User talk:Alice/Archive 1
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
|
This user loves Singapore. |
Alice's ("missing") 'user page'
My last 500 contributions to Wikipedia:
My Edit Count
"I am running out of patience for incivility at Wikipedia,... Some people simply should not be contributing to an encyclopedia.... and note that all editors should always endeavor to treat each other with kindness, or else find another hobby. When we put up with this kind of behavior, we enable a hostile environment that drives away good people. We should be gentle, but firm: this kind of behavior is not allowed at Wikipedia." --Jimbo Wales 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) [1]
|
I will reply to messages wherever they are posted. If you write something here, my reply will also be here. If I have written something on someone else's talk page, I will be watching it for at least 5 days. Any article I have contributed to recently will be on my watchlist. |
| Welcome to my talk page! | |
|---|---|
| |
| Perspicacite Messages in the "P Section"; all other comments: (+) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Welcome editHello. Welcome to Wikipedia! I created this account for you. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. There are lots of ways you can help with the encyclopedia; check out Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia to find out how. If you have any questions, you can ask on my talk page, check Wikipedia:Questions, or leave {{helpme|your question here}} on this page, and someone will be around to help shortly. Again, welcome, and happy editing! WODUP 03:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC) That was very thoughtful. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice.S (talk • contribs)
Wow! What a quick and helpful reply. I see that there is a very great deal to learn. I'll try and do a bit of reading before I bother you again. Thanks again. (signed Alice from Singapore). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice.S (talk • contribs)
I'm glad to hear that since I'm nowhere near perfect (grin). I'll have to study my signature when I get some turnaround leave after this next flight. It's been a bit of a struggle finding the right keys to press to find the tilde. I guess your keyboard's a bit different. Thanks again for being so helpful and patient with me! Alice.S 04:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)
Wow! That's a really big welcome. Aren't I a lucky person? There's a lot to read there but I get some holiday soon and should be able to plough into it then. I don't know much about creating a user page - perhaps you could do that for me and put the template whatsits on the right place there? (I'm not much good with technical things like computers as you probably guessed...) Thanks everyone for making me feel welcome. Isn't Wikipedia a wonderful place? Alice.S 02:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC) How can I make my name appear in red again? edit
Before, when I didn't have a user page, my name appeared in red in my watchlist. Now, even though I've deleted my user page, it is still the same old boring blue. How can I get it back to red again?Alice.S 03:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC) And my signature has changed from red to blue as well!!!Alice.S 03:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you must be the most helpful person on Wikipedia, WODUP! That's done the trick for my signature (on this page at least) but how do I get my name to appear red in my Watchlist? Is the only way to do it the
Well, as you probably realise, that is beyond my capabilities, so I've placed the code you suggested on my user page, WODUP. Thanks again for your very prompt help and assistance! Alice.S 06:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
That works wonderfully - I've changed the code to show my name with a background in a fetching shade of Coral Pink - you really are the cat's whiskers, WODUP! Alice.S 07:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Your recent edits at de facto appear to have changed many non-italic text bits to italics. This is in contradiction two principles. (1) If it's in an English dictionary, it's appropriated and should not be italicized (this is the Chicago manual of styles definition of appropriation, but Wikipedia does not have one to the best of my knowledge and it's a good rule of thumb), and (2) the exclusion for the topic of the article in WP:ITALICS#Foreign_terms. Would you mind fixing the article so that neither de facto, nor de jure is italicized? Pdbailey 13:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view. My reasoning was as follows: 1) a) Is "de jure" a phrase or a word? I decided that it was a foreign phrase (in latin) that did not (yet) have everyday usage (other than in legal and constitutional, etc, circles) and, therefore, that "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages...". Adding weight to this argument was that de jure is usually italicized in legal texts b) an additional consideration was that, throughout our article, de jure is contrasted with de facto and it is helpful to italicise to emphasise the distinction. 2) I did not italicise de jure in the title of the article as per WP:ITALICS#Foreign_terms but think that in the body of the article the italicisation is clearer and thus trumps any style preference but realise that this is a fine point. I have, therefore, copied this passage to our article's discussion page for further input from other editors. That being the case, I would prefer not to self-revert until consensus has been achieved but do feel free to revert me if you are utterly convinced I am wrong since I am very new here! I also think it might be worth you starting a discussion on the Chicago manual of style's definition of appropriation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting) which, I'm sure, would benefit from your erudite input? Alice.S 21:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm very sorry if I did something wrong by trying to discuss things on the article's talk page - I really don't wish to challenge you in any shape or form and please forgive me as a newbie if that's how it appeared. I just assumed it would be OK to have a public discussion since I didn't think it right that just some of the occurrences of de jure should be italicized but not others. I really don't wish to fall out with anyone on Wikipedia and, as I said before, feel free to just make the changes without further discussion if you feel The Economist`s Style Guide is clearly wrong at http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=805685
