User talk:NOKESS: Difference between revisions

Hi NOKESS! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to inform you I removed the new section you added to the project management article and explained on the talkpage, see Talk:Project management#New section about "Project control variables".

Half a year ago I rearranged the whole article (short of) into it's current state (see also [1]]) Of cause all kinds of minor changes have been made, but your edits is [about) the third mayor edit I removed. I don't like doing that, but I hope you understand my point of view.

If you don't you can always comment on the project management talkpage, and if others agree with you restore the edit. Good luck.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Gillian Tett requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NOKESS. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NOKESS. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has poured you tea.

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NOKESS. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NOKESS. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOKESS, as you're fairly new to Wikipedia, I wanted you to note how important WP:AGF is to the entire concept of Wikipedia. You must always assume that the other editor is doing what they believe is correct, and treat their actions accordingly (yes, there are some occasions this is not true). Any editor can nominate an article for speedy deletion or indeed or deletion discussion based on their reading. Only an administrator can actually delete them. Please interact with other editors in a congenial manner - attacks show that you may have some ownership issues, which is bad. (PS: when someone gives you tea, that's a peace offerring - take it) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the discussion at WP:WQA regarding your interactions with User:A More Perfect Onion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BWILKINS, as you are newer to Wikipedia than I am, let me make a few points. The origin of this fantastic controversy is simply that the other users were not assuming that I was acting in good faith, or, in your words "doing what they believe is correct, and treat their actions accordingly (yes, there are some occasions this is not true)." To the extent that your comment directed to me have some merit, they in fact apply a fortiori to your own comments and to those of the others. To assume that I am a new user of Wikipedia is just one example. My input has been based on verifiable facts, yours on un-evidenced assertions, for example that I am a new user. ~~ NOKESS

The word "influential" should not be reinserted at the above article as it constitutes what is referred to as a weasel word. I hope this helps you understand why it has been removed. Unitanode 17:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is a weasel word and has no place in this type of entry. Those who have criticized the entry for Dr Tett, at least two of whom initially wanted the entry deleted, exhibit double standards. Their rational for arguing against this word is, quite rightly, that at root it is subjective, a matter of opinion. However, at the same time, their criticism of me, much of it ad hominen, has been even more subjective. The rule seems to be that opinion and subjectivity is fine when it conforms to your own preconceptions, but it a weapon to be deployed against anyone who has legitimately pointed out an error. It is disappointing to learn that Wikipedia is engenders so much of this attitude. ~~ NOKESS

Hi NOKESS

With the speedy deletion of your article on Gillian Tett, it's easy to understand how you may have gotten off on the wrong foot here. But I though I'd make a few observations in the hope that you might better understand the Wikipedia ethos and enjoy participating here more.

• Wikipedia is "staffed" by volunteers who are drawn to articles by myriad routes, none of them particularly consistent. So comments like 'If anyone feels like deleting the phrase "Globally influential", they might like to have the courtesy and consistency to do the same on Tony Blair's entry' are not likely to spur anyone into action. The people who have shown an interest in editing the Tett article have no particular relation to those who edit the Tony Blair article (so far as I know). Small articles about uncontroversial niche subjects are often easier to keep POV-free, and pointing out that other articles (that may be harder to police due to their attracting POV pushers) is not a valid argument for unencyclopedic text in articles.
• Understanding that your early contributions were not received as warmly as that they ought to have been, life is easier here if you try to keep cool. This means being less tendentious, assuming good faith, and considering the views of editors with more experience here.
• "Victory" is the improvement of articles, not the incorporation of all your edits, and the exclusion of those of others. Editors do not own articles. My view is that since the article was recreated, there have been several editors (myself included) who have tried to actively improve the Tett article, and one who, using templates and removal of biased contents, spurred the rest of us to do a better job. This is the way things are supposed to work here.

