- I was going to invite others to look at my analysis anyways, but Aphaia has suggested this:
- "I would like you to consider if it is a good idea to invite other editors to read through over 100K talk. In my opinion, it is a sort of burden and shut out most of editors. And I suspect who is now interested in this issue. --Aphaia 5 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)" , and I shall do as asked.
- You are invited 214---165, to look at my analysis at: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#Analysis_and_proposed_solutions and see if all the problems are identified, and if not, add one or two. Also, please notice that you can post your proposed solutions below. Afterwards, we can briefly discuss and then vote on different ideas. Don't worry: I addressed all concerns, but if you don't believe me, check it out. Sorry for the length, but many people had many problems.
- In conclusion, I have done all the research: Read my analysis, debate it, vote on it, and accept the vote -even if it goes against you; All will be well. Take my word for it. Have a nice day. --GordonWattsDotCom 5 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)
- Oops! I made a mistake: I am new to Wiki; Voting may not be possible for nonregistered users. Aphaia corrected me, and referred me to Wikiquote:Voting. I do not know if a vote is binding or not, and I do not know if you can vote as an unregistered user, but I would myself suggest you register like most of us; That would certainly help improve your chances of voting. Please do not accept my word as authoritative on the issue; I am not an admin nor a sysop. Please ask them for the details if you have questions. All else stands though; You are invited to debate and contribute as the community sees fit.--GordonWattsDotCom 5 July 2005 05:49 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikiquote. I have not thoroughly examined everything yet, but though additions made to Abortion supporting your POV are acceptable, the wholesale deletions you have made of quotations and headings that do not, are not. ~ Kalki 13:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments. I deleted multiple quotes from a comedian - and left one, suggesting to whomever thinks his thoughts are relevant to consolidate. I also deleted the headings as they in evitably are biased in that whichever "heading" is listed first is automatically is advantaged as having more influence and impact on the reader. Also, the quotations speak for themselves. The viewpoint of the speaker is not what is relevant, it is the words they speak. In fact, not knowing the speaker's viewpoint is actually a benfit to the reader and neutrality as the words are evaluated without regard to the label one chooses to give them. 126.96.36.199 14:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi. I have reverted your changes again. Please feel free to make edits which add quotes, and to seek consensus on quote removal and reorgnization on the talk page, but please do not revert again. Thanks, MosheZadka 14:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You are certainly not the first to find fault with the organization of the abortion page, and there can certainly be improvements done. However, randomly performing large edits in the middle of a debate seems to me in bad taste -- the page has lived in that state for a while, I am sure it could stand to stay in that state for a while longer while we come together to a decision which everyone is happy with. I again ask you to avoid large edits, to add whichever quotes you think are pertinent in the currently existing section (of if you feel that strongly, to a new section "uncategorized"), and not to delete quotes until such time as there seems general agreement. I am sure that working together can result in a page which shows the issues, as reflected in quotes, well. Thanks again, MosheZadka 14:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PS: Whenever Wikiquote (as a relatively new member in the mediawiki family) has no explicit policy, we follow that of our larger sister, Wikipedia. Here is a link to a policy document on WP that you may find enlightening: w:WP:3RR MosheZadka 15:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Welcome back to Wikiquote, the free compendium of quotations! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikiquote, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires you to provide no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
- The use of a username of your choice
- The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
- Your own user page
- Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
- The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
- The ability to rename pages
- The ability to upload images
- The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
- The eligibility to become an administrator
- The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion
Click here to create an account.
Please don't change the place of each discussion. It is annoying and makes harder to trace it. Thanks. --Aphaia 09:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, hi, 214 (if I may call you so, do you have any intention to register you?) I have currently no idea which version is better, but in general it is a good idea before a massive change to build a consensus to the change. Not only with approval in silence but if possible, clear supprt.
