Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/Jiang-Pigsonthewing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jiang: British English (Secretlondon)

  • User:Jiang keeps moving Halls of residence to Residence hall, from the UK English to the US English term. I believe this is against policy and is offending British contributors. Secretlondon 12:29, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • No, I did not "move" the page there multiple times in the wikipedia technical sense. I am just preventing Pigsonthewing from hijacking the page history by doing a cut and paste move. Copying and pasting can never be accepted, as I have stated at User talk:Pigsonthewing#Moving pages more than once. Unfortunately, Pigsonthewing fails to either 1) get a sysop to move the page properly and 2) convince me why that page deserves to be under the less common name. --Jiang | Talk 12:37, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I am hijaacking nothing, as has already been explained. Jiang has deleted my comments on this matter, from at least one page. Andy Mabbett 19:35, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • The act of copying and pasting and disregarding entire page histories constitutes hijacking. I did not delete your comments. Want to tell me where? --Jiang | Talk 02:25, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing: common names (Jiang)

  • User:Pigsonthewing (contributions) keeps copying and pasting the content at Residence hall to Hall of residence without using the "move this page" function. When asked to sit and discuss at Talk:Residence hall, this user blatantly refuses to offering the only defense of "so what" against the naming conventions. More on this conflict can be found at Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles#Hall of residence. --Jiang | Talk
    • I have already explained why I cut & pasted. I have said more than "so what", and that was not my response to the invitation to talk. I am in no way in conflict with "common names". I am tired of Jiang's lies on this matter.Andy Mabbett 19:33, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I've already explained to you that copying and pasting can be accepted under no circumstances, yet you continued to ignore me and copy and paste. You have no excuse - ask another sysop to do it. --Jiang | Talk 02:24, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I am concerned that User:Pigsonthewing is making quite a habit of this. Note that I am not talking here about his opinions, but an unwillingness to discuss and an unwillingness to stop re-changing things to reflect his opinion while a discussion takes place. It is not acceptable to try and win any disagreement by consistently re-doing changes in the hope that the other people will tire of it and let you have your way, and IMO this is what's being done. This has NOTHING to do with who's right in this particular disagreement, (I'm inclined to think that Jiang's wrong and Pigsonthewing is right on this particular naming dispute), but rather to do with willingness to follow standard practise and allow consensus to be reached. Pig-headed stubbornness is not that method. --Morven 08:18, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I'll second that (re a silly insistence on the spelling of 'humorous' on dead tree, cf. Talk:dead tree. --Charles Matthews 11:59, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • I repeat: there is no unwillingness to discuss. To say that there is ais a lie. My comments on this issue have been deleted from at least on page byJiang. The "unwillingness to stop re-changing things to reflect his opinion while a discussion takes place" is Jiang's. Andy Mabbett 09:17, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
            • You have been told repeatedly that moving by copying and pasting is not considered acceptable practice. That is definitely the case. If you are not able to move the page via the normal 'Move this page' interface, the acceptable way to proceed is to ask an admin to make the change; it is not acceptable to copy and paste the content instead. You have also been told that repeating a controversial edit again and again rather than discussing it with others is not acceptable. Jiang made a change you disagreed with, yes, but he's allowed (Be Bold). You can revert that change if you disagree, once or twice, but after that, discussion is the way forward. And the fact is, on this issue you are LIKELY TO PREVAIL in that discussion. --Morven 20:17, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
              • You appear to be confusing me with someone else. What "controversial" edit? Your represntation of the "Hall of residnce" exchange is distorted, since Jinag wasn't "being bold" - he was restoring a bad change which I had already reverted. Surely by your logic, he should have discussed it first? I wonder why he didn't mention the correct method of moving such a page?Andy Mabbett 20:51, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
                • As seems to be normal practice for you, you avoid the main question to pick at a little detail. Yes, Jiang's decision to rename the page was controversial. Reverting it is ALSO controversial, since it is clearly against the wishes of a number of users. It does not matter who is right here, nor whose version is more controversial, nor anything else; the issue is that we do not decide issues here on Wikipedia by a contest of stubbornness. Jiang has, I believe, stated that if you renamed the page back USING THE APPROVED PROCEDURE he would not revert the change but would rather wait for a consensus in talk. (correct, Jiang?). I would advise YOU in turn to try and achieve agreement on the talk page rather than by warring on the article. And your insistence that you would only discuss on the talk page of your copied article and nowhere else is rather petty. --Morven 21:05, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
                  • You again appear to be confusing me with someone else; and this issue for some other conflict. Leastways, the views you ascribe to me are not mine.Andy Mabbett 21:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
                    • I don't see how any of that is not true. You even admitted that you would discuss it nowhere else but on the copied talk page. Perhaps you should quote the parts of his argument that you find false, rather than dismissing the entire post? --Jiang | Talk
    • I ask you again to cite where (provide a link to the page history) I deleted or altered your comments. That did not happen. Of course there is an unwillingness to discuss - you admitted to refsuing to discuss at Talk:Residence hall and instead would only post on the hijacked version at Talk:Hall of residence. --Jiang | Talk 09:23, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • In [1] you reply to one of my comments, though you have excised that comment. You did so more than once. Your comment here is again a lie. There was, and is, no "unwillingness to discuss" Nothing was "hijacked", other than by you. Andy Mabbett 10:56, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • No, that doesn't show that I deleted your comment. It shows that I restored the content of a page over a redirect you created when you tried to "move" the page using copy/paste methods. Please try again. --Jiang | Talk 11:05, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Jiang: Introduction headers (pigsonthewing)

