User talk:Wslack/Archive 1

Wslack's archived talk 1: August 2006

re: New Advocate
Not at all, not at all. Feel free to hang around the relevant pages, and do ask me any questions or make any comments you may have, either by leaving me a message on my talk page, or by e-mailing me. --David Mestel(Talk) 19:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and another quick thing: if you want to get a feel for the way things are done on Wikipedia, I strongly recommend participating in the AfD or DRV processes. --David Mestel(Talk) 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Al1encas1no
Al1encas1no tried to draw attention to the article because an anon replaced the Santa text with text about Mustane. I pointed him to the help desk and WP:ANI to ask for help and recommended to not move the article to get attention. - Mgm|(talk) 21:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

weird comment
He had accidentally moved santa claus to a singer's page and didn't know how to revert it. It must be fixed already St.isaac 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Psephos
Gudday, if you think that Margana's opponents do not want to label the Psephos website POV, you need to read the article and talk page again. Everyone agrees that the website is not politically neutral, even its owner and author Adam Carr. And the Psephos article has contained the sentence "The site does not claim to be politically neutral" since 7 June. Snottygobble 00:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

my RfA vote on User:The Thadman.
Thanks for your note.

Most experienced editors feel that well rounded experience is imperative. I think this is supported in Requests_for_adminship/Standards and in Requests_for_adminship. Saying that someone was forced to withdraw does indicate a lack of understanding of RfA and Wikipedia. As does allowing the statement on one's nomination. Requests_for_adminship makes it plain that it's rare for the RfA of a user with < 2000 edits to succeed. This was the case with The Thadman's first RfA.

Comments on RfA are intended as constructive criticism to help the candidate improve his capabilities and thus better serve to improve Wikipedia. It would be helpful if you and the candidate refamiliarize yourselves with the reading list and other policies and guidelines. Hope this helps. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 01:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your note I believe it indicates youthful exuberance, the desire to support a friend, and a need for broader experience with Wikipedia. We can all benefit from more exuberance, friends, and experience. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Psephos
''Morgana's issue is that the bias is covert in her eyes, and show makes it seem more obvious than it is. What about: "The site deliberately ignores the elections of the Communist State Cuba owing to the beliefs of the owner. It does not claim to be politically neutral." Does that work for you?

--Wslack (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)''
 * I am a bit concerned that by trying to negotiate this point directly with me, you are giving credence to the false impression that there is a content dispute between Margana and me. The content dispute is between Margana and everyone else at Talk:Psephos. I don't speak for everyone else, and what I think and say isn't binding on anyone else, so I think your question should be posted to Talk:Psephos rather than my talk page. Does that makes sense?
 * Having said all that, I have a few comments:
 * I don't know what you mean by "and show makes it seem more obvious that it is".
 * I suggest you re-read Merzbow's comment at Talk:Psephos.
 * "Deliberately ignores" is POV because that phrase goes much further than simply stating that the omission of Cuba's elections reflects the owner's point of view; it also implies that the omission is incorrect and irresponsible. If you changed "deliberately ignores" to "discounts" or "does not include", that would be reasonably NPOV, which is a certain indication that Margana will not accept it.
 * Snottygobble 02:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wslack, do you think you could possibly hold of from direct involvement in this case for now, as it is currently rather sensitive. --David Mestel(Talk) 07:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments at User talk:Hillman
Hi, Wslack,