I do really apologise for the misunderstanding - it may be a gender thing or the fact that I am very new to online argumentation - it's quite difficult when there are no smiles or tones of voice to give you a clue. Thank you very much for being patient, tolerant and understanding with me. Please feel free to correct my howlers - I'm trying to learn as much as I can as quickly as I can. Alice.S 06:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry, it's easy to forget that jargon and abbreviations are not easy to recognize by the new. "rv" just means revert, which I did because I think "European ethnic groups" is not an appropriate place to direct readers to. Ethnic groups did not colonize Vanuatu, it was European nations, and "Europe" is what most readers will expect to find when they click that link. If there's anything else you need, feel free to ask.--Cúchullain t/c 21:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying both the abbreviation and the reason for the revert that I queried at your user talk page. I would slightly disagree with you that these were all national government sponsored and organised expeditions - some of the very first landings were by privateers that would have been executed by their respective (European) governments if they had been caught- but no matter. There was also a distinct feeling of ethnic superiority and solidarity amongst the colonisers which many Vanuatuans feel is still relevant. Alice.S 21:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Replied... editto you here NoSeptember 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)]] Re:Thanks again for the good advice editYou are most welcome, and please do feel free to do modifications as you please. This is your talk page afterall, and a beautiful one at that! Meanwhile, I notice you still appear to have some problems with the signature part. You only need to insert --~~~~ behind your comments. No need to manually type in your name and timestamp. Hope this helps!--Huaiwei 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC) That's exactly what I do, Huawei, but because I do not (and do not want a user page) a bug in Sinebot thinks I haven't signed. Sinebot's owner was kind enough to respond to my concerns here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slakr&oldid=167995998#Sinebot_signs_after_my_signature Please keep up your mentorship - it's much appreciated! Alice.S 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC) P section editTokelau editHi, and thanks for your message. I agree with you on the issue of dates and spellings, although I sympathise with User:Perspicacite as it can be very difficult to keep that rule in mind. Two suggestions for you; next time there would be no harm in dropping the other editor a polite and friendly note reminding them about ENGVAR, and also by reverting all Perspicacite's changes out you may have lost a number that were good. Rather than reverting, consider a compromise version which uses the best of both versions. I may have a look at doing this if I have time, or else you might want to. Best wishes to you --John 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your interest and whatever assistance you can offer, John. Perspicacite has now reverted to his earlier version (for the third time, but over an interval of several days) and reintroduced the US-English spellings and date formats in our article about a Commonwealth territory. (The dates do matter a little since the majority of our readers are folks who either do not have a user account or who are not logged in). I was intrigued by User:Perspicacite's last (reverting) edit summary: where he stated "Bots will take care of national-spelling issues." Was he correct? There are also the matters of
These two concerns are in addition to my concerns about changing (without consensus or discussion) to spellings and date formats to those prevalent in the USA, whereas Tokelau is a non self-governing colonial territory of the Commonwealth country of New Zealand and, therefore, the article has a strong connection to an WP:ENGVAR in addition to non US-English being the current variant. I have tried to assume good faith here but the other changes that Perspicacite made did not, in my opinion, improve the article and, consequently, are not really susceptible of incorporation. Indeed it could be said that some of the changes he made were contrary to the sources. The conclusion I have drawn after this third revert is that either these reverts are entirely careless of the efforts of other editors or that he is staking ownership of our Tokelau article. I really do not feel that I have enough experience as an editor to reprimand him effectively if it turns out his edit summary is also mendacious. Alice.S 03:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That seems like good advice! See you over on the discussion page of Talk:Tokelau, Perspicacite? Alice.S 06:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that stalking "does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them." I also note that, at the time of writing, there does not seem to be support for your position at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Perspicacite: Stalking and Perspicacite/Frank Gaffney However, I shall try and draw something positive from this unpleasant little exchange; at least I got to read some interesting policies about civility and ownership and stalking and no personal attacks that I might have missed otherwise. I will continue to follow Wikipedia policy in editing articles that Perspicacite might have edited before since, judging by his history, he seems to spurn all efforts at reconciliation and I formally withdraw my offer not to edit articles which Perspicacite has previously edited. Alice.S 18:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: Our perspicacious friend is now trying to get me blocked for two weeks!!!???!!! Alice.S 09:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC) STOP PRESS: But failed! Whew... Alice.S 12:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC) User:Perspicacite editI guess some users are just incorrigible. I give up. Alice.S 20:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC) No, that's what he is probably trying to engineer. Note to self: Ignore him and neglect the articles he messes up but prepare your powder for an immediate Arbcom if things do not drastically improve after the unblock. And please stop talking to yourself! WP:3RR editYou are on the verge of violating WP:3RR, making more than three reversions to an article in a 24-hour period. A fourth reversion will result in a 24 hour block. Perspicacite 10:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I think you have completely misunderstood several points (leaving aside the fact that you are not an administrator): 1) I have never made a simple revert to any article (exxcept to revert simple vandalism). Please provide diffs to show where you believe I reverted to my version (as opposed to making progressive edits) 2) By contrast you have already made 3 successive (and I believe rash and unconsidered reverts to our Rhodesia article within a 24 hour period: 1 and 2 and 3 3) If you consider this important enough, please report yourself to an administrator for blocking. Alice.S 10:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: You've now made a fourth revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhodesia&diff=170069743&oldid=170068988 Please consider giving yourself a voluntary block for a short period to try and encourage yourself to actually incrementally edit rather than revert your colleagues. Alice.S 10:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope I've learnt some more from this interaction with you, Perspicacite: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=next&oldid=170077535 I need to be more careful in my edits in future since, when the admin dismissed your complaint, it seems he did find that I had reverted once: "(User:Alice.S reported by User:Perspicacite (Result: ) - Querulous complaint, most of the diffs are not even reverts.)" I assume that you will also quickly remove your 24 hour block from your talk page, too? Alice.S 12:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC) For maintaining civility under stress edit NeilN has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Provoking editWhile you might not think of it that way, posting on the talk page of someone who you are in a conflict when they're blocked can be seen as provoking. I recommend you in the future to refrain from doing so until the block expires, since it may just work the other party up. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Penwhale: I can see the sense in your position. However, one of the reason's I've been interacting with Perspicacite is that I believe that ours is a co-operative project and we need to be able to discuss things with one another; I understood that, since he could only post on his talk page during a block, that would be the best place to address him. Do you think that there are some policy, guideline and essay pages that need updating with this particular piece of advice so that other newbies don't inadvertently aggravate the situation, when a user has been blocked? John: I'll do just that on talk pages, but I suspect that I will need to address Perspicacite directly on article discussion pages and (given his track record) on noticeboards, etc. To do otherwise would be to change his (anticipated) reverts without explanation and I genuinely feel that nobody is beyond redemption (if that doesn't sound too pompous). Thanks for the good advice, Gentlemen! Alice.S 20:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Hi, Alice. I agree with John and Penwhale here. Perspicacite has been, no question, very difficult to deal with. I think that has led you (and a few other people) to do some things that you never would have done in dealing with somebody else's edits. That compounds the problem. Before he had no reason to be grumpy beyond some misunderstandings, but now he'll have to overcome that plus the additional history. He's clearly not so good yet at handling his emotions on Wikipedia, so let's not give him any more to deal with right now. Please give him a wide berth, so that both you and he have time to cool down. A month of not editing the same articles would be great, and definitely do not follow him to any articles. I expect that in a year's time you both will look back and say, "Oh, if only I had known then what I know now, that wouldn't have blown up." But for now, we've got two million articles, so there's plenty of room for you to both be good contributors separately. Thanks, William Pietri 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC) That's the odd thing about these episodes, William. I genuinely think that (with one significant exception) I have treated Perspicacite the way I would like to be treated and the way I (misguidedly?) intend to treat anyone else's edits: I analyse the changes he makes and leave intact the good ones and correct any mistakes; if there is a pattern in the mistakes I would normally take it up directly with the editor but, in this case, because of the history of grumpy and bitey behaviour that I saw, I went to two separate admins to ask them to point out the problematic behaviour since I will ponder for a while on all the good advice I have received. Can you answer the question I have posed above: Do you think that there are some policy, guideline and essay pages that need updating with this advice so that other newbies don't inadvertently aggravate the situation, when a user has been blocked? Alice.S 21:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
How wise! (and how useful, since I'm a fundamentally lazy person, to get a carte blanche to cut down on my wikireading. I do so agree that it's a very steep learning curve, William!)Alice.S 00:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Your offer editThis no longer interests me. I am willing to accept your original offer of you "keeping" Tokelau and not following me onto other pages. If you agree to stop harassing me then as far as I'm concerned, at this point, you can go wild with Tokelau. Perspicacite 10:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC) That is a perversion of my proposal. I do not concede that I have ever harassed you. I have encouraged you to work in a more collegial manner and to eschew reverts other than for simple vandalism. Please take care to quote editors correctly or provide the relevant diffs in future. Alice.S 02:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Civility editI remain deeply concerned about your civility in talkpage posts. As you know, civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. "Civility" is a principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it is a reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. Wikipedia invites visitors to improve its text. But often there are differences of opinion on whether a change in text is an "improvement". When editors weigh the pros and cons of whether a change is an improvement, it may be difficult to criticize text without being subjective about the situation. Editors, in trying to be clear, can be unnecessarily harsh on the giving end. Conversely, on the receiving end, editors can be oversensitive when they see what they wrote replaced by something that claims to be "better", despite it being the opposite of what they wrote. Again, thanks for the note! Perspicacite 11:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC) I agree.Alice.S 11:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 3RR editAlso, I am concerned about your recent violation of the WP:3RR rule on Rhodesia. You see, in consideration of the harm of reverting, Wikipedia policy states that you may not revert any article more than three times in the same day. This is a very strict limit, not a given right; you should not revert any one article more than three times daily. When a revert is necessary, it is very important to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit, but fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified. Explaining reverts also helps other people. For example, it lets people know whether they need to even view the reverted version (in the case of, eg, "rv page blanking"). Because of the lack of non-verbal communication online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's one of the possible causes for edit wars. If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in the edit summary, drop a note on the Talk page. A nice thing to do is to drop the note on the Talk page first, and then revert, rather than the other way round. Sometimes the other person will agree with you and revert for you before you have a chance. Conversely, if someone reverts your change without apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's talk page or your user talk page. Perspicacite 11:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC) I agree with your second paragraph. Alice.S incivility bad? editI dont think we've truly delved into why incivility is bad, together, as a team. I've found it makes people unhappy, resulting in discouragement and departure from Wikipedia, resulting in non-constructive or even uncivil behavior themselves, further escalating the level of incivility. It puts people on the defensive, closing their minds to other ideas and preventing a consensus from forming. It's bad because people lose good faith, resulting in even less ability to resolve the current conflict — or the next one, because in the end, the content to be edited is not improved. A few good ways to prevent incivility:
Ways to reduce the impact:
Users may also remove comments.