Regards, Bongomatic 08:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.[reply]

p.s. It is hard to understand why you would (without comment) delete text that indicates the significance of Tett's role at FT. Bongomatic 08:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bongomatic

I understand perfectly well, and I agree with and support the principles of Wikipedia. I too am an unpaid volunteer, just like you. The point of the principles of Wikipedia is that they are universal. If the adjective "influential" is allowed for white males such as John Lennon, Andrew Carnegie, Isaac Newton and Tony Blair, it seems sexist and makes a nonsense of any claim to follow Wikipedia's principles for you to try to ban it in the case of a female journalist of considerable prominence. It seems to me that what is going on here is not fundamentally about the principles of Wikipedia at all, but much more about you and others not liking to have to admit that no less than my error in not making a fuller first entry for this journalist, you too have made some errors. NOKESS (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC) NOKESS[reply]

I make errors all the time, on-Wikipedia and off. I have nominated many articles for deletion (speedy or otherwise) that deserve to be in the encyclopedia (I do that less frequently than I once did). I have introduced factual errors into articles. I have violated the style guide. I have messed up citation templates. I myself have been needlessly tendentious.

However (as pointed out previously), bad journalism elsewhere (and I have now given some reasons that the citation of News Corp's being influential may not be such) doesn't justify it here. My edits (should you review them) are obviously those of someone who believes Tett to be important. However, peacock words like "influential"—which always make me think "saying it doesn't make it so" when I come across them—are less effective than factual evidence of influence (such as expanding the description of her role at FT).

Wikipedia has an instructive guideline (indeed, proposed policy) about making the encyclopedia worse to prove a point (which is what you're doing).

Bongomatic 08:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bongomatic. Your implied opinion that I am tendentious is itself tendentious. That's your view, it does not make me dislike you, I am happy to go on arguing with you. Similarly, your idea of what a valid argument is also seems to be tendentious. If, as you imply, Wikipedia is not consistent in its standards, including the use of "influential," please will you cut me a little slack and allow it for this entry, for, say, a year. Delete it in a year's time and I really won't mind, I promise. What I will put energy into is what I perceive as an unfair focus on that word in this article when nothing is done about it in the articles on white men. This looks like sexism of a fairly unpleasant kind - unintended I am sure, but real nonetheless. NOKESS (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC) NOKESS[reply]

I don't see how describing the holding company of a woman's employer as "influential" is step in the crusade for equality. Bongomatic 08:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo - ouch. Did you have to use the word "Crusade"? The Crusades were invasions based on discrimination and hatred of a group of people, for reasons of race and, yes, white male supremacy. I take it you did not really mean to use that word? But whether you intended it or not, it does illustrate exactly the double standards you seem to me to be applying. It's OK for you to call the movement for equality a crusade, it's not OK to use exactly the same adjective (i.e. "influential") for a female as for some white men, in comparable circumstances. NOKESS (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC) NOKESS[reply]

No, I did not use the word "Crusade", I used the word "crusade". Worth noting the difference. And my point is that the word "influential" isn't applied to Blair in the quote by analogy (it applies to News Corp, in an arguably relevant manner), nor does (with your current addition) apply to Tett (it applies to Pearson PLC—an an irrelevant manner—an organization whose description as "influential" cannot be seen as anti-sexist in any context I'm aware of (including this). Bongomatic 11:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo - you accused me, above, of making Wikipedia worse to prove a point. Not so. Before I created it, there was no entry for Dr. Tett. There now is. As you now agree, she merits an entry. Wikipedia is better. Of course, you can take such a micro view and look at only a very narrow slice and make some argument that one sentence might be slightly worse than it could be, but in the round, big picture, the entry is an improvement.

• Before I created it, there was no entry for Dr. Tett. There now is. Bravo. Do you want a medal? I shall award you with one. (I didn't get one for the article I started on Michael Theodoulou . . . perhaps you can help improve that one, which is woefully inadequate.)
• [O]ne sentence might be slightly worse than it could be, but in the round, big picture, the entry is an improvement. Maybe, but you keep on reverting incremental improvements beyond where your contributions started making the articles worse. Bongomatic 11:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, I note a curious double standard in your way of engaging with me. The broad basis of my bewilderment at the clique (it seems to me) of editors arguing against me is that when I point out your inconsistency with Wikipedia's principles, you respond with the claim that how they are applied in larger and more prominent articles in Wikipedia is irrelevant, yet when you wish to argue against me or one of my actions, you deploy the principles of Wikipedia as knockdown arguments.