Thank you for your detailed comments, which I am moving here (with some minor refactoring intended to improve readability) since it seems I need to clear my user talk page for a more urgent discussion. ---CH 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) "open source" and "Britannica": several others have raised the issue of a poor choice of words. I wasn't really trying to claim that Wikipedia aims to be Brittanica; I was merely trying to find a catchy slogan, via alliteration in "better britannica versus better blog".'
 * 2) "Wikipedia isn't to be managed, Wikipedia is to manage itself." Since it seems I didn't convince you, please see User:Hillman/Media commentary on Wikipedia for some other attempts to argue that lack of leadership, particularly in guiding the development of policy, has been one of the biggest problems at WP.
 * 3) "mainstream": sounds like we agree.
 * 4) "I don't know much about Valdalfighting, only that we seem to be fairly sucessful at it, I think.". Well, with respect, I am not sure you should express strong opinions on whether or not QC issues like vandalization, hoaxing, and wikishilling pose a serious problem (compared to traditions like welcoming anon edits) if you have not attempted to research this phenomenon!  These are enormously complex issues, which is one reason why it has been so difficult to initiate a useful policymaking discussion of them.
 * 5) "Wikipedia cannot fail" Of course it can, and complaceny is big part of the problem. With respect, you should gain more experience with QC problems and threats made against WP before denying even the possiblity that it might be suddenly shut down for a variety of reasons (financial difficulties being one of the more likely possiblities).
 * 6) "Campaigns Wikia isn't Wikispeech" Agreed, I hadn't had time to read much about CW when I wrote that.
 * 7) "I do not think that Wikipedia holds to the Populist ethos." Since it seems I didn't convince you, please see User:Hillman/Media commentary on Wikipedia for some other attempts to draw attention to the underlying Ayn Rand/populist elements of the political philosophy of the most influential members of the Wikipedia community, including Jimbo.
 * 8) "I stand firm in the belief that making great articles static is a great way to reduce upkeep and give Wikipedia more momentum." I think we agree on that point. I like the general idea of stablization and am encouraged that Jimbo seems willing to explore this, however cautiously.

My thoughts about yours
This will be long, but I haven't been able to really think in a while. I'll also start by saying that I'm not too experinced, having had any major conflicts, and thus remain fairly idealistic. However, I still think I have something to share on the theory aspects of your writings on the main page. I'm going down your main page by section.

--Wslack 03:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 1, 2 and the first bit of 3. Here's the second: "a suitable political and social infrastructure, whose evolution is wisely guided by a good helmsman to ensure that it continues foster our mission." I think this goes against the nature of open source. The idea is that everyone is a helmsman. Except for legally needed Office Actions, I don't see how a hierarchy fits into the experiment. An Admin's opinion shouldn't matter more than a new user's because of adminship but rather because of experience. Admin's have more tools, but more tools do not correspond to more voting power. It's about experience.
 * What is Wikipedia?

Wikipedia isn't to be managed, Wikipedia is to manage itself. That process is tacking place here. (I'll refer to that article later)

I think we all have the right to further the goals of Wikipedia, but not to detract from them. It is not a privilage to me, because that implies exterior control: A user is blocked because they have not exersized their right in Vandalism AND has impeded another's right to the best Wikipedia possible.

I think that the mainstream view should be presented ... as the mainstream view. Bias will come, but policy should call for no bias. That does not mean that mainstream ideas should be given equal weight as fringe ideas: They are more major and thus more deserving of content.

Here we run into the issue of Wikipedia Activism, where fringe ideas receive large articles that they do not merit, and mainstream ideas are left alone and short because they need no activists in the real world. So, therefore, I would say that: The tenants of a viewpoint deserve a place on Wikipedia's pages, but their justifications do not. And there lies the need for WikiSpeech.org.

As for the last paragraph, I think Wikipedia is and should be a repository of knowledge, but with quality control over certain articles. That's why I'm so excited about Stabilizing featured articles. As more and more articles reach a high status of quality, they could be saved and out of Wikipedia an encyclopedia would be born.


 * The real mission of Wikipedia?


 * 1) Here we come back to the need to give tenants of veiwpoints and not justification, with the need of an obvious place for said justification.
 * 2) This part comes with the territory. I don't know much about Valdalfighting, only that we seem to be fairly sucessful at it, I think. Perhaps the subjects of Wikipedia articles could request semi-protection if they fear libel.
 * 3) Many things on the web are, I don't think this inhibits the goal of Wikipedia as long as said socializing happens outside of the Mainspace.


 * A failure of leadership?

