Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:26, 10 February 2013

Born2cycle Talk Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

A user has mentioned you in a discussion.

User:Dicklyon has mentioned you in this discussion.

Is this a violation of FOC?

A link to this request is posted at Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution#Is this a violation of FOC?

I'm biased since I'm the target, so I'm looking for an objective opinion, before I take further action, preferably from someone who doesn't know me or User:MelanieN, but understands and appreciates the purpose and applicability of WP:FOC.

I know it's not major violation, but thinking in terms of nipping problems in the bud, is this comment a violation of WP:FOC? Discussion about it, and my request that the comment be edited to comply with FOC, is here. Am I asking too much?

Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See my response at WP:DR. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Good spot

Being a UK resident, I completely overlooked that I'd used the UK English spelling of offenses on the Lance Armstrong page when US English is required. My bad. Thanks for spotting and amending. WelshDaveRyan (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

About your note on my talk page

Hi, Born2cycle. Thank you for your note on my talk page. And thanks for taking the trouble to copy-and-paste all of my contributions to the current discussion. That makes it easy for me to review my own postings there - and convenient for anyone else who wants to evaluate them.
But let me explain why I posted the reminder of your past problems into the discussion. I was hoping it might encourage you to review the promises you made, just a year ago, under threat of a topic ban:

You've gotten my attention. I promise to change in the following ways: 1) Comment less and less often on RM discussions in which I'm involved (I presume the number of RM discussions in which I'm involved is not the problem), especially when engaged in a dispute. 2) I will be more agreeable and less disagreeable. 3) If I must disagree, I'll try to find something positive to say first, or at least be apologetic about disagreeing. 4) I'll be more careful how I word things to make it less likely for me to be misinterpreted, which I know occurs often. For example, when I refer to policy I'll be more careful about presenting it in a way that is conveyed as being positive and productive rather than combative. 5) I'll look for signs from others, especially those who have taken the time to commented here, to let me know how I'm doing. 6) I will continue to welcome, and will encourage even more, specific suggestions on what I could do to improve my disposition in all discussions in which I'm involved. 7) I will not think, believe, convey or say that just because I'm not violating the letter of any policy or guideline does not mean there is no problem to address. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you review your own posts in the current topic to see if you are living up to these promises - or if you are continuing the kind of behavior that brought you to AN in the first place a year ago. (Hint: A number of people in the discussion, other than myself, have spoken to you about your attitude and tone.) Also, I wanted to remind you that the proposal for a topic ban was not formally overturned; it was merely "suspended as Born2cycle has agreed to change his editing pattern." --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Melanie. These reminders about personal behavior are much more effective and productive when made on user talk pages, than on article/policy talk pages. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk)

On topics and titles

To be clear my argument is simple and short, contained entirely in the paragraph that starts "The emphasis is mine". You addressed that?

I confess I don't understand what you're getting at here:

You assume that "the topic" is the specific place in question, such as "McLouth", and very few people in the United States are likely ever to have heard of it. But "the topic" may also be broader: places in the United States, or in Kansas.

Yes, for an article entitled McLouth I assume the article topic is the town named McLouth. Of course. How might the topic be broader, and why are you putting "the topic" in quotes? How can the topic of McLouth be "places in the United States, or in Kansas"? I mean, McLouth would be a very wrong title for an article whose topic is "places in the United States". Not following. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I made it quite clear. You feel the topic, in the context of titling principles, must be the specific town and nothing else. I am suggesting that the topic, for these purposes, can be more general than a town of 800 people in Kansas. It's a town in Kansas, so make that clear by adding a single word to the title. Bang -- it's then immediately clear what the topic is: a place in Kansas. Omnedon (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The topic of an article is what the article is about regardless of its title, so I still don't know what you mean by me feeling the topic "must be the specific town and nothing else". Of course. What else could the topic be? The topic is "the specific town and nothing else" regardless of whether its title is McLouth, McLouth, Kansas, McLouth, Kansas, United States, City of McLouth, or anything else. Changing the title does not affect the WP:SCOPE of the topic.

I think what you're really talking about, again, is how recognizable the topic of an article is from its title, especially to people unfamiliar with the topic (in this case, to people unfamiliar with the city of McLouth; people who don't know it's a city in the state of Kansas). You're saying such people are better served by McLouth, Kansas than by McLouth because the longer form clearly conveys to such people that the topic of the article is a place in Kansas (people familiar with McLouth already know it's a city in Kansas, so adding the state, for a city with a unique name like this one, tells them nothing they don't already know).

