User talk:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Common name: : |
→Common name: We shouldn't be using the obscure middle names, or formal versions of the first names, in those infoboxes, either. |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
::*[[Theodore Roosevelt]] - Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. |
::*[[Theodore Roosevelt]] - Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. |
||
::Thus I do not see where the infobox common name argument is based. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''<sup><small>([[User talk:Lid|Talk]])</small></sup> 12:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
::Thus I do not see where the infobox common name argument is based. –– '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''<sup><small>([[User talk:Lid|Talk]])</small></sup> 12:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
::: We shouldn't be using the obscure middle names, or formal versions of the first names, in those infoboxes, either. "We've sometimes done it this way in the past" is a weak argument for doing something silly. --[[User talk:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The|Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The]] 12:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:45, 2 March 2008
I don't want to be excessive, but you appear to be a very cultured person, don't you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC) I just hope we don't encounter any Special Circumstances
- Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Precise Nature Of The Catastrophe is that God Told Me To Do It. You'll Thank Me Later. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Kiss This Then. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- How Sweet And Full Of Grace! You must have Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- We Haven't Met Yet, But You're A Great Fan Of Mine. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Kiss This Then. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 05:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- The Precise Nature Of The Catastrophe is that God Told Me To Do It. You'll Thank Me Later. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me Contact-ing you here. I don't want to start a Liveware Problem, but do you think Outside Context Problem deserves an article of its own, given that it really only has the one reference to one book by one author? Or should it be Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill? —Ashley Y 10:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at the recent edit history of the article, you'll see that I merged it into Excession, but somebody seems to have reverted it. I'll have a bit of a chat about it on Talk:Outside Context Problem, and see how it goes. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Trying to better understand your position
In what way was my characterization an attack? In many ways, I now wish I hadn't stayed up late to read deletion processes that Wednesday night. I didn't mean to get anyone hot over something as trivial as this. I'm almost to the point of supporting deletion, just to ease the heat. Now I'm here, honestly trying to hear your assertion. Is it: "Under normal circumstances, lack of consensus to delete means keep, but when BLP issues are at risk, lack of consensus to keep means delete."? While I agree with that lofty premise, wouldn't that reverse a heck of a lot of previous AfD processes? BusterD (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- You accused Doc of trying to "get his way" in the face of consensus. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did say that. As you should know, this AfD was provoked from a conversation in WP:BLP, after another user reverted yours and Doc's redirects on VI, then I pledged my 3RRs in an edit summary. I challenged Doc to put this issue before consensus. Well, consensus was mixed. Now we're here making the exact same arguments for the same actions taken by the same users on a new day. Seemed like going around consensus to VirtualSteve, too. And I'm more disappointed in what I've experienced than anything else. For my part I pledge to walk away from the entire cluster of articles, stop watching them, and not edit them again. Not my normal field anyway. I have noticed it's much easier to stay detached when it's outside my field of interest. Must be easier to mop when you don't live there (less COI stuff, re: mopping). BusterD (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- What does "I pledged my 3RRs" mean? Everybody is talking riddles this morning. :) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Steve is just nodding off; I'm just getting my caffeine. This is the comment (I thought I'd said this in an edit summary, and so inflamed the discussion; I guess not so much). As I think back over the last week, I guess my initial objective in working the pagespace was achieved when the controversy section was excised. I was proud that what we had left was merely a good-faith effort to depict a life. That's all I wanted, a fair article. I now sense that the spin machine would much rather keep the focus on her, and off McCain's pattern of action with various lobbyists. Probably better for others to decide whether what remained on the page has enough community resonance. Sorry, really. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not good at separating people from issues. If you read the New York Times article carefully, you'll see that they don't even say that Iseman did anything inappropriate or had any kind of romantic liaison with McCain, although they hint that unnamed members of the McCain campaign might have thought something inappropriate was going on. In an election year, even the slightest of stories can get lots of play (and this was slighter than most). We wouldn't have an article about a mere lobbyist unless something was up, and if we keep the article we will be implying far more than we know--by keeping it we will be saying that the individual has some kind of importance. Well, at the moment all the evidence says that she doesn't. But as I say, Wikipedia has historically been poor at separating the person from the event. So we're stuck with this mess. