User talk:Matilda/Archive 3

Your RfA...

Hello Matilda,

Your RfA isn't going as well as I planned it would go... so I think it would be good to withdraw. But it is entirely your choice if you want the RfA to continue or not. I'm not forcing you to do anything. I hope that if you do withdraw that you proceed to contribute to our wonderful project. :-) Have a nice day (or a nice night for me), – RyanCross< (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't withdraw from the RfA but will withdraw from the project at the end of the RfA if the trend continues since it is becoming obvious that my contributions here are not valued.

Gwib's comment about "conflict of interest" is bizarre - does he even know what the term means? What other project or organisation do I have a relationship with which gives rise to conflicts here? How does my responding to comments made in the RfA constitute a "conflict of interest"? Doesn't match any definition I know of! eg [1] It is about as bizarre as dry or disinterested as arguments when compared with our policy of WP:NPOV.--Matilda (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Matilda. I honestly hope you don't retire after the RfA. Yes I opposed you for being "dry". It took me a long time (believe me, days) to get that reason attached to my oppose. As you can see here, I could not put my thoughts into words, and so decided at first not to at all. People on IRC prompted me to give a reason and thats the best I could do at such short notice. I repeatedly said that I thought it to be too harsh, and it is not entirely what I mean. I still can't explain my oppose very well but other opposes are summarising it better than I could. Even your reply here is a little snappy, "does he even know what the term means?" As I say, I would not like you to retire, you do more good than harm definately. Its just that I don't see you as an administrator here, YET. Regards Kennedy ^(talk) 09:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know what it means.

Yes, it's justified.

No, you're not helping yourself by arguing here (op cit Kennedy)

Yes, I stick to what I said. You impulsively argue and cannot take into consideration any other views from anyone else

Thanks for your patronising comments above. They help my conscience. Feel free to reply to this in the only way you seemingly know how. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You claim "I know what it means" without failing to elaborate on how Matilda fits that definition. That's like telling a small child, "You're wrong, and I'm not going to aay why or how, just that you're wrong." That's extremely effective as to tell that person how to improve. Justify why she fits this criterion, because you're clearly causing Matilda some stress by claiming ths has a COI. alexandra (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to Cassandra and Gwib - I suspect that Gwib does not know what it means. We don't have the guideline here, but there is one at en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Gwib would be unable to point to any outside interest I might have which might conflict. I do not edit Wikipedia to promote my own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including my employer. I challenge Gwib to find any such conflict. As per Wikipedia:Rules here: Most of the time, if a rule has not been made here, or if a something that happens is not covered by the rules that are here, we will look at the rules on the main English Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, and use common sense. As an admin Gwib should be able to do this ( per admins are expected to know the rules and guidelines ) and justify his comments at my RfA and above. He can't. I do not think that Gwib, or other SEWP participants, can find a policy or guideline I have breached. In particular noting that one person's argument is another person's breach of not being kind - at least one other editor has reviewed my action in the specific instance raised by Samekh and found It was heated, but hey, it's a controversial subject; all I'm seeing is both users trying to improve the article. In this argument, my view was that Gwib deliberately failed to quote properly from references in a breach of WP:NPOV. Calling people out on issues of breach of policy is not being unkind - see en:Wikipedia:Civility: This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors: To ... treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive and here at Wikipedia:Be kind : sometimes different users may have different ideas on how to make Wikipedia better, so arguments can happen. --Matilda (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to Kennedy - your reason's for finding me dry are probably because I do not share your sense of humour. I do not find it funny that you upset a user who you had been adopting - it is clearly a breach of Be kind. If you are referring to something else, perhaps you need to develop some words to explain.

You asked at the RfA how do you know I will make a good admin if you don't look at my edits. The suggestion and the quality of the oppose !votes leaves me kind of worried. An admin is expected to be familiar with the rules - that to me would be an appropriate basis for review as to whether or not you can trust someone with the tools. You can review my edits to see whether I have demonstrated that familiarity. One way I have demonstrated it is referred to in the nom by Ryan Cross - I have nominated articles for deletion in accordance with the Deletion policy. I have also put some effort into explaining that policy to otehrs - eg at User talk:RyanCross#Undelete or even the discussion which I participated actively in at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposed rules.

Criteria for adminship includes community trust.