If it is a clear case of ongoing incivility, consider making a comment on the offender's talk page. You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement. In extreme cases (of heavy or repeated incivility), a user conduct Request for Comment may help resolve the matter. Parties sometimes attempt to negotiate an agreement while one party is not ready to negotiate. For example, if the source of the conflict is a specific point in an article, an uncivil discussion may impair a dispute resolution. It is best to clear up that issue as soon as possible, so disputants can regain their balance and clarity when editing. Some editors are badly shaken by uncivil words directed towards them, and cannot focus on the source of the conflict itself. It may help to point out to them why unpleasant words were used, and acknowledge that while incivility is wrong, the ideas behind the comment may be valid. The offended person may realize that the words were not always meant literally, and could decide to forgive and forget them. It can be helpful to point out breaches of civility even when done on purpose to hurt, as it might help the disputant to refocus on the issue (controversial). During a mediation, a third neutral party is in contact with disputants, ensuring communication between them. Mediators also promote reasonable discussion between the disputants. Therefore it is helpful to remove incivility voiced by User A, in rephrasing comments to User B.
Again, I broadly agree.Alice.S 12:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Archiving editThanks for creating the subpage, I will link to it from my talkpage. I'll put the link right next to my own archive, where I've kept a longer list of comments starting from my first talkpage posts. The "past activities" refers to my previous accounts on Wikipedia. Every year or so my interests change so I get a new account to match 'em. Regarding the policies, I would probably get rid of ENGVAR altogether and require American spelling on all pages. Perspicacite 12:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC) It certainly is more consistent (and a little simpler in most cases). If the spread of Microsoft's spell checker continues that will probably become the default anyway. Until then we all need to follow the existing policies and guidelines. Can you point me to your previous accounts so that I can track your development and progress as an editor? Alice.S 12:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC) This editUm, what is User:Alice.S/Deleted from User talk:Perspicacite's "Archive" about? I'd say it was time to nuke it. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC) The text block in blue, there, explains: "All user's have a right to delete comments they are uncomfortable with from their user space (see: Don't restore removed comments) but this means that both admins and editors new to interacting with a particular individual may not be able to detect a consistent pattern of behaviour before they have "awoken the dragon". This page is not designed as an attack page but as a handy reference I can point to when warning other editors that may be unaware of the (rapidly deleted) history of User talk:Perspicacite's "Archive" and the first unfounded allegation of "Wikistalking" dating from 05:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC). If the situation does not improve when User:Perspicacite returns it will also provide evidence and be a source of diffs for an Arbcom or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee hearing. This archive deliberately excludes the first 4 threads/sections completed before 22 May 2007 Singapore time. (Because of the rapidity of User:Perspicacite's deletions, comments may not be in strict chronological order. Please do not edit or make corrections here but instead alert me (Alice) on the talk page for this project!" Alice.S 12:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll certainly try my very best. As you probably realise, I'm a newbie here but I assume you will allow me a few days to decide whether Perspicacite has continued his previous pattern of damaging reverts coupled with a consistent tendency to remove comments left on his user page without adequate reply. I'm sure you will agree that I am archiving all of his deletions from his user talk page after the chosen start date - not just comments which are grudging, but also those that are complementary. If a resource like this had been available to the wheel-warring admin that reversed his previous block he might have come to a different decision, don't you think? Might I suggest that a better place to discuss this would be here? If you strongly disagree, you are very welcome to apply the appropriate remedy... Alice.S 13:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Rhodesia editLast edit was quite good, but partly unnecessary. SmackBot automatically dates the fact templates every 24 hours or so. On the issue of linking years, I agree with you but there is significant support for linking all years. The issue came up recently in the FAC for Governor General of Canada. For now it's fine if they're delinked but at some point one may be asked to re-link them. Perspicacite 19:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Noted. (As regards the better fact template, you are partially correct, and this is yet another reason why it is better to progress with incremental and co-operative edits rather than unilateral and un-discussed reversions. As regards linking isolated years (for no good reason other than it is possible), we will have to agree to disagree until and unless the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking are changed:
Heads up editThere's a thread on WP:AN/I concerning you: WP:AN/I#It never ends. east.718 at 09:24, 11/14/2007