This isn't meant to be Brittanica, or a blog. I think the goal lies between, where Wikipedia can hold all this knowledge, and at the same time have some method to assure quality.

Here is my first issue with your logic. This isn't Britannica, no one ever said it was, so presuming that as a premise hurts your logic in my eyes.

At the same time, I know that many of the articles on Wikipedia, such as those on Atlanta or the Telephone do not inspire angry essays, and thus that the lack of Wikispeech.org hurts a part of Wikipedia, the part of contention. I furthermore believe that said contention will not go away with Wikispeech, but will rather send off the true debaters and leave vandals, who will throw their ideas anywhere-they-want-to-thank-you-very-much.

I think the solution here is too work these articles to a good point, containing tenants of views and not justification, and then achiving them there under the Stabilizing featured articles idea.

In regards to "incompability of their policy of encouraging edits by IP anons with the goal of building a better Britannica," the assumption that Wikipedia seeks to be Britanica across the board is false in my view as I have already said. Wikipedia is a stew of the good, the bad, and the ugly, and our goal, if we want a Britanica, is to isolate the good, improve the bad, and ban the ugly. The only thing we still need to do is isolation. Improvement and Reversion are already integral here.

Wikipedia cannot fail, just as it cannot succeed. But Wikipedia can move forward, and I believe it still does. We just need ways to keep us from sliding as we climb higher and higher.


 * An unexpected development

Nothing much to say in responce here, except that I think that Campaigns Wikia isn't Wikispeech, and that Wikispeech would be a good thing to move debate to a more appropiate environment.


 * An inappropriate political philosophy?

I do not think that Wikipedia holds to the Populist ethos. If that were the case, then AfD pages would just be vote-counters. They are not. More experienced users opinions carry more weight in my experience jsut as they should.

Another point is that true experts are diswaded from working here. This is true, but this is a Wiki, and that issue with remain. This is not Nupedia, where only qualified scholars made the articles. That project failed. And again, we are not here to build a Brittanica. We are here to buid the best Wiki we can.


 * A better leader?

I will not beat the dead horse again. Wikipedia isn't around to compete with Brittanica for quality, except possibly within featured articles. Brittanica aims for perfection (i.e. no errors) and does expect to get there. Wikipedia's strength and weakness lies in that it is never perfect. But still, we need to preserve the excellence we get so that energy can be spent in bringing new articles to excellence, and not holding old ones up.

A comment: A little more info on Wales would help people understand why he isn't fit for your job.

I'm glad you enjoyed the social part, it helps retain people. And I will say again, that Wikipedia will never pass just as it will never fail, unless upkeep stops progress. Therefore, we need to minimize upkeep in order to maintain progress. This is an idea I've seen you write as well. I stand firm in the belief that making great articles static is a great way to reduce upkeep and give Wikipedia more momentum.
 * Please do not misunderstand

Your dislike and disdain for anon editors is obvious here. I only got into this because of Anon editing, then realizing I wanted a watchlist and other things, requiring an account. Anons are a part of this process and I fail to see how they doom the project.
 * A brief account of my former activity at Wikipedia

I am sorry that you had such a frustrating time with you math articles, and I can see how that would convice you that only true experts should be allowed. Thus I see again a need for you to have been able to save thoe articles so that you wouldn't have to spend time saving what you had already made.

I am fully in agreement that Wikipedia needs a way to lessen upkeep as to encourage progression. I believe in Wikipedia's ability to continue to produce excellent articles, provided they can be saved somehow. I do not think Wikipedia is doomed to fail, in that I believe in the core ideas of the project, and I believe that the Wide net of Wikipedia can provide knowledge that other places could not.
 * In conclusion

Thoughts? I've written a book (not literally), if there are other places for me to put this, please tell me. Thanks for your time and dedication.

Feedback is very good. This is a first draft. I want to hear from anyone and everyone, either here or at my talk page.

