Talk:Jean Jules Linden

Botanist template

The following was deleted from Rotational's talk page (diff), so I'm posting it here.

Rotational, articles are not the place to advance your agenda that the botanist template is unsightly. It has widespread use and acceptance and serves the important purpose of including a category on the page. If you'd like to propose a change to the template, do so at Template talk:Botanist instead of replacing every one that you see. Probably few people have {{botanist}} on their watchlists, so you might also consider dropping a note at WT:PLANTS and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia (or just Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography) to let them know you've proposed changes and that you'd value their input. You do not own these articles. And, as it says at the bottom of every editing screen, your writing may be edited mercilessly, including the style you prefer. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have always understood that writing and stylistic preferences may be edited ruthlessly, but you are the one who runs for help when things don't go your way. I do not own any articles and I think that to interpret my reverts as demonstrating such ownership, is nothing more than logical bankruptcy on your part. To expand on botanist templates - the design as a framed piece of information that stands separate from the rest of the text, confers an undeserved status. The information displayed could just as readily be incorporated in the body of the article without any loss, which is what I have been doing. If there is a mandate within the MoS obliging me to use the botanist template, I have yet to discover it, whereas on the other hand I have seen many instances of author abbreviation not using the template. If the author abbreviation is to enjoy special status (heaven knows why), then consider having it placed in the category bar where it could be found readily, or immediately after the opening words of the article Hans Solereder (abb. Solered.). Rotational (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir, if that's how you choose to perceive events, there's nothing I can do about that. In reality, I followed measures for dispute resolution and when I became increasingly concerned, I decided to invite other administrators to opine. Several editors besides myself have alerted you to the MOS guidelines and many others have edited your articles to comply with them (one recent example: diff). If you would like to suggest changes and try to gain consensus, you can do so in the appropriate places I suggested above for the botanist template. No, there is no mandate within the MOS for the botanist template, but deference is often given for the common standard usage of the template so that articles are consistent. Your suggestions merit discussion. I personally prefer the template, but I could be swayed if a rational argument is presented. I'd at least like to see what our other peers think of your suggestions. The links I provided above are a good place to start. Rkitko ^(talk) 04:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

I'm requesting a third opinion from outside editors to perhaps inject some common sense here regarding our dispute, Rotational. A summary follows with my point of view after that:

Summary: Rotational and I disagree on the use of {{botanist}} and use of heading style. I, Rkitko, prefer the use of {{botanist}} since it has widespread use and incorporates a category. I also prefer using second level headings (e.g. ==) instead of the semicolon or fourth-level headings due to Wikipedia's style guidelines on headings. Rotational prefers a style he regards as more pleasing. Effort has been made to discuss this with Rotational. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rotational and I have been having a disagreement for some time on style issues. While he seems very willing to go along with the "image on left" suggestion of the MOS when a person's profile is facing right (diff), he ignores other parts of the MOS regarding headings, specifically WP:HEAD and Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Headers and paragraphs (diff). Attempts to discuss this with Rotational have been removed from his talk page without discussion (reposted above). Instead, he reverts the style edits back to his preferences on the articles he's created (diff and diff). At the same time, he accuses me of stalking him, a serious accusation (previous two diffs and elsewhere). I admit to following Rotational's contributions closely, but may I suggest he read WP:STALK? Specifically, wikistalking means "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." I have no such intent. Rotational and I have also clashed about the {{botanist}} template, which Rotational regards as "unsightly". I have suggested above that he discuss the template and seek revisions. Instead, he continues to remove the template, though largely now he has just been moving the template to the bottom of the page (which I have no problem with), though there was at least one edit today in which he removed it (diff). I contend that these actions, seen also in Rotational's other sockpuppet, User:Raasgat, violate WP:OWN. Rotational has also made some other accusations about my behavior (diff) that he has failed to back up with any evidence and has not agreed to rescind. That, at least, is my point of view in this debate. I would encourage Rotational to add a rebuttal. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And it continues today: diff and diff. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rkitko does like painting a rosy picture of himself as a staunch supporter of all that is MoS. Here he intervenes, uninvited (not stalking, but by supernatural divination) to undermine me and my preferences and implies that GearedBull can avoid my suggestions by using an infobox - one of Rkitko's obsessions. He becomes disingenuous and plays the Wikilawyer when he says "I admit to following Rotational's contributions closely" and goes on to suggest that stalking is only stalking if it is done "with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor". Well now, who but Rkitko himself could know with any certainty what his intent is or was. What I do know with absolute certainty is that he is causing both annoyance and distress to me. Rotational (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you re-read WP:STALK? "In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles..." You will just have to assume good faith and trust that my intention is not to harass, but to help your articles comply with standard practices. --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I find this dispute somewhat amusing, but as Terentius said Homo sum; humani nil a me alienum puto. Rather than get all worked up about one position or another, I invite you to try and find a format that both of you can live with. Rather than holding an unmovable position, you would reduce stress and become more productive if you can find a compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I appreciate the wisdom of a compromise, but because one might be possible, is it necessary? Here we have one editor creating many new articles that are quite good. He rabidly supports one part of the MOS because it suits his sense of style but completely ignores another. I admit I'm a bit stubborn on this point, but there is no other acceptable position than to follow the MOS and to use the botanist template. If Rotational would like to seek changes to the MOS or the botanist template, there are places to do that. Continuing to violate WP:OWN, like with this edit today and accusing me of wikistalking is unacceptable. I appreciate that given your recent experience (interesting reading on your user page, I might add) you might find this dispute a bit amusing, but I do not. It may be a bit trivial, but this is why we have a manual of style, so that style is consistent across all article space. Further, how could compromise be achieved if Rotational refuses to engage in discussion with me? (diff and diff) --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jean Jules Linden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071121040349/http://www.jeanlinden.info:80/ to http://www.jeanlinden.info/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean Jules Linden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310014139/http://www.jeanlinden.info/index.php?p=2 to http://www.jeanlinden.info/index.php?p=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)