User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 47
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
October 2010
Nomination of John Parris for deletion
Resolved
A discussion has begun about whether the article John Parris, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Parris until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
An update from adopt a user
ResolvedHi there SMcCandlish! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.
On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.
Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.
Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
ResolvedI don't think the tone and content of some of your comments were entirely appropriate. If you see the thread, you'll see things are not quite how you're putting it. When I saw your first comments, I thought, fair enough, good points. But your second set of comments left a bad impression. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific? Most of my comments were about specifics of the debate. One was critical of a particular party to the debate (I don't remember who or care; for me this is about the terminology and logic, not the editors) as being apparently unwilling to compromise and being insistent upon a particular personal definition of "forfeit" as being not only correct but somehow indicative that the word was the correct one to use in this case. I don't feel I need to retract that criticism, as the editor in question has been bordering on tendentious and edit-warring on this micro-issue, which has pointlessly now spiraled into a WikiProject alert and a redundant noticeboard filing as well as an odd, multi-party freeforall on a user talk page, attracting the attention of people like me who normally wouldn't care to get involved, and this all started about half a month ago, which is too long for this nitpick to still be an issue. I could alter the comment in some way, I suppose, but I don't have any clear idea what about it is objectionable. Being constructively critical about editor behavior isn't assumptive of bad faith nor an attack. Or are we talking about a different comment? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You may not have read my latest comment at the talk page so I'll post it here:
I don't think there was any need to go through the thread and make point-by-point responses, and I don't think it's as black and white as you make it out to be. Like I said, the word is widely used by snooker commentators who must presumably know something about sporting terminology. Even Clive Everton uses it in his reports so you must also be accusing him of misusing terminology. Based on that I think accusations of OR are a bit extreme. So too when you say I'm not willing to compromise when I already have (see above), and before anyone has put forward such a well(if forcefully)-argued rationale as yours. You seem to be rather aggressive about this, and about saying I was insisting on using the word (when that's not the case), when Armbrust did not make the argument about misuse of terminology but put forward a stubborn resistance just because a specific word didn't appear in the source; it's clear he didn't have the misuse of terminology in mind otherwise he would have articulated it. You say the usage isn't supported in reliable sources, but I've shown above that it is. And a link to SOAPBOX is wholly inappropriate here. I agree more stuff about these issues should be put down in guidelines; perhaps you could start this yourself? Christopher Connor (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope this addresses some of your comments. I don't know whether you want to continue the debate or not; for me, it's basically resolved. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I saw that and responded there. Also re-read the whole thread, and I admit (twice) that I think I simply misunderstood your position on the issue, and I'm sorry for being overly argumentative. Resolved for me, as well. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)