If you find the language in other articles objectionable, go change them. As I pointed out on the Tett article's talk page and above here, the use of "influential" actually has some relevance in that article. Here, as you could see if you chose to, my contributions actually go to demonstrating as opposed to stating that Tett is in a position of influence. Bongomatic 11:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, it is not the case that my entry for Gillian Tett has made Wikipedia worse, but rather your own inconsistent application of the principles of Wikipedia.

I am happy to let this drop now, if you agree, as I am sure we both have better things to do with our time, and we are, I feel, fundamentally on the same side. NOKESS (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC) NOKESS[reply]

Let us not turn article improvement into a crusade - WP:SOAPBOX is thataway, and considering a recent discussion on a "women's issues" article on WP:ANI, you will find arguments that Wikipedia is advocating inequality will not be met well. The article needs expansion correctly. Start by citing the awards, or else they all have to go. Provide a properly-referenced history of where she "predicted" the fall, or else her complete claim of WP:N goes down the tube. In other words, worry more about the meat of the article, and less about WP:PUFFERY. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are to the extent that we agree that Tett is a notable journalist who merits coverage in this encyclopedia. We are not to the extent that you insist upon reinserting peacock terms describing the holding company of Tett's employer, irrelevant to Tett and specifically, in no way demonstrating Tett's own capabilities, notability, influence, or recognition, into an otherwise neutral article that in fact goes quite far, in its few sentences—penned primarily by you%mdash;in demonstrating those things. Bongomatic 11:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make my own point very well. Where exactly are you disagreeing with me? ---- NOKESS (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)NOKESS[reply]

Hi NOKESS

I don't know if you're aware of the three revert rule, but it is applicable to you:

• original insertion (not a reversion)
• first reversion
• second reversion
• third reversion

Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus, which rightly or wrongly, differs on this point from your opinion. I will not bother placing a this warning template ({{Uw-3rr}}) on your talk page, but please note that further reversions to this page may result in your being blocked.

Bongomatic 11:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete the article and block me if you want to. First, I have not made three reverts. Secondly, I am using the adjective "influential" in exactly the same way that it is used elsewhere in biographical entries in Wikipedia, the only difference being that those are for white men, not for a woman. Thirdly, the consensus is among people at least two of whom has stated that Gillian Tett is not a notable person and who have no knowledge, it seems from their posts, about her and her field, i.e. modern corporate finance and capital markets. As so many murdered Jews found to our cost in Europe in the 1940s, a consensus does not mean that something is right. It is not my opinion that the word "influential" is widely used in Wikipedia, it is a fact. It is the opinion of one of my critics that I am a new user, and another opinion that Gillian Tett is unheard of, both of which propositions happen to be untrue. It is thus refuted that the three revert rule applies in this case, and yet again, we see a small coterie of legacy Wikipedia people who apply the principles of Wikipedia in an inconsistent, unprincipled and unfair way, apparently because their own mistakes have been pointed out. ```` NOKESS (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)NOKESS[reply]

• I would encourage you to have a look at this article, as it particularly applies to your disgustingly inappropriate "murdered Jews" analogy above. Unitanode 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And could you recommend something for my critic to look at on the disgustingly inappropriate "Crusader" analogy? If you genuinely want to encourage me to do as you claim, rather than trying to smear me by a specious and unpleasant non-sequitur, find something on the Crusader analogy and recommend it to my critic, then I'll consider your suggestion. How come it's OK for you to use a pejorative term and claim it is lighthearted and it is not OK for someone to do exactly the same in response? Has it occurred to you that perhaps I was making a point about my critic's unthinking use of language? DDDDNOKESS (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)NOKESS[reply]

Please allow me to interject - you continue to use phrases like "your critic" ... you have never had a critic. Your actions contrary to Wikipedia were the only things every "critiqued", and rightly so. Indeed, you continue to have a tough time acting in consort with other editors, as so clearly shown above. Please, come back down and join us mere mortals in the world of WP:AGF. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For your creation of Gillian Tett (and, I hope, not continuing to revert the improvements to it made by other editors). Bongomatic 13:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]