User talk:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
Um...
I did not violate WP:SPOILER re: my edit to the strategy section of the PYL page. Just because the word "spoiler" is in there means nothing. I returned the edit to the page, and I'd appreciate it if it was left alone, considering it doesn't violate the tag you cite. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Which article are you talking about? Sorry but I tend to make hundreds of edits on any one occasion so it's sometimes difficult to understand what someone is discussing unless they at least give the name of the page. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Press Your Luck, which you removed AGAIN and I reverted your edit. It is NOT a violation of WP:SPOILER to type the word "spoiler" in an article. The situation I described is called "playing spoiler." I ask you AGAIN, leave it alone because it does not violate the rule you cite. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I removed it again (not realising it was what you were discussing even when, after the second edit, I read your message). Since there's a difference of opinion between us I'll leave it. I think the intention of your use of the word is to indicate that there is a spoiler, and our guideline says that is unnecessary. I don't really understand why you think it doesn't fall under the guideline, but as it isn't that important it isn't worth arguing over. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- On reviewing this it looks like I misunderstood the context, just as you said I did. Thanks. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The Simpsons Ride
I'm curious, why do you consider the Los Angeles Times times a fansite? The source used was written by one of their columnists. -- Scorpion0422 22:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Read the article. The information about the ride duration came from some fansite or other. Moreover if you really mean "columnist", in the classic sense, the columns of a newspaper are not held to journalistic standards (which explains why the writer cited a fan site for information about the duration of a ride in the first place). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Happy 2008
Hey buddy, you've disappointed me :(
The evidence you presented didn't contain any evidence. Just opinion and speculation. --Duk 22:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- It contains no speculation. Cla68 has introduced inappropriate material from unreliable external websites with an axe to grind against Wikipedians, and I have correctly implied that he did so. For reasons that will be obvious to the Committee, I will not be drawn into repetition of the attacks promoted by those external interests.
- You are correct to state that my evidence section expresses my opinion. My opinion is evidence in this case. It is my opinion that Cla68 is a very good editor who has been led astray by undue reliance on sensationalist attack websites. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Opinions, unsupported by any diffs, are typically not evidence. Not evey your august opinions. Perhaps you should structure your input as principles, findings of fact, or the like on the proposed decision section. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think my statements of fact, accompanied by my opinion, count as evidence. Diffs would be counter-productive, given the toxicity of the material. I notice that I'm definitely not the only person to have included opinions in his evidence, nor the only one to make statements of fact unaccompanied by diffs. You've done both of those yourself in your own evidence section.
- Having said that, the decision on whether to treat my or anybody else's statements as evidence is not mine to make. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You have flaunted your correct use of flouted :)
Viridae erred. You corrected, and I uncorrected on the grounds that one does not change the evidence of others, even to correct nits. You are correct about the usage, and I have advised Viridae he should go restore the correction in his own name :) Best. ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- This looked like an obvious spelling or usage error. I don't think it was necessary to undo it because, well, we don't like to encourage fiddling bureaucracy even during arbitration. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's better to be quite clear, that we do not change the evidence given by others. Full stop. That's not "fiddling bureaucracy", it's a bright line. It would have been more efficient to let Viridae know on his talk page. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- We'll have to agree to differ on the question of whether such "bright lines" are appropriate in the circumstances. You've been aware of my low opinion of such reasoning for several years. It has not changed. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- As you wish. But don't do it again, please, or I will raise the matter with a clerk. Next time just ask the originator politely. Perhaps the misuse was deliberate. In this case it was not, but you don't know for sure that it would have come out that way. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- You know I'm a former clerk, right? Those guys are working from a playbook that, in places, bears my grubby pawmarks. If they decide I'm not being a good chap, they know I'll stop as soon as they ask. I have the utmost respect for clerks, having done the job myself. I strongly disagree with your implication that correcting minor typographical errors of fellow Wikipedians is to be discouraged in any way. I'm a bit surprised and not a little ashamed that you, whom I admire greatly, are asking me to stop doing what we're constantly encouraging one another to do: to make good faith fixes to one another's contributions. That's what makes Wikipedia great. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm exceedingly aware of your former clerkship and your former adminship. We have a pretty overriding principle here, "don't change the words of others on discussion pages", which has served us well in general. It's especially important in evidence sections, I feel... because they are evidence. I admire you as well, Tony, and you know that, but I feel you're dead wrong about that particular change. Perhaps we need to take this to a wider venue to see if either or both of us is laboring under a misapprehension. Perhaps I am. Perhaps you are. Perhaps we both are. That really might be best as we're not going to get anywhere here would be my assessment. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with fiddling and bureaucratic application of the principle "don't change the words of others on discussion pages". If somebody says "flaunt" when he means "flout" then obviously as a good Wikipedian I'll change the word in good faith and in the sure knowledge that he will thank me for it. [1]. Dammit this is exactly what the case is about:
Two households, both alike in dignitytwo sides in one of the world's greatest websites that are at daggers drawn over fiddling nonsense got up on external websites that are quite deservedly ignored by the rest of the world. We should respect one another. Viridae, Cla68, Slimvirgin, Felonious Monk, you of course, all of us on seeing the kind of cockroach that is out to feed on the long-predicted death of Wikipedia, must respect one another. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with fiddling and bureaucratic application of the principle "don't change the words of others on discussion pages". If somebody says "flaunt" when he means "flout" then obviously as a good Wikipedian I'll change the word in good faith and in the sure knowledge that he will thank me for it. [1]. Dammit this is exactly what the case is about:
- I'm exceedingly aware of your former clerkship and your former adminship. We have a pretty overriding principle here, "don't change the words of others on discussion pages", which has served us well in general. It's especially important in evidence sections, I feel... because they are evidence. I admire you as well, Tony, and you know that, but I feel you're dead wrong about that particular change. Perhaps we need to take this to a wider venue to see if either or both of us is laboring under a misapprehension. Perhaps I am. Perhaps you are. Perhaps we both are. That really might be best as we're not going to get anywhere here would be my assessment. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- You know I'm a former clerk, right? Those guys are working from a playbook that, in places, bears my grubby pawmarks. If they decide I'm not being a good chap, they know I'll stop as soon as they ask. I have the utmost respect for clerks, having done the job myself. I strongly disagree with your implication that correcting minor typographical errors of fellow Wikipedians is to be discouraged in any way. I'm a bit surprised and not a little ashamed that you, whom I admire greatly, are asking me to stop doing what we're constantly encouraging one another to do: to make good faith fixes to one another's contributions. That's what makes Wikipedia great. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- As you wish. But don't do it again, please, or I will raise the matter with a clerk. Next time just ask the originator politely. Perhaps the misuse was deliberate. In this case it was not, but you don't know for sure that it would have come out that way. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- We'll have to agree to differ on the question of whether such "bright lines" are appropriate in the circumstances. You've been aware of my low opinion of such reasoning for several years. It has not changed. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's better to be quite clear, that we do not change the evidence given by others. Full stop. That's not "fiddling bureaucracy", it's a bright line. It would have been more efficient to let Viridae know on his talk page. ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)