User talk:NOKESS: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 06:15, 31 July 2009

NOKESS is on holiday from 1 August (Swiss National Day) for the whole the month. FFFFNOKESS (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)NOKESS[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{welcome}} -- [[User:Mdd|Marcel Douwe Dekker]] ([[User talk:Mdd|talk]]) 07:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
+NOKESS is on holiday from 1 August (Swiss National Day) for the whole the month. FFFF[[User:NOKESS|NOKESS]] ([[User talk:NOKESS#top|talk]]) 06:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)NOKESS
-== New section about "Project control variables" ==
-Hi, I want to inform you I removed the new section you added to the [[project management]] article and explained on the talkpage, see [[Talk:Project management#New section about "Project control variables"]].
-Half a year ago I rearranged the whole article (short of) into it's current state (see also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Project_management/Archive_2#Article_rearranged]]) Of cause all kinds of minor changes have been made, but your edits is [about) the third mayor edit I removed. I don't like doing that, but I hope you understand my point of view.
-If you don't you can always comment on the project management talkpage, and if others agree with you restore the edit. Good luck.
--- [[User:Mdd|Marcel Douwe Dekker]] ([[User talk:Mdd|talk]]) 18:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
-==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Gillian Tett]]==
-[[Image:Ambox warning_pn.svg|48px|left]] A tag has been placed on [[:Gillian Tett]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under [[WP:CSD#A7|section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion]], because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the [[WP:CSD#Articles|criteria for speedy deletion]], such articles may be deleted at any time. Please [[Wikipedia:Notability|see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable]], as well as our subject-specific [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|notability guideline for biographies]].
-If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of [[:Gillian Tett|the page that has been nominated for deletion]]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on '''[[Talk:Gillian Tett|the talk page]]''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact [[:Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles|one of these admins]] to request that they  [[Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content|userfy]] the page or have a copy emailed to you. <!-- Template:Db-bio-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> [[User:A More Perfect Onion|A More Perfect Onion]] ([[User talk:A More Perfect Onion|talk]]) 18:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
-== Talkback ==
-{{talkback|A More Perfect Onion|Gillian Tett}}
-[[User:A More Perfect Onion|A More Perfect Onion]] ([[User talk:A More Perfect Onion|talk]]) 15:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
-==Your recent edits==
-[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk pages]] and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion{{#if:|, such as on [[{{{1}}}]]}}, you should [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]] by typing four [[tilde]]s  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] located above the edit window.  This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --[[User:SineBot|SineBot]] ([[User talk:SineBot|talk]]) 15:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
-== Talkback ==
-{{talkback|A More Perfect Onion| Gillian Tett}}
-[[User:A More Perfect Onion|A More Perfect Onion]] ([[User talk:A More Perfect Onion|talk]]) 15:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
-== A nice cup of tea ==
-{{notice|image=Face-smile.svg|
-<center><big>'''Someone has poured you [[Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down#July 2009|tea]].'''</big></center>|small=yes}}
-[[User:A More Perfect Onion|A More Perfect Onion]] ([[User talk:A More Perfect Onion|talk]]) 15:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
-== Talkback ==
-{{talkback|A More Perfect Onion|Gillian Tett}}
-[[User:A More Perfect Onion|A More Perfect Onion]] ([[User talk:A More Perfect Onion|talk]]) 15:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
-== Talkback ==
-{{talkback|A More Perfect Onion|Gillian Tett}}
-[[User:A More Perfect Onion|A More Perfect Onion]] ([[User talk:A More Perfect Onion|talk]]) 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
-== [[WP:AGF]] ==
-NOKESS, as you're fairly new to Wikipedia, I wanted you to note how important [[WP:AGF]] is to the entire concept of Wikipedia.  You must '''always''' assume that the other editor is doing what they believe is correct, and treat their actions accordingly (yes, there are some occasions this is not true).  '''Any''' editor can nominate an article for [[WP:CSD|speedy deletion]] or indeed or [[WP:AFD|deletion discussion]] based on their reading.  Only an administrator can actually '''delete them'''.  Please interact with other editors in a congenial manner - attacks show that you may have some [[WP:OWN|ownership]] issues, which is bad.  (PS: when someone gives you tea, that's a peace offerring - take it) ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]&nbsp;'''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 17:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
-: Please note the discussion at [[WP:WQA]] regarding your interactions with [[User:A More Perfect Onion]] ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]&nbsp;'''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 17:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
