User talk:Radar33: Difference between revisions
→Etiquette: fix |
→Etiquette: re |
||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
All the best, [[User:Bob House 884|Bob House 884]] ([[User talk:Bob House 884|talk]]) 10:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC) |
All the best, [[User:Bob House 884|Bob House 884]] ([[User talk:Bob House 884|talk]]) 10:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Fair enough. I'll leave it at that. – [[User:Ajl772|AJL]]<sup><b>[[User talk:Ajl772|talk]]</b></sup> 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 02:11, 15 August 2011
|
|
If you came to my talk page:
|
 | This talk page may be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome, and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly (within 48 hours) is appreciated. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Whisperback notices
Pro-Wikipedia
In part, I am writing to you because of your constructive comments here in May.
Please help me think through a strategy to combat the contrived appearance of an WP:edit war. I propose to use words like this in all future edit summaries at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute:
- This is a "PRO-WIKIPEDIA" edit. This edit is explained in detail and in advance on talk page
Please consider this pair of edits at Senkaku Islands dispute:
- diff 17:35, 19 July 2011 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (58,318 bytes) (Undid revision 440335859 by Lvhis pro-Wikipedia -- This revert explained in detail and in advance on talk page)
- diff 16:55, 19 July 2011 Lvhis (talk | contribs) (58,346 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Oda Mari (talk): This is a POV title. rv Japanese POV pushing. (TW))
The edit summary of Lvhis is an example of Framing (social science). IMO, we need to reject the false dilemma. Do you understand the meaning of the logical fallacy in a "false dilemma"?
Lvhis sets up a misleading pro vs con schema.
A better strategy is to emphasize a "pro-Wikipedia" foundation -- that is, to underscore that edits are not
|
|
|
In point of fact, an extensive edit history informs my belief that Oda Mari's interests are demonstrably "pro-Wikipedia" ....
The first and foremost question is: What is best for the long-term prospects of our collaborative editing project? What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ummm... What are you trying to ask me here? I haven't said anything about anyone's pro- or anti-Wikipedia positions. What are you trying to get me to say? – AJLtalk 09:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was no rhetorical subterfuge, no trick. Questions are identified by the question mark at the end of the sentence:
- Do you understand the meaning of the logical fallacy in a "false dilemma"?
- What is best for the long-term prospects of our collaborative editing project?
- What do you think?
- The other sentences in my diff establish an illustrative context. My intentions are unavailing if you are unable or unwilling to parse issues of framing and the logical fallacy in a "false dilemma". --Tenmei (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was no rhetorical subterfuge, no trick. Questions are identified by the question mark at the end of the sentence:
- Okay, how about providing your definition of "Pro-Wikipedia", because I don't know what you think it is? – AJLtalk 09:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Etiquette
Hi AJL, Regarding the post on my talk page, I'm sorry if I have caused you any offence, that wasn't my intention. If your interested in the history, you can see Talk:Galling#Stop this harassments of my reference where the initial discussion relating to the appropriateness of the reference was made (I became involved through a third opinion), Harald's talk page from User talk:Haraldwallin#Galling onwards, User talk:TransporterMan#Response from Haraldwallin and User talk:TransporterMan#Why do you do strange!! and quite degrading analysis whiteout the facts? What’s the hidden agenda?, User talk:Tournesol#Haraldwallin and User talk:GameOn#Varför bry sig om format och disposition av text, när en diskussion handlar om rätt och fel i sak? and User talk:GameOn#Jag är skyldig en ursäkt till Sjö på svenska wikipedia. Apologies if I have missed anything.
From my point of view, Harald is a very persistent user with an extreme case of WP:IDHT who refuses to accept that his university thesis can't be used as a reference per WP:Identifying reliable sources#Scholarship. This was the only substantive issue in my third opinion although it appears that two years ago, when the reference was first added by Harald himself, there was some debate as to whether he was the true owner of the work - it was sorted out over OTRS by the sounds of things. In his response to my third opinion, Harald was aggressive and accusatory and refused to listen to what anyone else had said and this marked the tenor of his communications from then on. The issue began to escalate and everyone gradually began to refuse to speak to Harald on account of his tone [1] [2], we tried to get a translater in to speak to Harald in his native tounge and Harald just continued to accuse bad faith, conspiracies, lying, bullying etc. I hope you can appreciate that I wasn't best pleased to find Harald continuing to pursue this issue when I logged in to check my messages the other day.
Thank you for your diligence in trying to help the situation with Harald on my talk page and for trying to obtain community input on my behaivour on WP:AN, I'm sure you've done so with the best of intentions and I won't hold it against you. Be advised that I don't really have any intention of editing in the forseeable future (not because of this, I haven't had any interest in editing over the past month).
All the best, Bob House 884 (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll leave it at that. – AJLtalk 02:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)