Anyway if you convinces the former version was better, you could wait for other editors, or just report it on WQ:VP, when your version was reverted. I wonder what made you so hurry. Anyway I protected the page and would like to keep it so for 24 hours to promote discussion on the talk. In my opinion, "revert to revert" is not so much productive and not matchs you a good editor. Thank you for your attention. --Aphaia 21:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't feel as though the rules are being followed on the abortion page. I think I have been frozen out of this page without any real basis. And Aphaia has made a baseless allegation of a rule violation that she refuses to either back up or withdraw. Finally, there is no atempt at compromise or rue consensus (something everyone can accept). I made every attempt to follow the rules and ettiquette, and even repaired any changes that breached the ettiquette once informed of the faux pas. However, there is truly no sense to make the page relevant or useful. Right now people show up to the page and find quotes from minor figures from American pop culture as the some of the first entries on one of the major cultural/philosophical/legal issues of the day. I don't see how this is "useful", and there has not reall been any argument that it truly is useful. I think what we have is a "Status quo" mindset by people who want the page to conform to their paradigm. In any event, there is no explanation as to why the page is still forzen or why I am locked out of it (not sure which is actually the current page status). 188.8.131.52 2 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)
- Wikiquote, much like wikipedia, is not a bureaucracy. This is not about rules, this is about coming to a consensus. You have already admitted to having an ulterior motive, not having the pro-choice quotes first, which is why any suggestion of a compromise by you is viewed with suspicion. I suggested a compromise (namely, keeping the current categorization and adding a subcategorization by profession) which you summarily ignored, and went on to claim you are being attacked. Since it is unlikely you are locked out of the abortion talk page, it is not clear why you chose to direct your remarks to Jeffq on his talk page (a third party). If you feel the abortion talk page is too obscure, allowing shadowy operations, you are free to air your concerns on WQ:VP. However, I for one do not feel as though you were mistreated. You may notice part of the reason no consensus was made was that you were adamantly against any option which does not fit your agenda. When there is no consensus, the status quo, that you object to, is the default. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 2 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)
- 214, don't look to me for sympathy. Do you expect us to believe statements like "frozen out of this page without any real basis", "baseless allegation", and "not been any argument that it truly is a useful orgnization" [sic] when such things have been repeatedly explained? As one becomes more experienced with wikis, one learns a number of rules of thumb when dealing with others, in order to make the wiki experience a relatively smooth one; e.g., Wikiquette, 3RR policy, the value of assuming a registered identity, and the signs that someone is attempting true compromise. When editors fail to learn or make use of those rules of thumb, they tend to be regarded as uncooperative. The more they persist, the less seriously they are taken.
- You are not the only one in this debate who has revealed a strong point of view. From my limited perspective, MosheZadka is primarily interested in maintaining the old organization, Aphaia is mostly concerned about how this affects policy and wasteful database loading from frequent change, Kalki seems most anxious to avoid one-sided revisions while maintaining the logical organization of the two well-known sides of the debate, Eustace Tilley finds the existing dichotomy inappropriate, and I am mostly concerned about avoiding time-wasting arguments on unresolvable issues and insisting on Wikiquette. None of us has necessarily been at the top of our form in this debate, but I make no apologies for any lack of perfection we may have exhibited, and I don't need to, because these editors have proven their value to the Wikiquote project by long, consistent, thoughtful work on a wide variety of articles and issues. You are being largely dismissed because you are an unregistered Johnny one-note who refuses to cooperate, contorts the concept of compromise so that it always comes out promoting your obvious POV, and does his best to distort the debate to impune respected editors. Long experience with wikis has taught seniors editors that such a person cannot be expected to become a useful member of the community. It's junior editors like myself who are foolish enough to keep trying to talk sense into such people. I hereby give up on trying to get you to cooperate. — Jeff Q (talk) 2 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)
Hi. I find myself somewhat confused by your actions, and I hope you can help me. I believed it was the majority opinion that while adding new quotations is fine, currently the organization of the Abortion page should remain. However, you seemed decide to reorganize the page. If you feel a new organization is better, I urge you to put a prototype of the new organization in a subpage of the Talk:Abortion page, and ask for other opinions. I want to ask you to revert your recent reorganization, and put such a prototype in a subpage of the talk page, so we can compare the merits of the alternatives. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 4 July 2005 07:31 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you changed sections without any consensus. I reverted it. This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. --Aphaia 4 July 2005 07:46 (UTC)
As you asked, I am willing to stop asking you to register -- but I would like you to remember that not registering, while allowed, does mean the community will tend to value the opinions of others over yours. It is, of course, your choice to make, but please do not act surprised or insulted by it. Registering is a token that one is willing to join the community. While we welcome any edits, when it comes to controversy, the community has to make hard choices -- and those choices are at the expense of unregistered users. Choices, as we learned on Buffy, have consequences, and I wanted to know those of yours. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)
Hi. You have made large edits to Abortion by mistake, instead of showcasing your proposals in a subpage. I have moved your edits to Talk:Abortion/Organized. Please perform further edits on this version. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)
Hi. I ask again that you perform edits in Talk:Abortion/Organized. There is no consensus about anything except addition of quotes -- any reorganization are on hold pending discussion. Thanks for your understanding. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)
Because there is a complain for you on WQ:VP and your edit causes major changes, I reverted your latest edit. You shouldn't have mixed a major change and addition of new qoutes. You can remind yourself on Kalki's caution about it. You can't blame anyone when you caused a major change without consensus about structure, even if your edit containted acceptable part. And you should realize all editors are asked not to make a major change, like structural changes. And as for sourced quotes, we order them chronogically, not alphabetically. Once I refered to the alphabetical order, but then I meant mainly section order and undated and not completely sourced quotes. If you are stick on alphabetical order, you would violate our official guideline which you find at Wikiquote:Templates. When you try again to change the structure, you are hardly avoiding your third blocking, I guess.
