User talk:Fluri/archives/2007Nov

TfD nomination of Template:Vandrep

Template:Vandrep has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Bsherr 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. After reading the previous discussion you pointed out, I've db-authored the thing... — Dave (Talk | contribs) 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Template bloodsports

there are two templates on top and they should both stay there for a record of the discussions. Chessy999 14:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. I disagree simply because the most recent discussion links to the previous one. In any case, your edit removes some of my comments. Please stop doing that. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides that, it looks like a simple case of a botched edit. Happens all the time. Simple human error. -- Fyslee / talk 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop stalking

If you keep stalking me through "My Contributions" and reverting my well intentioned edits I will have to report it. Chessy999 15:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me????? What are you talking about? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm searching for what you might be on about and I think this must be what got your knickers in a knot. Well, whatever. I'll leave it alone but I really don't see any justification for floating the TOC on that article. Did you even read the Help guide I linked to? It gives reasons for not floating the TOC. Hey, the only reason I got there at all was that I was thinking of adding a link to the [[Polar Bear hunting]] article to the "See also" section of [[Polar bear]] but I wanted to read it first. That's when I noticed that the TOC wasn't in the standard spot, that there was no discussion of it on the talk page, and that it didn't, to me, seem to meet the recommendations. Anyway... Other than that, I really can't see anywhere where I even "followed you" onto an article, let alone "stalked" you. Give me diffs, please, and we can discuss. Else... — Dave (Talk | contribs) 17:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I noticed that another editor has come along and made that same change stating that there had been "[n]o legitimate reason provided for not following" the guidelines in the change you made. Let me try to reassure you this time, though. I think it's highly unlikely that you're being stalked by two editors, now. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Stalking" is a rather serious accusation which impugns the motives of another editor, IOW a blatant failure to AGF. Wikipedia watchlists allow the perfectly legitimate activity of following editing activities related to articles and the edits performed by other editors. I would consider a charge of stalking to be legitimate if one editor followed another editor and vandalized their edits for no explainable reason. Keeping an eye on editors who may be engaged in questionable behavior is, OTOH, a perfectly legitimate (and very necessary) use of the watchlist function. Since the article Polar Bear hunting has been on my watchlist from my Reindeer hunting in Greenland days, I noticed what was going on - a resurrection from the dead of an article that should have remained dead. We don't normally need to delete articles when they have been properly merged and replaced by a redirect. Only a consensus-driven restoration is legitimate.

If the article is substantially improved and brought in line with the title, I would support restoring it. The distinction between conservation (not always related to hunting) and hunting alone, or hunting as a necessary part of conservation (as with reindeer in Greenland), should be developed and included in the article. Then an article entitled (for example) Polar bear hunting and conservation could be developed as a very valuable addition to Wikipedia. Until then, the redirect should remain in place. No one is stalking anybody. We are only using our watchlists. -- Fyslee / talk 06:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Fyslee. I appreciate your comments on my talk page, especially given the fact that, I'm sure, you have better things to do than to trifle with these things. In any event, I've once again attempted to build a bridge to Chessy999 by unreservedly apologising, on his talk page for anything untoward I may have done, even if inadvertently. I feel that Chessy999 is potentially an asset to the encyclopedia were he to appropriately channel his energies. I hope to support and encourage that aspect of his efforts. Once, again, thank you for your time and attention. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 06:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that was very wise. You are only doing what is expected here at Wikipedia. Sometimes feelings get hurt, typos and editing glitches occur, misunderstandings arise, and then things escalate. That's life. You did what you could to calm the waters. At the same time one shouldn't allow oneself to get bullied. I have previously encountered users who have removed redirects without any consensus. One did it quite a bit and got banned. Occasionally it's a minor matter, but usually it is quite disruptive and shows a lack of respect for other editors, and violates the spirit of collaboration we'd like to see here. Disruption is a serious matter and going against consensus is always disruptive, no matter how "right" one may be. When it leads to vandalism, admins have no mercy, and rightly so. Since this isn't a content dispute, it's even more cut and dried. That's what's great about user space. One can quietly work on article development and improvement without disrupting the community. I have nothing against the idea of an article on the subject. It just needs to be developed, focused, and larger. Concerns about this have been raised and those concerns haven't been addressed, so the consensus behind the redirect should just be respected. It's really rather simple. -- Fyslee / talk 16:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Buzz off -- Chessy999 (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eastern_Gray_Squirrel#Predators

