Tungsten Carbide, Barnstar for incivility Options

[Peter Damian]

Who is this? I award him a WR barnstar for continued and protracted righteous civility in the face of morons. He points out here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=269217842

that the standard way of introducing country articles makes them unreadable

Kyrgyzstan (pronounced /ˈkɝːɡɪstæn/; Kyrgyz: Кыргызстан [qɯrʀɯzˈstɑn]; Russian: Киргизия [kirˈɡizija] or Киргизстан [ˈkirɡistan] or Кыргызстан [ˈkˠɨrɡˠɨzstan], variously transliterated, also Kirgizia or Kirghizia), officially the Kyrgyz Republic, is a country in Central Asia. Landlocked and mountainous, it is bordered by Kazakhstan to the north, Uzbekistan to the west, Tajikistan to the southwest and China to the east. The name Kyrgyz, both for the country and the people, means "forty girls" or "forty tribes", a reference to the epic hero Manas who unified forty tribes against the Mongols, as symbolized by the 40-ray sun on the flag of Kyrgyzstan.

Headache inducing clusterfuck
Compare these introductions:A, B.

'A' seems to be the "the way it is done around here"™ but it makes the first sentence, if not the whole introduction, unreadable. All that pronunciation, transliteration and translation shit need to be shoveled off to the side somehow. Any geniuses here want to make a suggestion? (I've made mine).TungstenCarbide (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section"

Reply:

Every name form given in that intro is a current, commonly used title for the country (Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Kigizia). The two foreign languages used are the two main foreign languages in that country. I personally don't care about the IPA following every name, but I can see how people unfamiliar with the name might find it helpful. In short, the material in question is not "shit", as you so elegantly put it, but is important information which belongs at the beginning of the article, where the name is first provided. The discussions you mentioned show a case where the article lists names in 17 different languages for one thing. This is obviously not a similar situation. Otebig (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to disagree. Note: I'm not saying remove the material, I'm saying much of it doesn't belong in the first sentence, making the intro unreadable. TungstenCarbide (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for simple intros, I suggest you help edit the Simple English Wikipedia. Those articles all need lots of work. Otebig (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh pull your fucking head out of your ass, you smug arrogant moron. And then answer honestly, do you really think your edit made the article better? If so, then perhaps you shouldn't be editing Wikpedia at all. TungstenCarbide (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's another question; why does all that translation, transliteration and in some cases etyomology and needless pronunciation have to be in the first sentence? Why? What's so magical about that particular spot, other than the fact that it fucks the entire introduction? TungstenCarbide (talk)

Wow. Okay. I actually meant what I said, the Simple English Wikipedia has a lot of short articles that need to be expanded, and a lot of articles which need to be created. The Simple English Wikipedia is made to be less complex and detailed (such as no IPA or foreign languages in the intros), and therefore more readable, which is what you are arguing for, it seems like. I read the Simple English entries myself when the equivalent English Wikipedia article is too complex for me at first (like with quantum mechanics - but, like I said, it's short and needs to be expanded). The goals of Simple English Wikipedia seemed to fit your own, that's all. I was actually trying to be helpful. Otebig (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You aren't making any sense. Just because there happens to be a Simple English Wikipedia doesn't mean that it's ok to write shitty introductions on this Wikipedia. TungstenCarbide (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This leads to a pompous lecture from the windbag George William Herbert

Civility and polite editing
You've outright said that you think we're here to build an encyclopedia, not be polite to each other ( on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts ) including edit summaries calling other editors morons. This is completely wrong.

Wikipedia's not an encyclopedia built by a million independent people, banging into each other randomly and working in their own little fiefdoms. It's a cooperative project by a community of people, building things together.

We have plenty of room for people working mostly on their own. However - and this is critical - interactions that are necessary with others must be conducted in an adult and constructive manner. Our policies on civil editing and against making personal attacks are important. If people are abusive towards each other it reduces the quality and participation of the community as a whole, and thus the effort that people spend towards building the encyclopedia as a whole. It's a less pleasant place to be and is less effective if it's a rude and abusive place to work.

Because of that, we've started a new campaign over the last couple of months to more strongly enforce those policies. Those policies are important. We need people to be cooperative and civil to each other - if you disagree with people, fine, but do so in an adult and responsible manner.

This is not negotiable. This is the terms we've set for how the community, and participation in the project, work. We would prefer to have you agree to abide by those terms and remain a positive contributor to the project. But the policies are not negotiable. If you cannot abide by them - cannot edit in an adult and responsible and respectful manner towards other editors - then please leave the project on your own before we simply block you permanently.

Hopefully you can modify your behavior to work with the community in a positive manner in the future.

Reply

Thank you George for taking the time to explain this to me. It really says a lot about you. Your message is a recipe to achieve low standards of both writing and writers. Now stay the hell off my talk page, you marshmallow stuffed lard ass. TungstenCarbide (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked for persistent incivility.

