| Revision as of 04:07, 2 September 2013 editRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits →Fair enough: response← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:21, 2 September 2013 edit undoGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers381,928 edits →Fair enough: define territoriesNext edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| You voted "Fair enough" for a proposal to restrict me. The proposal is very general and would include to restrict me from adding infoboxes to my own articles and to articles in uncontroversial areas, the majority that is, - classical music and architecture are rather exceptions. Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of "fair". I ] and ask you to please comment what I should avoid in the future. You don't have to look at the "reverts" for me. I would always try to improve something in place in the article, for the readers to see it, instead of a complete revert. --] (]) 11:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC) | You voted "Fair enough" for a proposal to restrict me. The proposal is very general and would include to restrict me from adding infoboxes to my own articles and to articles in uncontroversial areas, the majority that is, - classical music and architecture are rather exceptions. Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of "fair". I ] and ask you to please comment what I should avoid in the future. You don't have to look at the "reverts" for me. I would always try to improve something in place in the article, for the readers to see it, instead of a complete revert. --] (]) 11:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :I've just been back and fixed another anomaly, with a copyedit to the basic finding. I think the point here is that adding infoboxes may in and of itself be controversial, even in articles in uncontroversial areas. Controversial meta activity has a great capacity to disrupt and that is undesirable in a cooperative venture. On your other point, I've copyedited the remedy to add "and include infoboxes in new articles which they create" as infoboxes in brand new articles is rarely controversial. Finally, in this context, by "fair enough" I simply meant "that's reasonable". ] <sup>]</sup> 04:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | :I've just been back and fixed another anomaly, with a copyedit to the basic finding. I think the point here is that adding infoboxes may in and of itself be controversial, even in articles in uncontroversial areas. Controversial meta activity has a great capacity to disrupt and that is undesirable in a cooperative venture. On your other point, I've copyedited the remedy to add "and include infoboxes in new articles which they create" as infoboxes in brand new articles is rarely controversial. Finally, in this context, by "fair enough" I simply meant "that's reasonable". ] <sup>]</sup> 04:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::I can see that adding infoboxes is controversial, even in articles in uncontroversial areas. How to handle that is the question. The easiest solution would be that authors who think an infobox would "damage" "their" article make a note in the article where an infobox would be added. - How would I know that Sparrow Mass is such a case, after infoboxes for all Schubert masses were well received? I love a piece, I want to serve the reader: I add an infobox. By now I understand enough to ], and then will try to avoid a similar case. - Can the "territories" of those who go for ] and those who want to protect articles be defined better, to avoid battles? That was (and is) my question. - I understand "fair" better now, thank you. Next word question: "meta activity"? --] (]) 07:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:21, 2 September 2013
If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)
The Signpost: 28 August 2013
- Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective
- WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks
- Traffic report: Reddit creep
- Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland
- News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments
- Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Misplaced Pages
Fair enough
You voted "Fair enough" for a proposal to restrict me. The proposal is very general and would include to restrict me from adding infoboxes to my own articles and to articles in uncontroversial areas, the majority that is, - classical music and architecture are rather exceptions. Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of "fair". I listed a few cases and ask you to please comment what I should avoid in the future. You don't have to look at the "reverts" for me. I would always try to improve something in place in the article, for the readers to see it, instead of a complete revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've just been back and fixed another anomaly, with a copyedit to the basic finding. I think the point here is that adding infoboxes may in and of itself be controversial, even in articles in uncontroversial areas. Controversial meta activity has a great capacity to disrupt and that is undesirable in a cooperative venture. On your other point, I've copyedited the remedy to add "and include infoboxes in new articles which they create" as infoboxes in brand new articles is rarely controversial. Finally, in this context, by "fair enough" I simply meant "that's reasonable". Roger Davies 04:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I can see that adding infoboxes is controversial, even in articles in uncontroversial areas. How to handle that is the question. The easiest solution would be that authors who think an infobox would "damage" "their" article make a note in the article where an infobox would be added. - How would I know that Sparrow Mass is such a case, after infoboxes for all Schubert masses were well received? I love a piece, I want to serve the reader: I add an infobox. By now I understand enough to walk away if it is reverted, and then will try to avoid a similar case. - Can the "territories" of those who go for reader information and those who want to protect articles be defined better, to avoid battles? That was (and is) my question. - I understand "fair" better now, thank you. Next word question: "meta activity"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)