So what do you think would be good to do to improve the article?--Marhawkman (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ERm... I was talking about the comment on a lack of natural predators. BTW why did you feel the need to remove the gallery?--Marhawkman (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out as I hadn't noticed it. It's an artifact of my screwing up an attempt to circumvent an edit conflict and I ended up deleting that in error. So, what's with the "ERm..."? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 00:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to type the same way I talk....--Marhawkman (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So what do you thin would be a good way to reword the section about predators in Britain?--Marhawkman (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why, do you have a specific objection to the wording I introduced in my last re-write of that section? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 20:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Siberian Tiger revert

Don't know what happened, but the last revert you did on Siberian Tiger messed up. Something happened to the refs. Might want to look at what your popups script is doing. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are artifacts of the software update this afternoon. It's happened all over WP. I'm not sure of all the gory details but I know that quite a few people have been fixing up messes for the last few hours... — Dave (Talk | contribs) 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A far superior explanation of what happened yesterday is available in the discussion here. Apparently, it was a buggy Wiki software version that was allowed to go live for 14 minutes. Once the difficulty was noticed, the software was reverted but about 3000 edits were made under the borked code. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Just as well they caught it fast. Well, always good to know you're not the one who screwed up.  :) --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

BLP difficulties at Ed O'Loughlin

I dont agree with your edits of O'Loughlin's page despite the fact that it was cleaner on the following basis:

(1) The Michael Gawenda reference is genuine and referenced - just because it was not readily available on the net it does not mean that something does not exist (it is available and verifiable with some effort) - conversely just because something is on the net it does not mean that it is real. Anyway, I had to pay $22 dollars to download the Gawenda article from the Fairfax Archives website, but it was worth it because it was an integral piece of archival material that provides insight into O'Loughlin by his own former respected editor-in-chief. What better source for a biography of a journalist? So dont just go around razoring stuff you have not properly checked!

(2) The conclusion of the Media Study Group's study merits mention. This study is a valid refernce because it is carried on an unrelated credible websites (there are others). Moreover the actual methodology of the study is transparent, allowing any critique to be made by antagonists - yet none has been made. Not everyone has time to read extensive detailed reports. Certainly it is there if you need to check, but it is a little cheeky to excise the main point of a paragraph in order to achieve brevity.

(3) A colleague of mine already went through the article to comply with the Wikipeda stylesheet. I must admit your formatting seems cleaner, and thanks for your efforts, but I re-instate the article as originally because I could not easily separate the stylistic changes you made from your textual editorial changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.92.25 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that it really doesn't matter whether you "agree with" my edits or not. That's immaterial to this discussion. The references don't say what you claim they say. You are committing the very same error which you accuse O'Loughlin of committing: you are allowing your personal (anti-O'Loughlin) bias to colour your writing. I have no doubt that you can assemble an article that is both fair and that adequately reveals any and all of O'Loughlin's biases. But, this one does not do it. You cannot take a bunch of stuff and extrapolate it to tell some sort of story just to make a point. That is the very antithesis of what an encyclopedia is about. Did you even bother to read the reply I gave to your question at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests? Did you bother to read the policy at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as I requested that you do? If you had read those things, you would have seen why I made the changes I did. I would very much appreciate your posting a reply to this message which details how you've altered the article to conform to the policy. If you can't do that, I'm afraid I shall have to revert your changes and request that the page be protected. The article as it stands is, in my opinion, a clear violation of policy. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 00:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)