[CharlotteWebb]

Otebig's comments don't make much sense.

If I were to intentionally read the lead section of Kyrgyzstan, there's a very good chance my goal is to figure out how the fuck it is pronounced, so the IPA data should be present. Also it is likely that some screen-readers (i.e. text-to-speech software for the visually impaired) have been or will be designed, in a way which depends on IPA data to correctly pronounce the funkiest of transliterated words, so it should probably accompany the first instance.

I prefer the style used for Danube, where a list of names is given in section one, ==Names==, rather than in section zero (the lead). Pronunciation guides for the alternative names "Danóib", "Дунав", etc. can be provided here, on each line of the bullet-list.

However the lead of this article has its own problems:

"Dunaj" redirects here. For the Polevillage, see Dunaj, Masovian Voivodeship.
"Donau" redirects here. For the German ship, see SS Donau.
This article is about the river. For other uses, see Danube (disambiguation).

Too many disambiguation notices, too much wasted space above the infobox.

The Danube (pronounced /ˈdænjuːb/ in English) is the longest river in the European Union and Europe's second longest river after the Volga.

Trivia.

The river originates in the Black Forest in Germany as the much smaller Brigach and Breg rivers which join at the eponymously named German town Donaueschingen, after which it is known as the Danube and flows eastwards for a distance of some 2850 km (1771 miles), passing through four Central and Eastern European capitals, before emptying into the Black Sea via the Danube Delta in Romania and Ukraine.

Ambiguity, run-on sentence.

Known to history as one of the long-standing frontiers of the Roman Empire, the river flows through — or forms a part of the borders of — ten countries: Germany (7.5%), Austria (10.3%), Slovakia (5.8%), Hungary (11.7%), Croatia (4.5%), Serbia (10.3%), Romania (28.9%), Bulgaria (5.2%), Moldova (1.7%), and Ukraine (3.8%).

Improper spacing, percentages of unclear meaning which total only 89.7.

Other than that it's still better than the Kyrgyzstan intro.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Sat 6th June 2009, 8:33am

[TungstenCarbide]

Otebig's comments don't make much sense.

If I were to intentionally read the lead section of Kyrgyzstan, there's a very good chance my goal is to figure out how the fuck it is pronounced, so the IPA data should be present. Also it is likely that some screen-readers (i.e. text-to-speech software for the visually impaired) have been or will be designed, in a way which depends on IPA data to correctly pronounce the funkiest of transliterated words, so it should probably accompany the first instance.

I agree and made some suggestions to that end. I pointed out wiktionary with its collapsible fields. Using something like a scripted mouseover could show this information easily without ruining the introduvtion. Even my simple re-arrangement (as rough as it was) preserves what you want while improving the readability. As far as text-to-speech software, a site as huge as Wikipedia could probably pioneer some metadata type conventions along these lines, if they don't already exist.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Sat 6th June 2009, 3:22pm

[CharlotteWebb]

As far as text-to-speech software, a site as huge as Wikipedia could probably pioneer some metadata type conventions along these lines, if they don't already exist.

I agree, but we'd probably do even better to design our own screen-reader from scratch and include it as an accessory to MediaWiki. Call it MediaSpeaky or something, hell.

I suppose User:Graham87 will be the ultimate guinea-pig for anything related to screen-readers. Though he identifies as a blind man he somehow has managed to make 50k edits.

[Emperor]

I agree that the first sentence of an encyclopedia article should be intelligible. No excuses. I see a huge opportunity for another wiki to come along that's easier to read and easier to edit. I hope that it's Encyc.

[zvook]

Who is this? I award him a WR barnstar for continued and protracted righteous civility in the face of morons.

He started a WR thread on all this, PD. Here it is.

[TungstenCarbide]

Who is this? I award him a WR barnstar for continued and protracted righteous civility in the face of morons.

Thanks.

This whole episode has really opened my eyes. Obviously anonymous editors can get away with anything with little risk- in my case rabble rousing, in other cases pov pushing or incompetence, and if a person was evil they could go around introduce subtle errors that stay for years.

But there is a second, far more serious failure in anonymous editing that is purely a Wikipedia creation; Ideally, an anonymous editor with a single account could build a reputation of quality and integrity (or the opposite) over several years, then much of the obvious faults with anonymous editing would be addressed. But this isn't the case. In fact it seems to be the opposite. Take Giano, by all accounts a fabulous editor with a good heart trying to make the project better. But instead of recognition, there's a nasty backlash from people who can't compete in the arena of quality and merit. So they use 'civility' to run him down, a tactic which GWH exemplifies.

sorry for the digression

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Sat 6th June 2009, 5:14pm

[Somey]

sorry for the digression

It's hardly a "digression" - this thread has your name on it!

