User talk:Proabivouac/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Merkey

I was thinking of removing the proposals for that very reason. Also see my recent suggestion for a conflict of interest section in BLP. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

otherwise fall into moreso and maybe get more harshly treated for by others. FT2 11:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I did not edit war, was not disruptive and was not uncivil. All you've prevented is discussion. Thus, I ask you to unblock me. Just tell me what you want and I'l follow it. If Wikipedia insists on tricking volunteers into believing that personal attacks aren't allowed here, that's Wikipedia's dishonesty, and not mine. I'm not ultimately responsible for this, I've done my part and then some and am content with that. No need for further "preventative" measures. Once a prolific contributor, I hardly edit here nowadays anyhow. I'm totally fine with not editing for a week, if that's what you want. No need to stain my log again.
Oh, and p.s. - did these requests, by chance, come via IRC?Proabivouac 12:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked you. I encourage you to seek consensus on the talk page, but I do not see how a series of edits which have not even met the 3RR threshold constitute disruptive editing. There needs to be a larger pattern of disruption to justify a block - and be sure your edits do not provide evidence of such a pattern. For now, however, there is none so I have unblocked you. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.Proabivouac 12:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I've dropped a comment at User talk:Slrubenstein. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hey pro

hey pro,who is matt57 and what's his/her story??can you please tell me what's going on bud??thanksGrandia01 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Vigil

User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt

I am giving away this userbox as a sign of solidarity with our good friend Matt57. The gross injustice purportrated against him shall be met with peaceful non-violent protest. Please place on your userpage until this excessive and unjust ban is reversed. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 07:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ahh

Proabvouac, it's been long. Too long. 24.70.95.203 00:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

what's that supposed to mean? Yahel Guhan 04:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Look at Islam#External links - that's not Citizendium or Britannica, but us now. As you might imagine, there is an endless supply of links we could add which address this subject from a wide variety of perspectives, verging from the opinionated to the downright batty (perhaps that makes our job easier, because quality control can be sold as a practical consideration of space?) and be assured that some have tried. While I have quibbles with some of the material to which we've linked (particularly the BBC link which despite its reputation is neither particularly scholarly nor neutral,) it's generally highbrow, respectable stuff. There's nothing here which reflects poorly upon this project. Where there aren't any links of that caliber, it's completely orthodox for an encyclopedia article, and I think it completely okay, not to have an external link.Proabivouac 07:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh definitely, in many cases we CAN achieve that level of quality. On academic topics, for example, it's usually easy for us to write an article using only other high-quality references and links. But for other subjects, we can't. The simplest example is that right now, whenever we cover an organization, policies require we link to their main page. So having an article on Westboro Baptist Church means a link to godhatesfags. Perverted-Justice means a link to that site. ANd so on, for nazis, and politicians and advocacy groups, and etc. We have hundreds of thousands of pages that , as a matter of course, link to partisan, non-scholarly sites. --Alecmconroy 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
That's the practice, as reflected in the guideline WP:External links#What should be linked. I think it should be changed.Proabivouac 08:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Should also note that by the solution I propose, no reference to Wikipedia editors is necessary: if the New Yorker states that one of editors used fraudulent credentials, or Le Monde claims one of us is a spy, those are respectable sources which should be included wherever they're relevant. The real problem with "attack sites" is that they're flame wars - in fact, they're generally continuations or components of our own flame wars, which we should never have hosted to begin with.Proabivouac 08:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If that was how the project, I would have no objection to the the kind of BADSITES proposal that have be advanced. NPOV isn't the only valid way to write an document-- Scholarly Point of View, or Scientific Point of View, Conservative Point of view or Liberal point of view-- I think all of those could be really interesting projects. And with words and wikis, the more the merrier. No such thing as Too Much information.
I personally would still want to be a part of a NPOV project like this one, where we try our best not to judge our subject matter. It's part of what I really like about the place. But, I would have no philosophical object to a project that openly made a point of being Op-Ed instead of Neutral, so long as it was upfront about being more Op-Edy or Scholarly or Non-Neutral.
The thing that's been problematic about the BADSITES issue is that it's not uniformly applied. If we purged all links to ALL partisan sites: Democratic party, Republican Party, NeoNazi Party, and on down, and were open about it-- I wouldn't have any great philosophical objection to such a project.
But instead, what's been proposed by others is that we CLAIM to be NPOV, that we try to be NPOV on all subjects except those where our editors our personally involved, and THERE we carve out a special exception to NPOV allowing us to be Op-Ed in our linking to just a few sites that have upset us. That's where things get objectionable. --Alecmconroy 09:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An apology

Sorry for you thinking I was trolling. Putting this behind us, right? Karnoff 06:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good summary of the issues

No doubt...this was said much calmer and more accurately than I could muster...especially right now. Best wishes to you.--MONGO 08:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Does this change your mind?

I see nothing in that exchange that would convince me that my original evaluation of the evidence was incorrect. (Not that it really matters at this point, frankly.) Kirill 12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)