Borderlands1920

Borderlands1920, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Borderlands1920! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Matt Urban may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Matty L.</ref><ref>GO# 10, 18 September 1980, Lieutenant Colonel (then Captain) "Matt Urban" (complete name or middle initial is required on award citation- needs reference? Similar situation

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion with WilliamJE regarding Revisions to Matt Urban article.

WilliamJE could you be more specific on your removing of comments referring to Matt Urban not being on the Arlington map. A reference is given to the map as ANC_Map.pdf.

More critically please tell me specifically in detail why in "your opinion" undue weight is given to the  point of "LTC Matt Urban" not being on the Arlinton map of historical figure. I am very concerned as to your reasoning in this matter.

What are your qualification for determining whether the weight is undue or not? In order to do this it seems that one should have some degree of knowledge regarding the topic under discussion In this case LTC Matt Urban and Arlington National CemeteryArlington National Cemetery.

Thank you

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Borderlands1920. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ariconte (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Civility

One of Wikipedia's fundamental tenets is that editors must be civil towards one another. Your recent comments regarding WilliamJE have approached the level personal attacks, and I must ask you to rein in your repeated slurs on his character and editing ability. Discuss the content of the page and the policies under which it should or should not be present by all means, but if I see you making comments like, "Perhaps it is time for WilliamJE to retire, ... Sadly, that may be hoping for too much," "WilliamJE has no apparent knowledge ... this does not appear to stop him from making childish revisions without apparently fully understanding the topic at hand," and, "I would be delighted if WilliamJE would engage in some sort of dialogue. However ... that strikes me a naive at best," then you can expect a formal warning for personal attacks, followed by a block if they continue. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Yushui

Thank you for your comment on Civility.

Doesn't Civility require that when a revision based on use of [[WP.UNDUE]} occurs there ought to be a more detailed explanation.

Doesn't using UNDUE without a clear explanation illustrates a serious problem with regard to understanding the issue in question? If this is than compounded with a failure of the "UNDUE"er not to open a talk page to discuss the topic at hand it now becomes difficult for an editor to move toward a resolution. Clearly using continual revisions would be childish at best.

The broader issue as I see it is that an editor can utilize UNDUE without serious explanation and a willingness to knowledgeably discuss the reasoning for the UNDUE. From the some of the thoughtful comments that were made it is my perception that this "constitutes acceptable but not necessarily desirable behavior" within Wikipedia. Your thoughts?

Could you discuss what(a) constitute "acceptable behavior" when using WP:UNDUE (b) does utilization of UNDUE ever fall into the category of WP:CIVILITY and (c)define the parameters of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" use of WP:UNDUE.

Doesn't he intellectual integrity of Wikipedia ultimately lies in "discussion" and "proper use of UNDUE based on knowledge" and "civility in exchanges" (certainly there are other more fundamental issues but this seems to characterize the topic at hand.)

Thanking you in advance for your considerations on the proper use of WP:UNDUE within the context of Civility and I look forward to your response.

Borderlands1920 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A detailed explanation is not generally required when linking to a policy or guideline - the details are available at the link. Following the link will provide you with the policy that the other editor is putting into practice. That is your explanation. You may not agree that the policy is applicable in a specific case, in which case you are expected to cordially discuss the matter with the other user, but they aren't under any particular obligation to explain what WP:UNDUE means - you're expected to be able to follow the link and work it out for yourself. If you don't understand what it means, you're welcome to ask for assistance, or to ask the other editor to explain their reasoning. Generally, they will, although if you open the discussion by impugning their competence and arguing that they aren't qualified to make editorial decisions then one can hardly be surprised if the response is somewhat frosty.

I personally am not particularly interested in the substance of your dispute, so I'm not going to comment on whether I think the material removed should have been redacted under that policy or not. However, you are unlikely to get many helpful answers from other editors so long as you persist in questioning their motives, insulting them, and making high-handed and officious demands. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yunshui,

There was not and certainly is not any request on my part to engage you in soliciting directly or indirectly an opinion on the whether the material in question should or should not be redacted. That is issue in my opinion which is closed. I understand the parameters in which {{WP:UNDUE]] can be used.

My question is specifically related to the issue of CIVILITY and its role in the use of UNDUE. Particularly as I understand the sequence in Wikipedia is edit, undo, discuss. I certainly would hope that this is viewed as a reasonable request and not perceived as "high handed officious demand" language which would seem to transcend Civility. This is merely a polite request to solicit clarification over what is perceived to be an important issue. Thank you Borderlands1920 (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no specific relationship between WP:CIVIL and WP:UNDUE, beyond the fact that both are Wikipedia policies. What I think you're actually asking is, "Was it a breach of WP:CIVIL for WilliamJE to revert my edit with no further explanation than 'WP:UNDUE'?", to which the answer is: no, it wasn't. In fact, the question itself is a strawman, since William did in fact supply an additional explanation, to whit: "Whether somebody should be on some list or not is an opinion. If it had some reference it might have a place in the article. Plus putting this all in the article's introduction gives it too much weight".

The two of you have gone through the be bold, revert ("edit, undo", as you described it above) for Bold, revert, discuss and are now at the discussion stage. The purpose of my original message to you at the top of this thread was to encourage you to approach this discussion in a non-antagonistic way, in order to reduce disruption and ensure a speedy resolution. That ship now appears to have sailed, and I would recommend that the two of you consider a dispute resolution process before the debate descends into acrimony. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)