Still, I have to say this is not the issue I myself would have picked to get the boot over, if I were in a similar situation. Much too "wonky," really. Then again, there's no telling what sort of thing(s) people are going to turn into pet peeves... Maybe there's something in the idea that a site like Wikipedia is anathema to things like coherence, concision, consistency, clarity, and several other things that begin with "C." After a while, I suspect that some people get very frustrated about that. The kinds of people who manage to avoid burnout and remain active on WP over the long term, say 3-4 years or more, are probably also the kinds of people who don't care so much about those things.

[Peter Damian]

Ah yes I didn't spot that thread first time round. There is a long discussion of the excellent "you marshmallow stuffed lard ass" which has great purity of expression.

There is also the style of creating socks with similar names as follows

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Susp...TungstenCarbide

which also has great purity, although I have a reasonable claim to be an early pioneer of this method*.

I raise my glass to you, sir.


* E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Renamed_user_4, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Renamed_user_5

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 6th June 2009, 5:40pm

[zvook]

There is also the style of creating socks with similar names as follows

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Susp...TungstenCarbide

which also has great purity, although I have a reasonable claim to be an early pioneer of this method*.

I raise my glass to you, sir.


* E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Renamed_user_4, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Renamed_user_5

It's not quite as pure as ceasing to support with your contributions a site that conducts its business in this way. But addiction is a remarkable thing, and I've never been of the sort who berate junkies for a lack of character.

[dtobias]

You know, it's not necessary to be rude, obnoxious, and make personal attacks in order to make valid points about things you disagree with.

[TungstenCarbide]

But addiction is a remarkable thing, I've never been of the sort who berate junkies for a lack of character.

seems to be exactly what you're trying to do . How about we take a look at your own accounts ...

It's not quite as pure as ceasing to support with your contributions a site that conducts its business in this way.

Speaking for myself here, I now find Wikipedia (and the Review) thoroughly entertaining, much more fun than worldofwarcraft.com which costs $15/ month.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Sat 6th June 2009, 7:50pm

[A Horse With No Name]

You know, it's not necessary to be rude, obnoxious, and make personal attacks in order to make valid points about things you disagree with.

You obviously never studied at the Tanthalas39 School of Manners!

[CharlotteWebb]

You know, it's not necessary to be rude, obnoxious, and make personal attacks in order to make valid points about things you disagree with.

However, there are times when it is sufficient.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

There is also the style of creating socks with similar names as follows

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Susp...TungstenCarbide

I'll bet the admins who cracked that particular case were pretty excited about it.

[EricBarbour]

Thank you George for taking the time to explain this to me. It really says a lot about you. Your message is a recipe to achieve low standards of both writing and writers. Now stay the hell off my talk page, you marshmallow stuffed lard ass. TungstenCarbide (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

An accurate assessment.

The ultimate point of all this is: there is no official guide for the structure of Wikipedia articles.

What they have instead is a mishmash of assorted WP: rules (some of which are contradictory,
like WP:BE BOLD vs. "civility" vs. WP:CANVASSING vs. WP:CONSENSUS etc etc......),
a vague and oft-argued-over set of "community guidelines" that are not officially written
anywhere (that I can find), and a bunch of crisis-driven adminholes like GWH, trolling for
their own entertainment.

Wanna create a new article? Good luck. The usual suggestion is to copy an existing article.
And woe betide thee if some twit doesn't like thine article.

When will the mods of WR create a subforum for GWH and his many, many atrocities?
Hasn't he caused enough dramah yet?

[Grep]

I see that Baseball Bugs shows considerable boldness in baiting TC once the block is in place, provoking the desired outburst which allows Toddst1 to hammer in the final nail. Savour the lip-smacking, greasy, odiousness of the "Congratulations" header. Now there's an admin who spends time trying to improve an encyclopaedia.

[sbrown]

I agree that the first sentence of an encyclopedia article should be intelligible. No excuses. I see a huge opportunity for another wiki to come along that's easier to read and easier to edit. I hope that it's Encyc.

Im sure anyone whos looked at Encyc admires all the short articles you have.

[Emperor]

I agree that the first sentence of an encyclopedia article should be intelligible. No excuses. I see a huge opportunity for another wiki to come along that's easier to read and easier to edit. I hope that it's Encyc.

Im sure anyone whos looked at Encyc admires all the short articles you have.

Is that a troll?

Like it or not, I'm having a good time with Encyc, people are working on it and reading it, and we're having far more impact than we'd have plugging away on Wikipedia exclusively.

[sbrown]

Im sure anyone whos looked at Encyc admires all the short articles you have.

Is that a troll?

Like it or not, I'm having a good time with Encyc, people are working on it and reading it, and we're having far more impact than we'd have plugging away on Wikipedia exclusively.

It means what it says. Why cant people accept compliments gracefully? Here for example is the Encyc article on books:

http://encyc.org/wiki/Book

Books are a large collections of text or other media put forth in a logical way. Overzelous promotors of computers have been predicting the demise of paper books for years.

Isnt that worth having?