User Jiang insists that "introducton" is not allowed as a header, but can cite no policy to support this. I have scrupulously attempted to conduct a discussion on my talk page (and in the history of edits), but he denies that I have refuted his baseless claims, and inssts on reverting pages, and making damaging edits (putting content under inappropriate and misleading headings, for instance) in an attempt to eradicate any heading using the word "introduction"; all while the duiiscussion is ongoing. I have specifically asked his to desist from reversions while we discuss, yet he refuses. I have also invited him to make different, better changes to replace "introduction". See, for example, Netscape Navigator; BBC Radio 4 (and many others). Andy Mabbett 01:10, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • He also says, rightly, that "you are not trying to communicate with me by purposely giving me ambigous answers"! Andy Mabbett 01:11, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • and has just reverted my move of Music_of_Scotland to Scottish folk music, even though discussion on that is ongoing on the talk page, I'm begining to think this is personal. Andy Mabbett 01:13, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I moved Music of Scotland back because consensus was not achieved to move it in the first place and "Music of..." is the standard title. --Jiang | Talk
      • So now every edit requires consenus FIRST? Andy Mabbett 01:26, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • No, an edit is not a move, but you shouldn't get irritated if you see whatever you do undone if it comes out as inappropriate. --Jiang
          • Not inappropriate. *** So now every move requires consenus FIRST? Andy Mabbett 13:09, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
            • No, but don't get upset if you are reverted for making an illogical move. Illogical moves are prevented if you discuss. --Jiang 13:18, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Not illogical. Andy Mabbett 13:29, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • You skills at argumentation are very admirable. I guess I'm expected to believe that it's not logical just because you say so. LOL --Jiang 13:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • NO different to you expecting me to belive your unsubstantiated assertions, Still no piolicy cited to support them. Andy Mabbett 14:06, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • See User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Introduction for the discussion and a sampling of pigsonthewing's discussion style. Let it speak for itself. --Jiang | Talk 01:18, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • These damaging reversions and changes are ocntinuing, see, for example, Orca. Still no policy cited in support. Andy Mabbett 11:19, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I personally don't see much value in "Introduction" as a header title. A good rule of writing (IMO) is "be specific". A header I think ought to describe what a section is about: History, Statistics, Geography, Synopsis, etc. My experience is that if a section feels like it should be labelled "Introduction" then either I haven't thought hard enough about the best name for the section, or the section is too vague and needs fleshing out or to be broken up into several sections. That's my thought. -mhr 06:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Consider an intorduction with, say, four sentences, each making a different point,. How would you sub-divide that? Andy Mabbett 12:31, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Four sentences can fit into a single introduction. Why subdivide it? If if needs subdivision, then parts of the intro needs to be snipped and placed in relevant sections. --Jiang
        • Why ask me? It was Michael Rawdon' susgegstion. Andy Mabbett 13:09, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • I am agreeing with Michael on this. --Jiang
            • Then perhaps you can say how you would split such a section, as he suggests? Andy Mabbett 13:29, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
              • Depending on situation...usually moving to existing sections, or if the info can be made into another section with a specific title - just what I have been trying to do. --Jiang 13:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Subdivision was just a suggestion, not a mandate, and I can see that not all such sections could reasonably be subdivided. If the introduction is short, then I'd advocate simply not putting a header on it. Heck, there's no reason an introduction need even be a single paragraph. For example, see Cyclops (comics), which has a two-para introduction - but no header marking them as such. Actually I think your two examples, Netscape Navigator and BBC Radio 4 work perfectly well as presently written; the former's Introduction section is now Development, which is more descriptive (and thus more useful as a header to a reader), and the latter's Introduction has been conflated with the unlabelled introductory paragraph, which I also think is appropriate. -mhr 16:25, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Still spreading; see Conservation (where the new heading is grossly inappropriate for the content beneath it) et al. Andy Mabbett 12:26, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Trying to discuss it at Talk:Conservation. --Jiang
      • This is a meta issue; no point discussing it on each page in turn. I have already asked you to stop making chanegs to "introduction" headinsgs while this is discussed, but you persist in doing so. Still no policy cited in suport. Andy Mabbett 13:09, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Say I acknowledge your position that introduction headers are fine. Even then, you have no reason to revert my insertions of more specific headers without explaining how my headers are "grossly inappropriate". I asked for an answer at Talk:Conservation for that specific case (yes, we have to talk specifics for this is not just about whether the intro header is allowable, but whether the alternative for that specific article is appropriate), but so far, you have refused to answer me. Perhaps you don't have an answer? Anthere, a principal contributor of that article said mine was fine. Now what is wrong with the headings I have inserted (aside from how ridiculous your header is)? --Jiang 13:18, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Not ridiculous; I have made no such refusal; "grossly inappropriate" IS a reason; Anthere is just one other user. STILL no policy cited to support your stance.Andy Mabbett 13:29, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • You have failed to explain how it is not ridiculous and how it is grossly inappropriate. The words "grossly inappropriate" cannot possibly reasons for themselves. That's just begging the question. You are refusing to elaborate on your claims, and then shutting your eyes to this fact. I already told you, even if policy does not support my view that no section be titled "introduction," the fact that I replace "introduction" with more specific and useful headings is not grounds for reversion unless you explain why those headings do not work - but you refuse to. --Jiang 13:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I have not changed one of you headings, where thay have been useful (as opposed to misleading or grossly inappropriate). Andy Mabbett 14:06, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Andy, I wanted to thank you for initially proposing a heading to the conservation page. That was certainly an improvement over no headings. This said, Jiang new headings were an improvment over your initial proposition, so there are worth keeping.