For very important reasons, we try to make article titles recognizable to people already familiar with the given article topic. For very important reasons, there is no goal, not in practice nor documented in policy or guidelines, to make titles recognizable to people unfamiliar with their respective topics. If you still don't understand and appreciate why these reasons are very important, my tireless efforts to explain have obviously failed, miserably. So, I urge you to review the unanimous results of this poll regarding this very issue. To understand how related and applicable it is to this discussion, please read all the comments, like this one:

• 1 . As I understand it, #2 would say we should use Matagami (town in Quebec) instead of Matagami, because someone might otherwise think that Matagami is a Japanese name. Because of that, I vote for #1. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is very close to what you're saying: We should use McLouth, Kansas because someone might otherwise not know that McLouth is a city in Kansas.

I'm interested in knowing what you think about that.

In addition, every time this point is raised, I ask why we should be concerned about this problem only for US places. And nobody ever answers. After all, there are myriads of articles on WP with titles that could be improved in this manner - to make their topics recognizable to people unfamiliar with their topics, by adding more descriptive information to their titles. Why treat titles of US places differently from all other articles on WP with regard to this issue (improving recognizability of the topic via the title to people unfamiliar with the topic)? Why don't the very good reasons to not do this for all our titles also apply to titles of articles about US places? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There really is no answer for why we should be concerned with this ONLY for US cities. It's just that it's so simple, easy, uniform, familiar, and still concise to fix the problem on US cities. It will take more work to improve recognizabilty more generally; sometimes it's easy, like Big –> Big (film); other times harder. Your effort to ensure that we put zero value on recognizability outside the inner circle of people who are already familiar with a topic is the problem, not the solution. Dicklyon (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. We agree, there is no reason to treat titles of US Places differently.

So, despite the unanimous results of that poll, and the commentary (such as the one I quoted above) that made people's reasoning clear, you still don't understand and appreciate the problems with expanding the goal of making our titles recognizable to those familiar with the respective topics, to those who are unfamiliar with the topics? Don't you see the can of worms that is opened by such a shift in the recognizability goal? Because of the current limited scope on recognizability, most articles have only one reasonable potential title - whatever the name of the topic is, no matter how obscure the topic may be to the public at large. Only when a topic's name conflicts with other uses (such as with Big), or when a topic doesn't have one obvious most common name, is there even a question as to what the title should be. Thus the vast, vast majority of our titles are stable.

If we expand the scope of recognizability to strive to make titles recognizable to everyone, not just those familiar with the topics, the title of almost every single article ceases to be stable! After all, in terms of improving a title by making it more recognizable to people unfamiliar with the article's topic, this applies to all but the relatively few topics that have universal recognizability among people.

Do me a favor. Click on SPECIAL:RANDOM ten times in a row, and tell me how many of those 10 titles could not be improved in terms of recognizability for those unfamiliar with each topic. Heck, I'll just do it. The random article is on the left, some ideas of how it could be improved in terms of recognizability for those unfamiliar is on the right.

• Marriotts Ridge High School → Marriotts Ridge High School, Marriottsville, Maryland, Marriotts Ridge High School (Marriottsville, Maryland), Marriotts Ridge High School, Howard County Public School System, Marriottsville, Maryland, Marriotts Ridge High School, Howard County Public School System, Marriottsville, Maryland, established 2005
• George Frost (cricketer) → George Frost (English cricketer) , George Frost (English cricketer, 1848-1913)
• Miss Universe United Kingdom 2006 →Miss Universe United Kingdom 2006 (beauty pageant)
• Donji Mosti →Donji Mosti, Croatia, Donji Mosti, Croatia (village), Donji Mosti (village in Croatia)
• Joe Skeen → Joe Skeen (Congressman), Joe Skeen (Congressman), Congressman Joe Skeen, New Mexico, served 1927-2003

Well, that's five. Hopefully enough to make the "can of worms" point. Five out of five, 100% of this admittedly small sample, could not only be improved in terms of recognizability for the unfamiliar, but there are multiple reasonable choices for each with which most could be improved. If you think this is an atypical sample for some reason, I urge you to run your own test. See how many random articles you can find that cannot be improved in terms of recognizability to those unfamiliar with the topics, and with multiple reasonable choices.

