User talk:Lonewolf BC

Welcome!

Hello, Lonewolf BC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date delinking

Hi there Lonewolf BC. I was interested in the comment you left on User talk:Hmains. I have replied on User talk:Rebecca and thought you might want to contribute. It would seem to me on quick examination of Hmains' edits that his edits do add some value, quite apart from the reduction of overlinking to year articles which (it would seem to me) add nothing to the articles, at least in some cases. Can you explain your position please? You can answer here or in my user talk, I don't mind. Thanks for your time, --Guinnog 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Guinnog, and thanks for you're message. I'm really glad to get a one, about this de-linking matter, that is more conducive to a reasonable discussion of it -- notwithstanding that at root you disagree with me about the worth of the links concerned.

As to the value I see in year-links, in short I think that they give a reader ready access to useful historical context. This is less so for recent years, for which a reader likely will be familiar with such context already (although we must keep mindful that some of Wikipedia's readers are quite young, and that the past fades from popular memory rather quickly). For more distant years, however, I think it is most valuable for a reader to see the general state of the world, and the major happenings of the year during which some event took place that is mentioned in the particular article. Doing so ties the particular event into its times, giving a reader a better understanding of it, and fostering something more than rote memorization of isolated facts, floating in a void of the past.

I acknowledge that this is a matter of opinion, though I know that other folk share much the same view as mine, even while others yet again disagree. The question them becomes how this disagreement ought be handled within Wikipedia. My beef with Hmains is mainly on that latter point. I have reviewed his editing history, and he seems to be on a bull-headed mission to de-link all year-only dates in as many articles as he can edit -- and he runs through a great many -- without regard for what anyone else thinks about it. That he also makes other kinds of edits (mostly likewise niggling) is really beside the point, whereas it does not take away from what he's been doing to date-links. Given the lack of consensus on the issue, common sense as well as common courtesy suggest that articles be mostly left alone in relation to such links, as against anyone determinedly going about placing them or removing them. A good parallel case is the use of "British" versus "American" spelling. Moreover, and although good sense and courtesy should be reason enough, I find that this is also essentially the conclusion that the Wikipedia community has reached.

Mr. Mains seemingly sets such considerations at nought and, in their defiance, feels entitled to carry on his search-and-destroy campaign, just because he, personally, holds that the links are worthless clutter. He's been repeatedly warned against this -- at an early stage, warned merely that it was unwise and liable to provoke edit-wars [1]; and later on, that it is unacceptable without a consensus to back it. Yet he stubbornly persists, while wrongly claiming to have policy behind him. Frankly, his actions seem disingenuous and wilfully disruptive -- though I do not say that disruption must be his real motive.

My own discovery of all this is a case in point: Shortly after I had carefully put a brief article into good order, Mr. Mains came along and de-linked most of the dates. Not much bothered, but puzzled and seeing no reason for the edit, I reverted it and put a note to that effect on the talk page, asking that he not do likewise again without our discussing it first. Some days later, he simply came back and delinked again, without a word to me. I did as before, this time writing at greater length. When this got no response, I decided to post on his talk page, also, hoping to get the matter amicably sorted out, and altogether ready to accept his edit if he could justify it. It was then that I discovered that mine was not an isolated case, but part of a campaign that Mr. Mains was waging in the full knowledge of its contentiousness, despite many warnings to leave off, and despite past wrangles with other opponents. So my message to him was a bit harder than I had foreseen making it. Mr. Mains' reply tacitly says that he has no intention of quitting, and attempts to justify that with misrepresentations (whether genuinely believed or not I cannot say) of Wikipedia policy and of earlier discussions.

Understand that at the outset I had made no study of these matters, but was simply going by my common sense and my casual observations of Wikipedia custom. I am heartened to find that these have been confirmed quite nicely by my subsequent delving into guidelines and past discussions. The core of the matter is that, under the present circumstances, neither Mr. Mains nor anyone else should be making it their business to change articles so as to make them conform to their personal opinion about date-links. If a concensus is ever reached for de-linking, I will of course respect that (though without agreeing with it). But really, the issue of the links themselves is secondary to that of Mr. Mains' behavior. That behavior, along with the loads of similar nonsense I discovered in looking into this whole business, I find quite disheartening. It must stop.

Lonewolf BC 04:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McEvedy

Hi lonewolf, my edit was really just to tidy up the slightly over elaborate sentence structure- my only remaining objections are where you say "witty and engaging writing-style, with which he often made reasoned challenges to established opinion", which to me implies its the style with which he is making the objection, as opposed to the substance of his writing, and also to the word revered, which seems like it might need to be supported by a reference, its not that clear that he was admired to that extent. Anyway, rather than just edit, I thought I'd let you know my thoughts... Dek-ko 14:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we seem to be in quite good agreement, then. I know that my sentences sometimes get overly long and elaborate, but I believe that I've mended that in the case of this article. I gather that you concur. (Leaving a draft for a while, and coming back to it later often helps much.) Turning to our two remaining points of difference, I do mean to suggest that the witty style, besides enlivening McEvedy's writing generally, was used in challenging established opinion. More than one of the obituaries makes note of this -- "witty digs". The substantiality of the challenges is, I think, covered by "reasoned" and illustrated by the next sentences, about the standing that McEvedy and his views eventually gained. So it's both their style and their substance that are notable about the challenges, and my aim was to indicate that. I believe I have succeeded. As for "revered" one of the obits uses that very word. I could add a reference if you like, but the WP article is quite short and the obits are already listed for reference, so I'm not sure a specific reference for "revered" is really needed.

Anyhow, I'm not adamant about any of this, so don't hesitate to make further changes if you think they are needed.

Best regards, Lonewolf BC 19:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how about changing from "McEvedy's witty and engaging writing-style, with which he often made reasoned challenges to established opinion among historians and demographers" to "McEvedy's witty and engaging writing-style, which he used on occasion to challenge established opinions among historians and demographers"- I've read everything on the list (except rise of the world cities, which I've never seen on sale) many times over, and I would say "occasionally" is more appropriate then "often" for this- really its just in the population history atlas and the intro to the new atlas of ancient history that he does this. Also, I still don't really like "revered", I just think respected is more than enough Dek-ko 22:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

glad we could agree, if you want to add stuff about medical career thats fine- I get the impression his views on hysteria are still controversial, so it may be opening a can of worms!Dek-ko 12:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

[2] Thanks for that! --Guinnog 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.

Your efforts are commendable for their goals, but I fear they shall not solve the problem unless Mr. Mains becomes willing to allow for opinions beyond his own, and for broad principles of co-operativeness and condiseration among editors, as against some guideline explicitly forbidding his reckless de-linking. This, alas, I do not forsee. On the other hand, if it can be reached, agreement between some of his opponents and some of his (perceived) backers might discourage him, and might be a step toward a guideline he will feel obliged to follow. So perhaps the exercise is worthwhile. Lonewolf BC 17:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]