User talk:Noetica

Archive 1: everything before July 2007

Not editing for a while

I have withdrawn from editing for a while. I am disappointed that editors do not work more harmoniously and efficiently here to coordinate articles. I find ill-managed and petty disagreements, where there should be constructive cooperation from all sides. I have no intention of wasting any more time and effort, in such an environment. I have enjoyed a few recent collaborations, though, and I may come back later. Best wishes to all. – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Nice to see you around. Am I forgiven? TONY (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't silly; it's a critical point. I hope that Wahoo's example can be used instead—it's an example of what we all agree is a second-inversion chord. After that, there'll be the matter of the disgraceful behaviour of those people in conspiring to have me banned and accusing me of having a sock puppet, so we're not out of the woods yet. What were they thinking of? They can hardly expect me to get on with them after that. Tony (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sordini

Hello Noetica, take a look at the Moonlight Sonata talk page -- it appears that Beethoven really did say "sordino". Opus33 05:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

words as words vs quotes

Please see the refired proposal to at MOS talk to get around the problem you perceived. Unfortunately, your changes for consistency are against the rule on Words as words. Tony (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I'm not sure of the scope here. I made a lot of changes for consistency. Which do you mean? I did look through unarchived discussion, but saw nothing definitive or settled that had a direct bearing on my edits for consistency. In the end, no one seems to have bothered to make use of italics and quotations systematic, exemplary, and friendly to the reader on this flagship page. I don't mind how or by whom this is done: just let it be done! So I did it – subject to rational revision, as always.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like quotations wholy in italics? They're harder to read, and MOS already says not to do it. "An entire quotation is not italicized solely because it is a quotation."

I agree that double quotes everywhere is hardly attractive, and would prefer single quotes. But WP has a long-standing policy of using double quotes for quotes, and using single quotes would retain this difficult boundary between nouns / noun phrases, and larger grammatical units (single vs double quotes, instead of the current italics vs double quotes).

Are you re-introducing "For example" everywhere? Why is this better than the simple, unmarked parentheses after a point is made (or the colon, sometimes)? In the context of MOS, the less wordy options are preferable; otherwise, "for example" will occur hundreds of times, and it becomes wearing.

Can you hold off on further changes in these respects until something is decided?

I agree with your last change to the US thing. Tony (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the curly vs straight quotes, can you raise this at talk? I have no objection if MOS is changed to straight quotes (can be done in one action by pasting into Word). Tony (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, please continue on my talk. BTW, I'm keen that MOS adopt the quotation mark system to avoid the awkwardness of examples such as Old Man Winter; and I'm fine about making them straight, but can you say something about this publicly? Tony (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

last

Yes, the final item in the section under which that edit summary appeared: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles_and_first_sentences.

It was all in a mess until yesterday: I've rationised the little extra that is present in WP:MOSHEAD, with a view to deleting that submanual. One of the main changes is that the wording, except for one point, applies to both article titles 'and section headings. Here is the related talk section.

Here is what was there in MOS before, at the top.

Please review the new version if you have time. Tony (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nine–10 boundary

Hi – It was changed from ten–11 a while ago, at MOSNUM and repeated here at MOS. I think the rationale was the (1) it's a simple one- versus two-digit boundary, and (2) many styleguides prescribe it. It's not something I care a great deal about, so if you feel strongly, please propose a change (at MOSNUM first, perhaps?). Tony (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silliest problem for people to be fixedly pedantic about, really. (Nothing against you!) Another consideration is how accurate we are purporting to be in specifying ten. Not very, right? The figure version has a spurious air of precision. Leave it to me. I'll argue the case if anyone makes trouble. Meanwhile, I've accepted your recent editorial comments on identity, and fixed things. Hope you like it. Always a tricky one.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Haven't looked. Will stay on the job (it's important to me, as you know), but work is oh so frantic at the moment, and will continue to be so until 19 Oct. Can't get used to posting conversing on a single userpage. So I'll put your page on Watch. What would be good is a section with my name on it for the time being, so I don't bother following up other sections when they appear on my watchlist. Tony (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, mark and use this new page from now on. But I'm still not back, and you are still not fully forgiven until the six-four thing is settled, with amity on all sides. And I too am busy with several deadlines, so there are even more limits on what I can cooperate with than usual. For now.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoS changes

Noetica, I've manually reverted one of your Manual of Style changes because your changes do not communicate the necessary information. The problem that we need to solve is this one: Post-transition transsexual people have can have their pre-transition lives described using either their "birth" or their "internal" genders. Different style manuals contradict each other. Basically every one of the bio pages has a fight about which one is the "correct" way. The MoS recommendations were too vague and were cited by all sides as supporting their personal preferences.

After a series of discussions, we have added a single sentence to clarify the normal preference -- not because it's necessarily the Gospel truth, but because the fights on all the individual pages was amounting to an enormous waste of editing time and energy. Your changes completely removed the necessary information. Before you make any further changes in the Identity section, please read at least the end of the discussions, which is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Self-identification. We have a consensus on the exact wording there, and I'd appreciate it if you made an effort to be informed about that discussion before unilaterally (or perhaps accidentally) nullifying the decision. Thanks, 18:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[Answered at WhatamIdoing's talkpage.]

MoS clash

Per request, bringing my issues here. Yes, I do feel your edit summaries have been "arrogant" (your word), and more to the point WP:OWNish and seemingly intended to intimidate other editors. Their import appears to be "don't dare revert me, or I will edit war with you or get nasty with you on the talk page". I realize I can be abrasive myself, but I don't go out of my way to be so. I was polite (I think) both times I criticized your edit summaries today, and only did so because I believed that a pattern was in evidence and was a hindrance to consensus building and normal editing. I also feel that your edits have been incautious and not thought through enough in some cases. While I agree that the ellipsis section needed editing, much of what you put in there wasn't logically parseable, and some of it was just plain incorrect. Thinking back, your edits of substance appear to get partially reverted or edited into unrecognizability more than anyone else's in recent memory (by contrast, PMAnderson's often simply get reverted, period, because they only reflect his position, and often seem to be WP:BRD actions, so their reversion is expected, perhaps even intended.) Further, I understand being a solid debater, but there's a difference between defending one's arguments well and taking everything personally. Your unwillingness to let sleeping dogs lie, in repeatedly bashing editors in one dispute for their perceived errors in other ones in the past, is a debate (if it can be called that) tactic more suited to Usenet than Wikipedia. I don't have anything against you personally, but some of your behaviors at WP:MOS and WT:MOS have been very grating (not just to me). I do not go so far as to say disruptive, but close enough for discomfort. I manged to tick people off in my early forays into the MOS, so my horse is not very high. MOS is resistant to rapid or radical changes, because every change in it has the potential to impact many thousands of articles. WP:BOLD is great every now and then (I'm surprised how little of what I did to the section on capitalization of gods/religions/etc. was undone or changed), but really doesn't work there much of the time. Not recognizing that last part and getting upset at being reverted (or pre-emptively antagonistic about possible reversion) will not make anything go more smoothly (I learned that the hard way myself, at WT:MOSNUM back around January, I think. Anyway, while this is critical, it is intended constructively, and isn't some declaration of enemyhood or any such nonsense, just a request to tone it down a notch. I will endeavor to do likewise. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]