The RM backlog is already big enough, thank you very much. The effect of expanding the recognizability scope beyond the "those familiar" limit would be an unmitigated disaster. Suddenly almost every single one of our articles, which are now at stable titles (like the 5 above), would no longer be stable, and subject to "improvement" in terms of making them more recognizable to the unfamiliar. Do you see what I'm getting at? That's why this is so important, and for everyone to understand. This understanding needs to spread. What I see instead is the opposite, that more and more people are seeking more descriptive titles, apparently without realizing the ramifications of what will happen if the limit is expanded formally (which it must once we have enough "exceptions" to establish a change in practice). That's why I'm so concerned.

That's why I feel so strongly about keeping the lid on this can of worms shut. And bringing all place names in compliance with the limited scope of recognizability would go a long way towards make sure that can of worms is sealed tightly. Does that make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that does not make sense, though it may be a coherent rationale for your paranoia about title stability. My attempt to find out if anyone agreed with your approach of putting zero value on recognizability for persons not already familiar with the topic did not reveal anyone who agreed with you. That's the part you've neglected to remember. As for your random examples, I don't see many of those straw-man suggestions doing anything for recognizability; random extra info is not what we're talking about. But including state with city does make them much more clearly recognizable to many of our readers who are familiar with cities and states, but maybe not with the particular one in question. And no, I have not agreed that "there is no reason to treat titles of US Places differently." I have only said that there is no reason to limit improved recognizability to only US places. Dicklyon (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Donji Mosti →Donji Mosti, Croatia is a very good idea. I would have thought Donji Mosti would be more likely misrecognized as a person name; making it recognizable by most readers as a place name is a good thing. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your intent is not about adding "random extra info" to article titles. But what is "random extra info"? And what is "helpful for recognizability"? More importantly, who decides? All of my examples could be supported with reasonable arguments. I wouldn't do it. You wouldn't do it. But without mentioning any names, somebody could. And would, once the floodgates were opened. My point is that the only thing keeping other people from proposing adding what we see as "random extra info" and they see as "helpful for recognizability" in endless proposals involving countless articles is the limited scope restriction on recognizability, the very thing you seek to, well, weaken. And that's why I seek to strengthen it.

Seriously, if we did, for example, remove the "to those familiar" clause from recognizability, what would be the policy based argument against, say moving Joe Skeen to Joe Skeen, New Mexico Congressman, served 1980-2003? Folks could use Omnedon's argument about this still being concise, as it's short and informative. Joe Skeen is an obscure figure - almost nobody has ever heard of him. This makes it obvious, from the title, why he's notable. Sure we could argue against and the decision would be made "by consensus", but the point is there is no reasonable argument to be made today in support of moving that article, and the vast majority of our articles, because of the recognizability scope limit. Removing that limit totally opens the can of worms. Of course that's not what you want. But what makes you think that wouldn't happen?

How is it paranoia? There are already examples of proposals for "more descriptive" titles despite the existence of the recognizability scope limit, and they thankfully usually get quickly shut down because of the scope limit. But without it, what would stop it? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you want policy to encode a titling algorithm so tightly that you can always find a policy-based argument to kill any silly title proposal. I just think that approach is lame and unneeded. Policy says to consider the 5 criteria and pick a good title. It works well when we do that. It works less well, in my opinion, when you try to make conciseness trump recognizability and precision. You end up with many titles being unrecognizable or imprecise, when one more word would make them great useful titles. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Given redirects and the way people search for articles (e.g., mostly via Google), the benefit of changing most titles is nominal. So, yes, my goal is to at least retain, and hopefully increase, title stability. I'm certainly against anything that destabilizes the vast majority of our titles, well over 99%, which are currently stable, which weakening recognizability by expanding its scope beyond "those familiar" does.

I note you did not address anything I said above, in explaining why I'm concerned about expanding the scope of recognizability in terms of unintended consequences and widespread title destability, etc. You didn't answer any of my questions. It makes me wonder if you even read it and earnestly thought about it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, case in point. Talk:National_Pension_Scheme#Requested_move_2. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Good riddance

Just saying. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

To what does this refer? Omnedon (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's referring to the elimination of certain caustic behavior on WP. And, no, I will not be more specific. That would be engaging in that kind of behavior. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Certain caustic behavior"? From whom? If you are unwilling to say more, why even say this much? Omnedon (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