-BWILKINS, as you are newer to Wikipedia than I am, let me make a few points. The origin of this fantastic controversy is simply that the other users were not assuming that I was acting in good faith, or, in your words "doing what they believe is correct, and treat their actions accordingly (yes, there are some occasions this is not true)." To the extent that your comment directed to me have some merit, they in fact apply a fortiori to your own comments and to those of the others. To assume that I am a new user of Wikipedia is just one example. My input has been based on verifiable facts, yours on un-evidenced assertions, for example that I am a new user. ~~ NOKESS
-== [[Gillian Tett]] ==
-The word "influential" should not be reinserted at the above article as it constitutes what is referred to as a [[WP:WEASEL|weasel word]]. I hope this helps you understand why it has been removed. [[User talk:Unitanode|<span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps;color:#63739F;font-weight:normal">Unitanode</span>]] 17:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
-Of course it is a weasel word and has no place in this type of entry. Those who have criticized the entry for Dr Tett, at least two of whom initially wanted the entry deleted, exhibit double standards. Their rational for arguing against this word is, quite rightly, that at root it is subjective, a matter of opinion. However, at the same time, their criticism of me, much of it ad hominen, has been even more subjective. The rule seems to be that opinion and subjectivity is fine when it conforms to your own preconceptions, but it a weapon to be deployed against anyone who has legitimately pointed out an error. It is disappointing to learn that Wikipedia is engenders so much of this attitude. ~~ NOKESS
-== Welcome to Wikipedia ==
-Hi NOKESS
-With the speedy deletion of your article on Gillian Tett, it's easy to understand how you may have gotten off on the wrong foot here. But I though I'd make a few observations in the hope that you might better understand the Wikipedia ethos and enjoy participating here more.
-* Wikipedia is "staffed" by volunteers who are drawn to articles by myriad routes, none of them particularly consistent. So comments like <nowiki>'</nowiki>''If anyone feels like deleting the phrase "Globally influential", they might like to have the courtesy and consistency to do the same on Tony Blair's entry''<nowiki>'</nowiki> are not likely to spur anyone into action. The people who have shown an interest in editing the Tett article have no particular relation to those who edit the Tony Blair article (so far as I know). Small articles about uncontroversial niche subjects are often easier to keep POV-free, and pointing out that other articles (that may be harder to police due to their attracting POV pushers) is not a valid argument for unencyclopedic text in articles.
-* Understanding that your early contributions were not received as warmly as that they ought to have been, life is easier here if you try to keep cool. This means being less tendentious, [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]], and considering the views of editors with more experience here.
-* "Victory" is the improvement of articles, not the incorporation of all your edits, and the exclusion of those of others. Editors [[WP:OWN|do not own articles]]. My view is that since the article was recreated, there have been several editors (myself included) who have tried to actively improve the Tett article, and one who, using templates and removal of biased contents, spurred the rest of us to do a better job. This is the way things are supposed to work here.
-Regards, <font color="green">[[User Talk:Bongomatic|Bongo]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Bongomatic|matic]]</font> 08:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC) <small>Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{tl|talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.</small>
-:p.s. It is hard to understand why you would (without comment) delete text that indicates the significance of Tett's role at FT. <font color="green">[[User Talk:Bongomatic|Bongo]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Bongomatic|matic]]</font> 08:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
-Hi Bongomatic
-I understand perfectly well, and I agree with and support the principles of Wikipedia. I too am an unpaid volunteer, just like you. The point of the principles of Wikipedia is that they are universal. If the adjective "influential" is allowed for white males such as John Lennon, Andrew Carnegie, Isaac Newton and Tony Blair, it seems sexist and makes a nonsense of any claim to follow Wikipedia's principles for you to try to ban it in the case of a female journalist of considerable prominence. It seems to me that what is going on here is not fundamentally about the principles of Wikipedia at all, but much more about you and others not liking to have to admit that no less than my error in not making a fuller first entry for this journalist, you too have made some errors.  [[User:NOKESS|NOKESS]] ([[User talk:NOKESS#top|talk]]) 08:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC) NOKESS
-:I make errors all the time, on-Wikipedia and off. I have nominated many articles for deletion (speedy or otherwise) that deserve to be in the encyclopedia (I do that less frequently than I once did). I have introduced factual errors into articles. I have violated the style guide. I have messed up citation templates. I myself have been needlessly tendentious.
