User:Jenmoa 00:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

RfAr re: Styles
Please see if you are interested. Whig 09:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)