Thank you for your consideration. --Aphaia 7 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
- It should be noted that this comment by MosheZadka was made prior to a series of deletions, and an expression of intention to move several quotes. I am still hoping that arrangements can end up with a stable page, but we are not at that stage yet. ~ Kalki 21:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I think the standard alphabetizing and culling of unsourced or dubious material is long overdue. I am sure you all will comment if you see something that you don't like. 184.108.40.206 03:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Variant translations of works are provided where available throughout Wikiquote, and variant translations of Biblical passages are certainly relevant to the abortion issue. Using breaks "<br>" rather than slashes "/" is also standard formatting in almost all articles. Italicization of song or poem lyrics has commonly been done when the articles themselves do not consist primarily of poems or songs. ~ Kalki 21:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have no problem with it - but it does tend to make the page less user-friendly and more "bogged down". Much like the long explanations of who said the quote and when. 220.127.116.11 03:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I also have no particular liking of the humor of Maddox, but his site is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and thus his quotation should be retained. Only one of your deletions do I agree with, as the person was non-notable by standard measures, the others I do not. ~ Kalki 21:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I recommend you to follow Jeff's suggestions, shortly "you are invited to add quotes, but sorry, no removal". The article needs to be pruned, but it is not the time; some editors including me think removal should be done only after concensus-breaking what should be deleted and what should be retained. So if you remove one or more quotes by your descretion, it will be surely unwelcome. --Aphaia 21:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's fine with me - it just seems silly to have a "nobody" quoted here. If wikiquote wants to have information that is not helpful to people doing researchsuch as the opinions of someone who is unknown and is not an authority on the subject matter), then that makes wikiquote less likely to become known as a the place to go for quotes. 18.104.22.168 03:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think that the Maddox quote was replaced, so that we seem to only be missing two quotes from the original time; I agree 100% totally with Aphaia: I am an w:inclusionist. But, Kalki, you agree with one of the deletions? Which one? If you think it should go and find concensus after I am gone, that is OK with me, but I shall repair and replace like before. PS: Glad to see we're all accpeting of the others' views and peace is back in style.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- "A person's a person, no mattter how small."
- Horton Hears a Who, Dr. Seuss's (Theodor Seuss Geisel's) children's book on respecting others
- All plucked flowers and carrots are untimely ripped. All scotched weeds or cadaver eating are abortions.
- O Anna Niemus
--GordonWattsDotCom 15:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Correction: I made a mistake: Only one quote was missing of the original quotes, and I replaced it; It did not have any sources except Wiki and mirror sites of wiki, but the author is well-known: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22O+Anna+Niemus%22&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N
--GordonWattsDotCom 16:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
w:Terri Schiavo needs your help...
I am trying to drum up support for a Featured Article Candadicy for w:Terri Schiavo: She is getting whipped into shape, and the support is growing for a feature of her article, but I would like your support too.
The page on which we discuss such things is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo
Here's a post I sent to Wikipedia's top dude, FYI:
Anyhow, I hate to bother the top brass, but the w:Schiavo article is a Featured Article Candidate, and, while some of the critics have good points about image copyright concerns, most of the other criticisms are unfounded (e.g., length of article must be long to "do justice," etc.), I think the article is stable and very well-written.Slightly over half of the "votes" are against it being a "Featured Article," but I've whipped the article in shape -with help from many other editors, including Mark (aka →Raul654), the Fac editor. Please honor our combined hard work & team-effort, and use your "god-like" powers, just once more, before you give them up. Thank you.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks in advance, 214, for your feedback and efforts.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
my request for admiship
214, Please support my request for adminship on en.Wikipedia:
Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's numerical w:IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.