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not to belabor this, but my limited previous experience with this sort of modern mess was Al Gore III, which was deleted after 8 nominations. In discussing these sorts of cases (and my own bias) with User:Jerry, I asserted that perhaps the right way to deal with politically-charged BLPs is to build them up with appropriate sources, to put the scandal stuff in proper compositional perspective. He just plugged away at keep arguments in the process. Confidence and experience shows around here. Big learning curve at this end. Best for sophomores like myself to screw up gently. BusterD (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, experience definitely helps. As does a very thick hide. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not to belabor this, but my limited previous experience with this sort of modern mess was Al Gore III, which was deleted after 8 nominations. In discussing these sorts of cases (and my own bias) with User:Jerry, I asserted that perhaps the right way to deal with politically-charged BLPs is to build them up with appropriate sources, to put the scandal stuff in proper compositional perspective. He just plugged away at keep arguments in the process. Confidence and experience shows around here. Big learning curve at this end. Best for sophomores like myself to screw up gently. BusterD (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not good at separating people from issues. If you read the New York Times article carefully, you'll see that they don't even say that Iseman did anything inappropriate or had any kind of romantic liaison with McCain, although they hint that unnamed members of the McCain campaign might have thought something inappropriate was going on. In an election year, even the slightest of stories can get lots of play (and this was slighter than most). We wouldn't have an article about a mere lobbyist unless something was up, and if we keep the article we will be implying far more than we know--by keeping it we will be saying that the individual has some kind of importance. Well, at the moment all the evidence says that she doesn't. But as I say, Wikipedia has historically been poor at separating the person from the event. So we're stuck with this mess. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Steve is just nodding off; I'm just getting my caffeine. This is the comment (I thought I'd said this in an edit summary, and so inflamed the discussion; I guess not so much). As I think back over the last week, I guess my initial objective in working the pagespace was achieved when the controversy section was excised. I was proud that what we had left was merely a good-faith effort to depict a life. That's all I wanted, a fair article. I now sense that the spin machine would much rather keep the focus on her, and off McCain's pattern of action with various lobbyists. Probably better for others to decide whether what remained on the page has enough community resonance. Sorry, really. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- What does "I pledged my 3RRs" mean? Everybody is talking riddles this morning. :) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did say that. As you should know, this AfD was provoked from a conversation in WP:BLP, after another user reverted yours and Doc's redirects on VI, then I pledged my 3RRs in an edit summary. I challenged Doc to put this issue before consensus. Well, consensus was mixed. Now we're here making the exact same arguments for the same actions taken by the same users on a new day. Seemed like going around consensus to VirtualSteve, too. And I'm more disappointed in what I've experienced than anything else. For my part I pledge to walk away from the entire cluster of articles, stop watching them, and not edit them again. Not my normal field anyway. I have noticed it's much easier to stay detached when it's outside my field of interest. Must be easier to mop when you don't live there (less COI stuff, re: mopping). BusterD (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Common name
Going through all the related articles I could find, several of which I listed in the edit summary, the common name as the infobox name is the anomaly. Stating that "Barack Obama is his common name" doesn't exactly aid me in understanding why that is meant to be the infobox name when all other infoboxes use the legal name rather than "common". –– Lid(Talk) 11:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- My point is that we shouldn't be using obscure middle names in articles just because people happen to have them. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with obscurity but to do with actuality and consistancy. Some examples of it being on other articles are
- Article name - Infobox name
- Al Gore - Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
- Bill Clinton - William Jefferson Clinton
- Richard Nixon - Richard Milhous Nixon
- George W. Bush - George Walker Bush
- George H. W. Bush - George Herbert Walker Bush
- Jimmy Carter - James Earl Carter, Jr.
- John F. Kennedy - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
- Ronald Reagan - Ronald Wilson Reagan
- Gerald Ford - Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr.
- Herbert Hoover - Herbert Clark Hoover
- Calvin Coolidge - John Calvin Coolidge, Jr.
- Theodore Roosevelt - Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.
- Thus I do not see where the infobox common name argument is based. –– Lid(Talk) 12:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be using the obscure middle names, or formal versions of the first names, in those infoboxes, either. "We've sometimes done it this way in the past" is a weak argument for doing something silly. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)