People reading this on my talk page either know what I'm talking or they don't. If they do, then they also now know how I feel about it, and nothing else needs to be said. If they don't, then it really doesn't matter. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I repeat: It's a reference to the elimination of certain caustic behavior on WP. It is not a reference to the departure of anyone; it's not a reference to anyone at all. It's about behavior. That's really really important. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Then whose behavior? References to behavior must refer to some editor or group of editors; how was this behavior "eliminated"? Omnedon (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but who doesn't matter (THAT'S THE POINT!) and is inappropriate to mention here. As you know, the behavior was eliminated by an administrator warning users engaged in caustic behavior to not do it any more or they will face more severe sanction, and, at least one of them chose to respond by leaving WP. Choosing to stay and not engage in the problematic behavior any more would have been just as effective, so it's not the leaving per se that is the cause of the elimination, but the warning. Regardless, good riddance to the behavior. For the record, I welcome this user, and any other who has engaged in this behavior, back to WP should they change their mind, but the caustic behavior is not welcome. I should add that insisting on openly identifying who is being discussed here is also suggestive of this kind of caustic behavior. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is a good time to propose articles for primary topic status? Kauffner (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  It's always a good time when the topic is primary but the title is disambiguated. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

Born2Cycle: I felt I should raise here my concerns about what I see as unhelpful and disruptive behavior on your part in recent and ongoing Misplaced Pages discussions; I refer in particular to your tendency in RMs and RfCs to be lengthily argumentative and dismissive with those who take positions contrary to your own. I know such concerns have already been voiced a number of times in recent weeks and months, both by myself and by other involved editors (particularly in the geographic names forum), but I hoped it would be helpful to address it directly here.

In the current placename RfC your repeated and lengthy posts dominated the discussion to the point of filibustering (as several editors noted), with a number of entire lengthy sections opened by you either to verbosely repeat or elaborate your positions or to dissect the positions of other specific editors; the result was a disruption of productive and inclusive debate, which has now seemingly ground to a complete halt. It should also be noted that similar concerns were also raised in the preceding RfC. Your contributions elsewhere (as in the National Pension Scheme RM where you're increasingly focused on debating my support in particular) suggest a continuation of this behavior.

To be clear, you are of course welcome to engage in debate and to voice your views; however, being overly zealous or vocal in questioning the validity of others' positions (particularly in RfCs which are meant to freely solicit others' views) chills debate and can be disruptive – as the geographic names forum in particular amply demonstrates. I don't expect you to agree with other editors in these forums, but I do ask that you respect the existence of reasonable opposing views. Editors contributing in good faith to an RfC or RM shouldn't face being drowned out, nor face having their statements persistently pursued or dismissed, and I'd ask you to please keep this in mind. ╠╣uw  11:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of your concerns, again. I note that it's people who are involved in disagreements with me who seem to be most concerned with my commentary. I also note that at the US place RfC, I intentionally started separated sections on specific issues, and even hatting discussions which seemed to have come to an end (that effort was reverted), all to avoid cluttering up the survey area. Also, since I stopped commenting there, all discussion seems to have come to a halt.

I have additional points to make at National Pension Scheme RM. You're free to respond, or not, as always. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

B2c. just so you know: I was on the verge of taking you to ANI, to report an ongoing pattern of tendentious editing in violation of your promises of a year ago, until you heeded advice to "take a breather" from the US place RFC discussion. (As you noted above (apparently without irony), when you stopped participating in that discussion all the "controversy" went away and it became a simple RfC.) I shelved the idea of ANI when you stopped editing at that discussion, but it appears that you have not changed your tactics at other discussions. (I didn't follow you around to see what else you were doing.) I am still open to the possibility of taking your editing behavior to the community for discussion and possible solutions - and if Huw or others think I should proceed, I will consider it. Word to the wise. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Born2cycle: It's disappointing that you do not appear to acknowledge that your actions are disruptive, and instead insinuate that the concerns that have been raised by various editors relate instead to disagreements with your position. Without a clear recognition that such behavior is inappropriate and a clear commitment to avoid it in the future, I fear the pattern may simply continue to repeat. ╠╣uw  11:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Melanie overtly tried to disrupt that RfC at WP:PLACE, and riddled the discussion with arguments for ending the discussion (before it even started), and offered almost nothing substantive about the proposal itself. While Melanie was trying to do that, Huw and a few others, including myself, were engaged in what I thought was mostly relatively thoughtful and productive discussion. How any of that amounted to me being disruptive, I honestly don't know. What, exactly, was disrupted? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)