• The criteria to assess trust does not usually include being wet (opposite of dry) or warm opposite of cold.
• Experience is a judgment issue but per Users have to be active editors in this project for some time before they request adminship. There is no set time, but three months is preferred. I would suggest that Oysterguitarist needs to clarify You really lack experience - since it doesn't match the guideline; I note he has been on an extended wikibreak from September through to earlier this month.
• The comment that I don't seem to love SEWP, is actually I think a comment that I am quite ready to criticise editors. That criticism is always in reference to editors not meeting policies or guidelines. I don't hold it against them but I don't stand back and allow breaches of WP:V - see for example issues with correct interpretation of references here, breaches of WP:NPOV - see Talk:Catherine Howard; breaches of no original research see Talk:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, copyright violations - see Talk:Hub River, signature breaches - see for example resolution at User_talk:ChristianMan16#Your new sig :-), edit summary issues see follow up on Cassandra's comments about edit summaries which I chimed into, etc. The community appears quite comfortable with these breaches of rules and guidelines. For example, most of the active editors seem to put little effort into references from reliable sources, edit summaries, or anything else which produces an encyclopaedia and underpins wikipedia. I am not comfortable with the standards that many of the community seem to be comfortable with. That doesn't mean I am not passionate about wikipedia or providing a wikipedia in simple English.
• My focus on the discussion (deemed argumentative by some) about readability is to do with differentiating this project from enwp by language - as I have said elsewhere if any standard of readability applies, then we have not written in Simple English and this project is not different to enwp. Except of course it is home to a small community who don't like criticism - even if that criticism relates to the rules and guidelines that community has - they don't actually mean to follow those rules and guidelines.

The reason I will leave the project is because, despite editing in good faith, I do not have the community trust. That that lack of trust is inarticulately expressed is not my problem - it is expressed in oppose !votes at RfA. The oppose votes do not deal with adminship criteria other than the general issue of trust. I don't believe I lack experience on this project - therefore I don't believe the views of editors towards me will change because I have been here for longer. They do not like my contributions. There is a straightforward answer to the issue of having contributions to a project which are not valued: from where I sit it is to take my contributions elsewhere. That is what I will do. I am not going to hang around. It is a promise not a threat. --Matilda (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent response. Just when everyone says you are snappy and dry and cold and you come out with a response like that. Does that not just prove what everyone has said? I do not wish to extend my reason for opposing any more. I have decided on my choice, I have tried to explain, twice, and you still complain. For the meaning of "dry" find a dictionary. There is more than one meaning for it and you damn well know it. I am not expanding any more. I suggest you stop badgering everyone because you don't like what you are hearing (/reading). No-one said they don't like your contributions. Personally, I think your edits to articles are fine, great, useful. But it is your responses to people who do not agree with you that is getting up peoples noses. You do not like people who disagree with you. I would not trust you to make a fair, unbiased action when there is a tough decision to make. For your "promise not a threat" - Who cares? Go for it. Cry me a river. You have proven the point that many of the opposing-editors have made. You cannot handle adversity. Kennedy ^(talk) 16:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As you so rightly say "Criteria for adminship includes community trust." You keep responding to these opposes with large arguments opposing what the user has written, backed up by a load of links. Sometimes it isn't just about ticking boxes on the criteria sheet(screen), but about how other editors feel about you. These responses aren't needed, and the slight urgency and edginess your comments contain will not inspire further trust. I think you are a good editor, and you are trusted by most members of the community, just not everyone yet trusts you to the point where you could become an admin. Saying you will leave the project if this nom does not pass will also not help, as makes you sound like you have no great dedication fro the project, and could move on very quickly. Personally, it reminds me a little on SF/SH and how he retired every time he was told he was wrong.

Instead, use the opposes as comments to help you improve editing here. Instead of arguing over the dryness, say that you're sorry that they feel that way about you, and then try to be nicer to them in future. If this RfA doesn't succeed, you may become an admin in the future. Trust and editing here doesn't depend on being an admin - don't make it your ultimate goal. - tholly ^--Talk-- 11:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

different talk pages - can one follow?

An ongoing argument spread out onto three different talk pages, each with different editors defending or attack you or me. I'm surprised you still think that you can successfully come to brief and swift conclusions for anything at all... --Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I can follow arguments / discussions over multiple talk pages. I have had plenty of practice at enwp for example. On a smaller wiki like this it is very easy for me.

• Brief and swift conclusions are not necessarily the best ones. I can come to brief and swift conclusions where appropriate - eg QD tags - they may not always be 100% right/ agreed with by everyone (see below) . Other conclusions are best in my view if they are reached by discussion and consensus is achieved.
• The guideline Wikipedia:Consensus states Consensus is built through talking, editing, or both. Consensus can only work among editors who respect each other. This means thinking that others are working to make the encyclopedia better (assuming good faith). Building a consensus also means that everyone must try to be neutral to try and reach a compromise that everyone can agree on. Lots of the editors here seem to be more comfortable with the process of building consensus through editing. I don't have a difficulty with that. Some editors seem to have a difficulty with building consensus by discussion. They have made that difficulty / their displeasure clear through their comments about me as an editor in my RfA.
• I do not intend to change the way I go about reaching consensus. If the majority of the community indicate they do not like my editing style,I will leave. I hear (read) them: they think I badger them or others; they don't want lengthy discussions.
• Leaving is not sulking. It is acknowledging that the community does not like what I have to offer in trying to discuss issues or in challenging facts as to whether they are true or lack bias. It is OK - keep the POV article or inaccurate articles - don't whatever you do make them more accurate or more neutral! Don't discuss what Simple English is or how you might verify that an article is in simple easy to read English! Fine by me. Apparently fine by you too. Everybody will be happy.--Matilda (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