-:However (as pointed out previously), bad journalism elsewhere (and I have now given some reasons that the citation of News Corp's being influential may not be such) doesn't justify it here. My edits (should you review them) are obviously those of someone who believes Tett to be important. However, peacock words like "influential"&mdash;which always make me think "saying it doesn't make it so" when I come across them&mdash;are less effective than factual evidence of influence (such as expanding the description of her role at FT).
-:Wikipedia has [[WP:POINT|an instructive guideline (indeed, proposed policy)]] about making the encyclopedia worse to prove a point (which is what you're doing).
-:<font color="green">[[User Talk:Bongomatic|Bongo]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Bongomatic|matic]]</font> 08:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
-Hi Bongomatic. Your implied opinion that I am tendentious is itself tendentious. That's your view, it does not make me dislike you, I am happy to go on arguing with you. Similarly, your idea of what a valid argument is also seems to be tendentious. If, as you imply, Wikipedia is not consistent in its standards, including the use of "influential," please will you cut me a little slack and allow it for this entry, for, say, a year. Delete it in a year's time and I really won't mind, I promise. What I will put energy into is what I perceive as an unfair focus on that word in this article when nothing is done about it in the articles on white men. This looks like sexism of a fairly unpleasant kind - unintended I am sure, but real nonetheless. [[User:NOKESS|NOKESS]] ([[User talk:NOKESS#top|talk]]) 08:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC) NOKESS
-:I don't see how describing the holding company of a woman's employer as "influential" is step in the crusade for equality. <font color="green">[[User Talk:Bongomatic|Bongo]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Bongomatic|matic]]</font> 08:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
-Bongo - ouch. Did you have to use the word "Crusade"? The Crusades were invasions based on discrimination and hatred of a group of people, for reasons of race and, yes, white male supremacy. I take it you did not really mean to use that word? But whether you intended it or not, it does illustrate exactly the double standards you seem to me to be applying. It's OK for you to call the movement for equality a crusade, it's not OK to use exactly the same adjective (i.e. "influential") for a female as for some white men, in comparable circumstances. [[User:NOKESS|NOKESS]] ([[User talk:NOKESS#top|talk]]) 08:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC) NOKESS
-Bongo - you accused me, above, of making Wikipedia worse to prove a point. Not so. Before I created it, there was no entry for Dr. Tett. There now is. As you now agree, she merits an entry. Wikipedia is better. Of course, you can take such a micro view and look at only a very narrow slice and make some argument that one sentence might be slightly worse than it could be, but in the round, big picture, the entry is an improvement.
-Yet again, I note a curious double standard in your way of engaging with me. The broad basis of my bewilderment at the clique (it seems to me) of editors arguing against me is that when I point out your inconsistency with Wikipedia's principles, you respond with the claim that how they are applied in larger and more prominent articles in Wikipedia is irrelevant, yet when you wish to argue against me or one of my actions, you deploy the principles of Wikipedia as knockdown arguments.
-In conclusion, it is not the case that my entry for Gillian Tett has made Wikipedia worse, but rather your own inconsistent application of the principles of Wikipedia.
-I am happy to let this drop now, if you agree, as I am sure we both have better things to do with our time, and we are, I feel, fundamentally on the same side.
-[[User:NOKESS|NOKESS]] ([[User talk:NOKESS#top|talk]]) 08:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC) NOKESS
-: Let us not turn article improvement into a crusade - [[WP:SOAPBOX]] is thataway, and considering a recent discussion on a "women's issues" article on [[WP:ANI]], you will find arguments that Wikipedia is advocating inequality will not be met well.  The article needs expansion ''correctly''.  Start by citing the awards, or else they all have to go.  Provide a properly-referenced history of where she "predicted" the fall, or else her complete claim of [[WP:N]] goes down the tube.  In other words, worry more about the meat of the article, and less about [[WP:PUFFERY]]. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]&nbsp;'''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 09:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
-You make my own point very well. Where exactly are you disagreeing with me? ---- [[User:NOKESS|NOKESS]] ([[User talk:NOKESS#top|talk]]) 09:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)NOKESS