User talk:Kim Bruning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Hello! Note that I am away. Please append your message at the end of the page, though I can't promise I'll do anything about it atm.

This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III.

Contents

[edit] Discussion on Jimbos page

I am awake and waiting for your counterarguments. Prandr 11:09 CEST, 14 May 2007

[edit] Super datatool!!!

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hauptautoren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloquence (talk • contribs)

[edit] Wikipedia has a second Carlos admin

Click there to open your card! → → →

[edit] Governance reform and AGF challenge

Hi! I've been reading through some of your comments on WT:Governance reform. I find hard rules and binding decisions as appealing as the next person, but I also find your arguments very compelling.

Working within a corporate hierarchy, I see first-hand the tension between being bold to get things done, and waiting for the formal decision-making process to complete. When I do employee performance reviews there are usually questions on the form about display of management skills. Non-manager employees almost always skip these questions on the grounds that they simply have zero opportunity to exercise management skills. I tell them that the true test of management skills is exercising influence over others when you don't have a manager title, or when they don't report to you. I guess this corresponds to building consensus.

I followed the link to WP:Lectures, and I'm sorry to find that I missed the session on Fill's AGF challenge. I'm sure that you're really busy, but I'd appreciate any feedback you might have on my answers. Cheers, Bovlb (talk)

[edit] BLP

  • (response:) I left a closing message on the BLP page. I hope you will take them in the spirit they were offered. I don't think it was a failure to AGF at all, but to point out that the changes (or whatever you choose to call them) weren't being properly defended. Thanks for the discussion. Faith (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • (response:) Happens to the best of us. Regardless of current practises on other articles, policy revision (in general, and especially at BLP) should be more carefully considered (as it affects the wiki as a whole, rather than only a single article or its offshoots/parent article), and statistical review cannot be determined accurately on such a small sampling. The issue on BLP is so strong because staying within 3RR and not edit warring when the edit concerns "X blogged so&so's sweater in this movie was actually dark pink instead of red" is far less harmful to all concerned (especially the fictitious subject and WP), than technically violating 3RR to keep removing (until a "block and lock") "X blogged so&so (real person) was a paedophile (or w/e)". Even "X blogged a suggestion that so&so might be a paedophile" or "X accused so&so in his blog of being one" should be removed until the person is tried, convicted, and a RS reports it (and then only if it's WP:NOTE). Stronger issues need much stronger support for change, even if one editor thinks the change might be for the better. It has to be empirically proven above assertion, and the data just didn't do that at all, sorry. I honestly think if you approached this by having great statistics in hand, that spoke for themselves, you would have found far more consideration, if not support, for your changes, especially if you thought ahead enough to bring to the table an alternative (and better) mechanism to put in place of the exemption. The problem ultimately became that you found yourself painted into a corner defending a lack of evidence by turning the tables, something which became very obvious. Don't be completely discouraged; Regroup, re-examine, research, reapply :) Faith (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know where you got "appeal to authority" out of telling him to check and see if there was an Arbcom decision; notice I said "most likely acting on the committee's decision", not that he was acting alone as a better than you committee member, which would be an appeal to authority. --Faith (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Might need your input and clarification

At this discussion of the place of AGF Challenge exercises and similar exercises as part of RfA here.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset voting

Kim, there is some discussion here about guidelines, which I have seen interpreted with increasing rigidity. As I know this is an concern of yours, and that you are a highly experienced Wikipedian, besides being God Yourself, so I thought you might have something to say about the principles involved. This is an edit of mine where I bring up the guidelines vs. purpose of the project issue. This is not an attempt to canvass any sort of vote on the article itself, and I have no idea which way you would !vote if you decide to. I'm simply interested in your comment on the usage of guidelines as if they trump the mention of facts that are not controversial at all, and that can be verified, beyond doubt, and without any reasonable disagreement over interpretation, by reference to primary sources. (Mailing lists are a kind of primary source.) --Abd (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lectures

I keep meaning to reply to your messages. Have been having some difficulties, and hadn't been on WP for a while either; I must confess I forgot about the IRC setup. :-/ If it matters, you can still access it here using the IP address... I need to get this sorted out properly. I'll let you know. Lectures going well, I hope? --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)