But you don't understand - an unsuccessful RfA doesn't mean anyone wants you to leave. The admin part means very little. Your contributions here, especially with DYK, are good. Many people have failed an RfA, and then come back to edit, or be an admin later (for example Eptalon did not pass his first RfA here). If your RfA does not pass, it still looks like it will be more even than many others that don't pass. Please reconsider your decision :) Thanks - tholly ^--Talk-- 08:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's true. To fail in the first Rfa does not give you neccessory right to leave the project. Some people can say you have a huge greedness of having admin tools. I saw so many replies made by you. It seems you don't know what is to be defeated at all, yes at all. I can say your politician. I've not seen a woman like (I didn't mean to insult you), but I say what I saw above! Your clever, intelligent, and also you know how to answer damn questions. There's one thing I can say to you my dear sister: You don't need to leave the project just because for a certain people, cause that habit here is implanted. You have to tolerate and later I hope it's going to change if you make more effort to make it changed. I hope it will! Cheers and keep contributing sister.--Mitaa ya Cut RekOrds (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly - All Wikipedia editors have the right to leave!
  • I intend to remain active elsewhere on the wikipedia project
• I resent the implication I have a "greediness" for the admin tools. I was not a self-nom.
• re an unsuccessful RfA doesn't mean anyone wants you to leave - almost all oppose !votes are I-DON'T-LIKE-YOUR-EDITS - they do not address the criteria for adminship: WP:CfA#Other requirements: Familiarity with rules and with editing
  • I am familiar with the rules - and that can be seen by my edits
  • I am familiar with editing and my edits are high quality - referenced and accompanied by an edit summary
  • my edits (I thought have been about making this wikipedia better - even those in user talk space for instance are either discussing articles, discussing guidelines or more often than not, user warnings using the templated system. Use of warnings works to prevent vandalism much better than blocking in my experience.
• The response to I-DON'T-LIKE-YOUR-EDITS is to acknowledge that and leave. Please don't come to my talk page when you have made an !oppose vote with no valid reason accompanying that !vote which addresses WP:CfA and say please don't leave - it is hypocritical --Matilda (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Declined QD

I have declined your QD for November 26 Mumbai attacks. The article shows notability, and not having references is not a reason to delete an article. Oysterguitarist 23:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your decision does not appear to be in line with the stated policy at What Wikipedia is not : A news report. Wikipedia should not have news on new stories. However, creating encyclopedia pages on things in the news is good. See 2008 for some examples. A page on a current event that will be important in the future is good as long as it is written as an encyclopedia article. Even if you are making an article about a current event, you should use the past tense. This is so that people can understand the article in the future. The article on say the Deccan Mujahideen‎ is more appropriate - while the event is so current in my view. That doesn't mean an article won't be created in the future but the dust should be allowed to settle to ensure encyclopaedic content - not some sort of pseudo blog even if now referenced with a news article - The news will change rapidly. The renaming by Tholly is not in accordance with Commonwealth English which prevails in India - see WP:MoS#National varieties of English.--Matilda (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And I have moved it. Simple.

WP:NOT is not one of the listed QD criteria, and as such, I believe Oyster's decline was correct. If an RFD is necessary, it goes to that. alexandra (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In my view notability (which is a QD criterion) is in part established by WP:NOT - ie news reports are not notable - hence my nomination. --Matilda (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The Not QD crtiera trumps the notability aspect in my opinion. Also, notability is specified in the QD criteria as only pertaning to companies, people, groups, clubs, and web content – none of which the Mumbai attacks are. alexandra (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OK - thank you for elaborating --Matilda (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Most are from Venus, it seems

"young men communicate differently to women"

It's funny you should say that. I didn't actually have any problems at all communicating with Wiki-women until you came along. Maybe you're from a different metaphorical planet than the others? I'm guessing Neptune. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Enough Gwib. That wasn't necessary. Synergy 20:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've kept quiet long enough. Sick of avoiding conflict while she repeatedly accuses me of lack of judgment and even whether or not I understand what I'm saying, just because she's desperate to get her points across. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Feeding an argument is the same as starting one in my opinion. No matter who started it, or who has been saying "what"... it needs to end. If you have to, just ignore it. And the same goes for you Matilda. If you have to, edit different areas and don't comment unless you have to. Keep it to a minimum unless its constructive and civil. Snide comments are unhelpful and drag an argument on. Synergy 21:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)