Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

I've opened up a discussion mentioning you here:

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Edward_Colston

Hi Cassianto - at my last (and first) visit to FAC, you were kind enough to give my article Margaret Macpherson Grant a very thorough review; by the end of it, you graciously said that you hoped to see me back there soon. Well, I'm there again, with Battle of Dunbar (1650), which I rewrote with Gog the Mild. If you have the time and inclination, I'd really appreciate another review from you. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, great to see. I owe Gog the Mild a review or two, too, so I'll be along in the next few days. Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, thanks Cassianto, I'll look forward to seeing it. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Cassianto & @SchroCat:, as it was with the usage/over-usage of diacritics & will be with across the board de-capitalisation of office titles? So it will eventually be with infoboxes at bios. A majority of editors usually decide the outcome. I fear that Frank Sinatra is only the beginning, concerning infoboxes in all bios. Nobody ever accused Wikipedia of being open-minded. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoodDay. After the outright lies told by a couple of the IB warriors there and the PAs by several (including one admin) and the reactivated sleeper accounts and the obvious troll-socks and the bad faith shown by several—let alone the fact that the ArbCom restrictions have been ignored by several—I stopped watching it some time ago. When administrators and arbitrators are ignoring blatant breaches of the ArbCom restrictions that they have been made aware of, I wonder why I bother with it all. For all the ongoing finger pointing about ‘oh, it’s the anti-IBers that are being rude and naughty’, it’s clear in that thread who is the more aggressive and relentless side of the discussion. Sadly I think you are right: there is an unthinking and closed-minded approach that demands IBs without even considering the other side of the argument. – SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as mentioned above, I've been through MOS disputes before. Sadly, infoboxes in bios will eventually become mandatory & anybody who dares attempt to get a consensus to 'remove' them from any bio? will be dragged off to ANI or Arbcom. Heck, there's even a group of editors, who've gotten the project to go along with the view that Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia were never a part of the Soviet Union. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> I hope not. But take a look here at what this editor has been doing. I can't fault them for doing so as in the majority (from what I can tell), there has been a request for an IB on the talk pages. I think they are going through the backlog of 'pages that have an infobox request' and adding them even when they are of dubious quality. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not too, but I think it likely that it a rule to have IBs on all articles (or all biographies) will be pushed for over and over and over by the IB warriors until it is in place. Rather like the editor you’ve shown, there is a relentlessness to include them at all costs and regardless of benefit. But I’ve been accused by the IB warriors of systematically removing them from swathes of articles – that’s just one of the numerous lies that’s been spread. Unfortunately I see one of the prime disruptive pushers lining up other pages to continue the mess elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this method adopted all too often, before. An editor or group of editors go around make changes to several articles, to comply with their PoV. Then they come back latter to the disputed article & 'again' demand such a change be made, because it's already been made to other (by them) articles. In other words - 'the rest of the houses in the community have now been painted blue, so therefore all the houses must be painted blue'. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I unwatched Kubrick and Grant a long time ago, and I've done the same with Sinatra, just last week. I couldn't give a toss about them - not my work, I was simply standing up for the rights of writers who took the time to improve them in the first place and who chose not to cater for people cheating in pub quizzes. The likes of El_C, Bishonen, Johnuniq, the kindly fellow who made a PA on the Sinatra talk page (laughably described as an "admin" and whose name I can't be bothered to remember), the entire failure of an ArbCom committee, both past and present, who all ignore the problem, are as much to blame for the infobox dramas as the disrupters who force this crap onto arts biographies in the first place. And they wonder why Wikipedia is being left behind in favour of other sites. Cassianto^Talk 19:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustrations. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember which one of the troublemakers it was over at Sinatra, but they claimed that since the compromise "the wound has festered". Of course it has, to you, because you cannot accept compromise, that's why. These people are the very worst of Wikipedia; no good to anyone. They honestly think that by forcing this eyesore shit onto arts biographies, these "anti-infobxers" (a more wrong description you'd be hard pushed to find) are simply going to melt away, problem solved. Cassianto^Talk 22:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]