--Wslack 03:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Go right ahead - i see you've already made of with "my" countries template (that i admittedy stole myself). The welcome as well, i must admit, is not my creation, and it is my regret that i don't remember from whom i stole it. I patched it up considerably, such that i feel it is uniquely mine; so, if you want to modify it to your own tastes, using the template as a guide, be my guest. Enjoy! СПУТНИК CCC P 18:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you need help or advice with AMA...
... or with anything else, feel free to put a note on my talk page. Welcome to the AMA, thanks for volunteering your time! User:Pedant 23:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

re Pull Out
It's not like that at all; you were doing a sterling job, and were certainly not being uncivil. It's just that in such a sensitive case, I think it's often better to present a united front. You are more than welcome to e-mail me or contact me on my talk page with any comments you might have, and I feel that your competence clearly shows that you are reasy to take on your own cases. --David Mestel(Talk) 07:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

AMA stuff
1. Is the advocate's activities supposed to be entirely public? (as in can I work out deals away via e-mail, not talk pages as to avoid flaming and whatnot)
 * Please excuse my long answers: You should be ready for public scrutiny of whatever you do "on wikipedia" of course, but... No, you don't have to have all your discussions with your client out in the open and it makes good sense to have private or semiprivate interviews with anyone involved or anyone who might give you insight.  A lot of your research can be done by checking the history of whatever the problem is.  The problem sometimes, is figuring out exactly what it is that your client is having a problem with, so it is sometimes necessary to have several discussions with the client to figure that out.

2. Is the advocate supposed to focus, in Arb cases, on the client's innocence, or is he free to look into the accusers?
 * I have never had anything go to arbitration. I would say though, that your job is easier in those cases as the arbitrator will likely guide the discussion, and all you need to do is present your client's side.  Really the only thing an editor can be 'guilty' or 'innocent' of is bad faith.  Any person whose intent is to create a better encyclopedia will be glad to help work out a reasonable solution.  It really is a lot easier than it seems, all you need to know is that good communication is the key.


 * A client who is 'wrong' seems to be pretty common. They still deserve to not be beat up for it.  Sometimes the very best you can do is help the discussion stay on track and focus on solutions rather than infinite argument.  You just do the best you can to help however you can.  You aren't obligated to continue as an advocate beyond what you can do, but so that the client doesn't get abandoned in the middle of the process it would be stellar of you to try to only take cases that you feel you can handle, as well as try to stick with it when it gets too tough, and ask for help if you need it.


 * As I understand it, (and this works well for me) as an advocate, your job is mainly to try to effectively achieve a solution to whatever the client thinks is the problem, but sometimes this might take the form of both advocating for your client, as well as advising your client that, (according to wikipedia traditions, customs policies and the overall intent of the community) that your client is in the wrong, or partly so, and in what way.


 * This should be done very gently and objectively, and with reference to appropriate policies and previous discussions. In this type of case the biggest problem can be that the client simply doesn't understand or disagrees.  That is fine.  In that case, you might consider that your job is to both educate the client as to why they might need to bend a little, and at the same time to try to represent to the other parties the most reasonable understandable version of your understanding of your client's intent and reasoning.

3. Do advocates ever go up against each other?


 * I'm sure they do. Again, as an advocate, your main job is to present your client's side of the issue as reasonably and accurately as you can, and your secondary job is to help your client understand their opponent's view.  It can oftentimes seem as if an advocates only job is to translate into English what is said in English.  It should make no difference that a client is represented by an advocate.  It is still the same thing, with the added advantage that both parties have someone reasonable to help facilitate the discussion.  Remember the two 'sides' are not opponents, rather they are colleagues working towards the same goal.

4. Are there any things you've learned in hindsight that you can save me from? :D]


 * Yep.
 * 1)don't sweat it, don't get personally wrapped up in a case, or emotional or frustrated. Everything can work out with patience and good faith discussion.
 * 2)treat everyone as if they are well paid and qualified editors, all working towards the same goal (this really helps me)
 * 3)"please"; "I'm sorry"; "thanks very much"; and all the rest of the niceties of social interaction go a long way to helping you be understood. Use them like magic fairy dust anywhere they fit.
 * 4)just as your client has asked for help and advice, it's okay for you as an advocate to ask for help.
 * 5) This one might be very very helpful: I always copy all correspondence with my client to a text file and save it somewhere. It could get huge and it will be helpful to have it somewhere where its not being "mercilessly edited" when you want to keep track of what your client said.