I'm a little surprised you claim to read the future or my intentions. Please assume good faith and read carefully the blue text. Is there some sort of deadline I have to meet. I also think you should not believe everything you read but carefully assess the evidence. I'm going away soon, but I may have time when I come back to deal with these nonsensical allegations. Alice.S 09:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly my intention - as it clearly states in the blue text right at the top of the User space page. Please read that text carefully and slowly. Alice.S 10:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I appeal my block editPlease would anyone of good faith post this defence to WP:AN/I#It never ends, since I am unable to. This is the material that User:Perspicacite/Jose João inserted:[[Portugal]] annexed Cabinda from [[Belgian Congo]] in 1927.<ref name="belcab">{{cite book|last=Griggs|first=Richard A.|coauthors=Rachael Bradley and Clive H. Schofield|year=2000|title=Boundaries, Borders and Peace-building in Southern Africa: The Spatial Implications of the 'African Renaissance'|pages=8}}</ref> and I think Perspicacite's edit summary says it all, really: I can't find this novel material anywhere else and I can't find this book so that is why my edit inserted this: Through the [[Treaty of Simulambuco]] in 1885 between the kings of Portugal and Cabinda's princes, a Portuguese protectorate was decreed, reserving rights to the local princes and independent of Angola. Cabinda once had the [[Congo River]] as the only natural boundary with Angola, but in 1885, the [[Conference of Berlin]] extended the [[Congo Free State]]'s territory along the Congo River to the river's mouth at the sea. In 1975, the [[Treaty of Alvor]] integrated Cabinda into Angola, but this treaty was rejected by all Cabindan political organizations. These organizations argue that because they had no input on the document, it was, and is, illegal, and therefore does not bind them to Angola. However, according to Perspicacite, [[Portugal]] annexed Cabinda from [[Belgian Congo]] in 1927.<ref name="belcab">{{cite book|last=Griggs|first=Richard A.|coauthors=Rachael Bradley and Clive H. Schofield|year=2000|title=Boundaries, Borders and Peace-building in Southern Africa: The Spatial Implications of the 'African Renaissance'|pages=8}}</ref> retaining his citation. However our other articles do not mention this so called annexation! I really can't see how crediting the author of a novel theory can be a personal attack - but I've only been here 5 weeks! Alice.S 10:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Google Books, I have now read pages 6 thru 8 of Boundaries, Borders and Peace-building in Southern Africa: The Spatial Implications of the 'African Renaissance' by Richard A. Griggs, Rachael Bradley, Clive H. Schofield, a 30 page pamphlet. This work does not support the original thesis of Perspicacite that Portugal annexed Cabinda from Belgian Congo in 1927. I'm sorry, what exactly is "the attack" here? Perspicacite consistently reverts other peoples edits (including mine) with summaries like "rvv" (= revert vandalism). So it was not obvious that he was taking any more than usual offence to anyone editing his contributions. I did not remove his unusual statement - only balanced it with the more commonly held sourced viewpoint to be found on all our other articles on Cabinda and Angola. As for talking things through in depth, Perspicacite has banned me from his talk page (I'm not the first) and that's one reason I'm keeping my archive - to show a pattern of non-discussion and intransigence and calling good faith edits "vandalism" and "stalking".Alice.S 11:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)  Alice (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: This is the material that User:Perspicacite/Jose João inserted:Portugal annexed Cabinda from Belgian Congo in 1927.[1] and I think Perspicacite's edit summary says it all, really: "You know what's depressing is this is probably not mentioned anywhere in the History of Angola" I can't find this novel material anywhere else and, at the time of my edit, I couldn't find this book so that is why my edit inserted this: Through the Treaty of Simulambuco in 1885 between the kings of Portugal and Cabinda's princes, a Portuguese protectorate was decreed, reserving rights to the local princes and independent of Angola. Cabinda once had the Congo River as the only natural boundary with Angola, but in 1885, the Conference of Berlin extended the Congo Free State's territory along the Congo River to the river's mouth at the sea. In 1975, the Treaty of Alvor integrated Cabinda into Angola, but this treaty was rejected by all Cabindan political organizations. These organizations argue that because they had no input on the document, it was, and is, illegal, and therefore does not bind them to Angola. However, according to Perspicacite, Portugal annexed Cabinda from Belgian Congo in 1927.[1] retaining his citation. However our other articles do not mention this so called annexation! I really can't see how crediting the author of a novel theory can be a personal attack - but I've only been here 5 weeks! Thanks to Google Books, I have now read pages 6 thru 8 of Boundaries, Borders and Peace-building in Southern Africa: The Spatial Implications of the 'African Renaissance' by Richard A. Griggs, Rachael Bradley, Clive H. Schofield, a 30 page pamphlet. This work does not support the original thesis of Perspicacite that Portugal annexed Cabinda from Belgian Congo in 1927. So I'm sorry, what exactly is "the attack" or "WOP:POINT" here? Perspicacite consistently reverts other peoples edits (including mine) with summaries like "rvv" (= revert vandalism). So it was not obvious that he was taking any more than usual offence to anyone editing his contributions. I did not remove his unusual statement - only balanced it with the more commonly held sourced viewpoint to be found on all our other articles on Cabinda and Angola. As for talking things through in depth, Perspicacite has banned me from his talk page (I'm not the first) and that's one reason I'm keeping my archive - to show a pattern of non-discussion and intransigence and calling good faith edits "vandalism" and "stalking". Decline reason: You were blocked for violating WP:POINT; it seems like a valid block to me. I suggest using the time to read up on our policies and to think how you will interact with others on your return. What you added to the article could never have been a valid addition to it, and does indeed look like you were making a point. I see nothing in the lengthy statement above to indicate that you have learned from the many bits of advice you have been given. It is time to do so now. — John 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. I did think