An introduction is something short at the beginning of a text or a book. Generally speaking, the length of the introduction is highly related to the length of the total text. It is quite frequent that a book introduction will be at least one page long, or perhaps even a dozen. In an article of say a dozen pages, an introduction will be rather perhaps a couple of paragraphs to one page. On an article of perhaps 2 pages (10 kb), it looks like good balance to have an introduction of something between one sentence, to one or two paragraphs. This is not a rule. This is just how an piece of text is "balanced". It make no sense that an introduction represent half of a text. If it is so, then either the introduction is too long, or the article is just missing content, or more likely, the introduction *IS* the text. This does not have to be a rule. That is just how a good and informative article is written, with balanced parts, and informative headings.

For example, if we kept your "introduction" header, the conservation article would be made of three parts

  • 1) a short introduction
  • 2) a second part representing 45% of the content and called introduction and
  • 3) a third part representing 45% of the content and called history

That would make little sense.

PomPom

  • An introduction is something short at the beginning of a text or a book.: No, that's just one definition. Andy Mabbett 11:38, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Really ? What are the other definitions then ? Please, elaborate. PomPom
  1. noun: the act of beginning something new
  2. noun: the first section of a communication
  3. noun: a basic or elementary instructional text
  4. noun: a new proposal (Example: "They resisted the introduction of impractical alternatives")
  5. noun: the act of putting one thing into another
  6. noun: formally making a person known to another or to the public
  7. noun: the act of starting something for the first time introducing something new (Example: "He regards the fork as a modern introduction")

All this is perfectly in line with all what I wrote above. And none of these definitions justify to put half of the content of an article under a heading call "introduction" to leave only another section called history. PomPom

Jiang

Jiang is trying to lump me in with Lir in the item below without the slightest explanation. Instead of answering a simple question, he's having an edit war on this page. --Wik 03:29, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well, Wik, maybe this because you frequently behave like Lir. Adam 09:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
OOOOOOO, sup now foo! Lirath Q. Pynnor
I have no idea what that means, and I'm not even sure to whom it's directed... -- Cyan 19:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think it means something like "Ooh, I'm being challenged, you fool." But that's just a guess...I'm not all too fluent in what appears to be ebonics.. PMC 03:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive/Jiang-Pigsonthewing&oldid=16361596"