 * 6) this is I think the most important: your client could be wrong, in which case they still deserve their position to be advocated, but they don't deserve to 'win' and it isn't your job to help them 'win' but merely to advocate their position accurately.  No rule is set in stone, and if the client is wrong (according to the rules) and the rules are wrong (see WP:IAR maybe it works out that by being wrong, the client has actually improved wikipedia by helping to clarify rules or change them. Remember there are thousands of us here and with that many people working on it, even a case that blows up and turns into world war 4 can work out if you assume good faith, have patience, and stay calm.  Just do the best you can, and ask for help if you need it.


 * Thanks very much for asking my advice, I hope some of it is helpful. Sorry to be so long-winded. User:Pedant 18:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

'Needing to pick your brain :-)
Heyo, Steve Caruso here :-) 'Mind if I pick your brain over what has been happening on David's case with Margana? אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / AMA / vote for me ) 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

AMA template
so the template goes on my talk page or my user page? thanks for your help!!User:Pedant 21:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I broke it? User:Pedant 22:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was so simple, how could I not get it? Thanks for your patience and your help! User:Pedant

Need help getting article undeleted...
Hello, I'm not sure if you will be able to help me or not, but I would like to help to have an article undeleted. Basically the article is about a favorite musician of mine, and the article was deleted because it did not mention anything about what the word elucidate means. But that is of no importance in this article as it is an artist named Elucidate... not the word elucidate. Thanks for your help.

I would send you a link to the article but they protected it so that it could not be recreated, and thus there is nothing to link you to :(

This is all that is left http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elucidate

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanb995 (talk • contribs)

Responce
Here's the link to the deletion page. It shows that the article was simply a definition of the word "elucidate" and thus that article needed to be deleted.

However, I see that Elucidate the artist does have some notability, so I have asked an administrator about the deletion and a possible revert. In the meantime, I suggest you begin an article for this place at User:Seanb995/Elucidate just so you can begin drafting. Once you have the beginnings of an article, I'll post this at deletion review.

Thoughts?

--\/\/slack (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds great, and I thank you for your help. I am still learning how to use wikipedia, could you explain to me how to start an article on my user page?

Thank you again for your help. :)

Sean B.

Elucidate
Hi,

The governing AfD, regarding the word, did not apply to my speedy deletion or the one immediately prior to mine. Both of these articles concerned the artist -- one was deleted as CSD A7 and one as both A7 and A3 linkspam (ratio of links to actual text was high.) Rereading the deleted versions, I'm not inclined to think the gentleman is notable, nor do I find a real assertion of notability there.

You and your represented party have three options: 1) Take the matter to Deletion Review; 2) provide me with these notable sources you've mentioned, and I may be convinced to retract myself; or, 3) Write a new, better article in userspace using your sources and bring it to me or DRV for posting.

I would userfy the deleted text regarding the artist, but I don't know whether to give it to you or to your represented party. I would also need the assurance that the content wouldn't be reposted until it was substantially revised, of course. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be great, and thank you again for your help! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanb995 (talk • contribs)


 * Regarding your message, I'm sure the new article would be sufficient at least to require an AfD. Regarding your discussion of CSD A7, remember that criterion doesn't deal with whether a subject is notable, but whether an article asserts notability.  One can't really dispute an A7 without seeing (or having written) its text.  Of course, that's an academic point, since we have a rewrite here.  Best wishes, Xoloz 00:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to where to comment
I guess the best place to comment on the article would be in my User talk:Seanb995/Elucidate. :)

Thanks!

Sean B.

RE: Userpage helpdesk
Thanks for reminding me! That page hasn't been commented on in a long time so I guess I missed it on my watchlist. Cheers! GeorgeMoney (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)