you had an interest in African affairs, John, and I am somewhat amazed that you believe that this addition, putting the consensual view amongst most historians (see here, for example:http://countrystudies.us/angola/16.htm or http://www.chez.com/cabinda/english/history.htm) can "never have been a valid addition to it, and does indeed look like you were making a point." The only source for the claim that "Portugal annexed Cabinda from Belgian Congo in 1927." is Perspicacite - which is why, when I retained it (just adding the definite article to his sentence) in all my three edits - I gave him credit for it. Otherwise it would have had to come out as unsourced. I'm really being genuine when I say I have not been able to find the policy which says I must not credit editors on Wikipedia with their opinions, when they are the only citation one find. I'm really genuine when I ask for your help in finding this policy so that I can understand how I was wrong to include it in my first two edits ( I replaced "Perspicacite" with "some commentators" in my third edit since I do not like to simply revert folks).Alice.S 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You apparently think well of me, since you link to my essay on your user page, so perhaps you'll listen to me when I agree with some others above that citing and linking to another user's page as the source of a fact was not appropriate. Other Wikipedia users are never a proper source for facts. Well, some of them might also be "real world" authors who are sources for facts, but then they'd be cited under their real names and outside publications, not as a Wikipedian. I'm sorry that this misunderstanding on your part led to a block. *Dan T.* 00:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC) For your information - the graphic on page 8 of the book (on Google Books) claims that Portugal did annex Cabinda from Congo in 1927. Look at the last line of text in the graphic. Georgewilliamherbert 01:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Stalking editWhy do you waste your time on History of Angola, etc.? I'm just going to revert your stalking tomorrow. If you continue then I'll just revert you the day after that, and the day after that, etc. I also dont understand why you keep on violating WP:ENGVAR in the name of WP:ENGVAR. It just gets silly after a while. Jose João (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
(Editconflict) I was already writing a comment on your user talk page when you left the above remarks. It seems rather ironic that you instantly revert this comment (again) rather than respond to it in a reasoned way... I agree that editors time should not be wasted by your ignorant and lazy reverts. Please cease your disruption and name calling. As for the WP:ENGVAR comment, I'm afraid it's just too cryptic - could you expand on it so that I can understand exactly what you're on about? Lastly, please respect the conventions of this talk page and put your comments at the bottom of the section reserved for you: The "P Section". Alice.S 01:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I think you fail to grasp that this is a Wiki. I'm not stalking you. You exemplify a careless and sloppy pattern of behaviour that could be improved it you would stop thinking that you were the centre of attraction and edit rather than revert. Concentrate on what has been added or subtracted rather than who added or subtracted it and we will make a better encyclopedia. Alice.S 01:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC) ENGVAR editSee WP:ENGVAR#Retaining the existing variety. You are attempting to change the spellings I used when I wrote these articles when Angola has no strong national ties to any particular type of English. They speak Portuguese in Angola proper and primarily French in Cabinda. While you are free to refactor your talkpage however you wish, and I am flattered by your decision to create a section just for my comments, I prefer not to alter my normal editing patterns to suit others' preferences. Jose João (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 1) If you fail to obey the conventions here I will raise this in an ArbCom. Please stop your incivility and respect the conventions of this page and this encyclopedia. 2) I know that you have stated that you have used other account names to edit Wikipedia. Are you stating here that you started our articles on Angola? If not, I don't know what you are on about exactly. I agree that no Angolan or Cabindan article is likely to have a strong link to any national variant of English (although both Governments have chosen the non-US variety for their government communications) so internal consistency within the article is the important point. (personally I think it might be useful to have a flag at the top of each of our articles to categorise whether it was written in US and non-US (and, if non_US, in Oxford or non-OED variant). Give my love to the Ambassador's wife! Alice.S 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Angola, WP:OWN, etc. editI seem to recall your attack page regarding arbcom being deleted. I'm under no obligation to place my comments in your special "P" section. I would prefer if you stop referring to articles as "our" or 'my' articles as this would indicate ownership and would violate WP:OWN. Angolans don't speak English. I would therefore ask you not to violate WP:ENGVAR in the future, changing spellings to your preference, as this violates WP:ENGVAR. I would also ask you not to post welcome messages to userpages. Actually, editing the userpages of any user other than your self is generally looked down upon. I highly discourage it. Jose João (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC) You're being silly again. It's the inclusive "our" as in "all the editors that edit Wikipedia (not the sense of "yours and mine") as you well know. If I posted a welcome message to a user (as opposed to a user talk) page then I apologise for my error. What a pity you did not act in a more helpful manner and quote a diff. so that I could correct my error. If you continue to be uncivil and harassing by deliberately posting messages in the wrong place on my talk page, then I will take appropriate action. Alice.S 02:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 3RR editThis is your third reversion to a page within 24 hours. Keep in mind WP:3RR. Also keep in mind NPA and WP:CIVIL. Jose João (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Heads up (2) editThere's another thread on WP:AN/I concerning you: WP:AN/I#Personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonywalton (talk • contribs) 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit war editWhat happened in Rhodesia article is not a proper way of resolving conflicts. In the cases when there is no way to compromise, WP:THIRD opinion must be requested, rather than tug-of-war. There also further avenues of conflict resolution. Also, I suggest to edit in smaller pieces, adding simple, technical things first and then things that may cause objection. In this case it is easier for a third party to analyze the edit conflict. `'Míkka>t 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdented) Exactly, As regards your hour-long patient edit being trashed, meh? Reverts are cheap. As for the "umpteenth" revert, that's what AN/3RR is for. However yes, that bucket of AGF pills needs to be next to you - are they reverting just because they're prats, or are they reverting because they genuinely think you've got it wrong? Your reverts to their reversions come under 3RR as well, so who's wrong? On the second revert why not disengage for a while - to put it another way, why not really annoy the other party (you know you want to ☺ ) by refusing to rise to their bait? Another possibility (and it's happened to me, honest) is that you are actually wrong. I'm not getting into specific cases here as I'm no expert in your field, but it does happen that I, at least, give up for a bit (spitting and swearing offline about the sheer dense numskullery of some people) to return a while later with either a compromise or a realisation that they may just have a point. I realise you and another editor seem to have a problem (and I don't propose to get into the specific edits, for one as I said, I just don't understand the content issues and for two there's just too much of it) but one's case is much better made if one can point (cooly) to where the other editor is being ranty, bitey and obnoxious while one's own edit history shows flexibility, an absence of "pushing their buttons", coolness and a respect (without Wikilawyering) to process. I hope I'm not getting on your nerves, banging on! Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk 23:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Fork substitution editI draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rhodesia&oldid=175026836#More_irrational_reverts Non-P section editInteresting essay edita note to myself (and anyone lurking, of course). Alice.S 12:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Hm... good question. To be honest, I didn't have a specific definition of Pacific in mind when I made the category. I initially used it for articles relating to the history of NZ in the Pacific islands, but articles on NZ's relationship with countries like Japan do make some sense being in there (but not - as Gadfium says - articles like Japan itself). Thanks for the comments on the paintings - I should take that banner off my talk page, the exhibition finished a couple of weeks ago! It went well, though with fewer sales than I would have liked. Lots of good comments and a couple of good reviews, though. I have quite a few on my paintings up at my website here and follow the links to the "by year" pages :) Grutness...wha? 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC) I do like Liz and the reiteration of the Sydney Harbour Bridge is wonderful, James. "Life's a long song" is really poignant, too. Have you ever shown any stuff in Singapore - there's lot's of folk with high disposable income here now... I'm going to try and make the category description a bit more explicit - just correct me if I do anything you don't like. I'm also going to take a look at some articles (beginning with Samoa) to see if they can be appropriately added to your category (which looks a bit on the sparse side...). Best wishes! Alice.S 07:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your prompt and helpful reply, James. I've already added the History of Samoa to your category (that article seems like it could really do with some knowledgeable editors - I'm certainly not one) and I'll watch out for any others. Sorry about the "Kia ora" (maybe now you understand the "Bimbo" stereotype about beauty pageant queens...) What would be a good thing to say at the end of a message to someone from New Zealand? Alice.S 23:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
It's really lovely of you to help me with this, James. I'd love to come and visit your wonderful country one day and "Kia ora" sounds like a very useful word for a forgetful person like me. Is there a place on the web that I can learn to pronounce it properly? Hopefully Maori is not an intonal language like Chinese where slight changes are crucial. I suppose the weather is wonderful now on your southern island? Alice.S 01:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you sound like such an interesting fellow, James. Are most New Zealand people like you - we tend to lump you in with Australians but I guess you're very different and probably a bit more cultured - if that doesn't sound like an offensive stereo type. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful that we get to meet and co-operate with people from right across the world to make a better information source! Thank you very much for the pronunciation guide - I'll try it out on the first guys I meet who I am sure are from New Zealand (off to check the differences in the Flags... ah yours has red stars). It must be nice to have the weather to talk about - Singapore weather is so reliably predictable - even when we have those dreadful smogs from Indonesia. Thank you so much for being helpful - as you might have noticed from the section above, I was beginning to think that Wikipedia is not really the place for me! Thanks for brightening up my afternoon! Alice.S 08:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
No harm done editI realize you're a (relatively) new user, and I probably should have worded my reply to reflect that. SparsityProblem 01:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for being so gallant. And no need to pull your punches - it was pretty stupid of me not to have read the whole debate before I commented and your succinct and accurate summary of the process jolted me out of my laziness. Sorry again and thanks for the "wake-up at the back" comment! Alice.S 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC) KSB's revert editIt's already been reverted back to your newer, changed version by another editor. Cheers! Gwen Gale 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Yup, I'm a slow typist and folks seem to be very quick on the draw. Thanks for keeping an eye on things, Gwen! Alice.S 03:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, dragons are busy creatures and it can be hard to spot the detail sometimes when you're flying at such dizzy heights (grin). P has been actually showing distinct signs of editing rather than reverting recently - I do hope I'm not grinding him down (wan smile). Alice.S 06:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Swiping your "Straight but not narrow" userbox editI've been on the lookout for a userbox saying something like that for awhile. Where did you find it? And I hope you don't mind that I swiped the code to put on my userpage. K. Scott Bailey 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Gosh, you're very polite and friendly for a dragon! I'm afraid I've forgotten where I swiped it from, (that'll teach me to use better edit summaries) except that I'm fairly sure it was either GFDL or public domain. You might like to edit it to show the male symbol as slightly more prominent or keep it the same to reflect the female gamete's dominant role in our world (grin). Thanks for being so friendly! Alice.S 21:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Made me smile editThis and this made me smile; hope it does the same for you. WAS 4.250 01:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments.... editHi there. My editing today on a few articles may have removed or changed some of your material. Please don't be offended, but all I merely wanted to do was to remove any dubious unreferenced material. The worst though is that anon IP who turns out to be a block evading sock of the rude User:Domaleixo. I can't say I understood your message, but I'm guess it was tongue in cheek. Cheers and happy editing. --Merbabu 06:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC) I'm not offended at all - that's what is so wonderful about Wikipedia: we can all stand on the shoulders of others and become GIANTS! I'm sure that, given your evident cultural sensitivity, you will be aware that the IP (s)(socks or not) feel very strongly about the topics they edit on and that may lead them to be bit rash and loud at times - especially when it is evident that, like me, English was probably not the language they first learnt to read in. They have provided some good material, though, and the articles they have edited could definitely do with lots more citations. Lastly, I'm intrigued as to exactly which message you did not understand - can you provide a diff? Alice.S 06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC) What North Korea thinks of itself isn't relevant to its well sourced government type. NK fits the very definition of communist, etc. If you would like to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page, that's great. But simply deleting sourcec information isn't appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I disagree.
My mistake then, I read your comment as implying that I changed the "label" in the infobox from a position of ignorance and without reading the prior discussions on the article's talk page. My change took account of those discussions (I don't have to participate in a discussion to be able to understand its drift). What I took offence to was the "simply deleting" part. For the avoidance of doubt, I do believe that government's self descriptions are both illuminating and relevant; I will get seriously worried when the USA ceases to view itself as a democracy (whatever I may personally feel...) Alice.S 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This isn't usenet and I'm not going to debate politics here. I chose to delete two words from a userbox description that was un-encyclopedic: "communist dictatorship"; used together they are inappropriate and a contradiction in terms. We don't label the Provisional IRA or Al Quaeda as terrorist murderers for the same sort of NPOV reasons. Most Wikipedians are not telepathic and, without active canvassing, it's only a small minority of editors that will ever comment on an article's talk page. That's one reason that Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy and it is the arguments themselves that are important rather than counting heads. I know that's very difficult for most westerners to understand, but it's something very easy to understand in Asia. You take a different view, even although there is discussion on the article's talk page that explains a view that runs counter to your own. I'm not vehement about this which is why I've commented as I have done there. Please make your points on the article's discussion page rather than here - that way your rationale (and mine, if I choose to contribute) will be available for subsequent editors to assess. The magic of Wikipedia is that it has developed mechanisms so that editors of all persuasions (and none) should be able to work together collegially. Alice.S 06:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Look Robert, we're in substantial agreement here that you didn't mean to offend me (and I certainly didn't mean to offend you) so let's give it a rest, eh? Both you and I were wrong in being bold and changing the Infobox description without reaching a consensus. Now let's concentrate on the article's discussion page in proposing mechanisms for reducing to-ing and fro-ing in this infobox so we can reach a stable, good article... what to call me editAlice.S, I never care what people call me, so it's completely up to you. I usually try to call people by their entire username unless they ask me to do otherwise (not that I'm suggesting this for others, it just what I do out of fear of accidentally insulting someone). Cheers, Pdbailey (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
