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 175

←

Archive 179

Archive 180

Archive 181

Archive 182

Archive 183

→

Archive 185

At this moment, MP says "Ongoing: ... – Gaza conflict –". That is too short, into being POV by omitting the word "Israel". Actually I am astounded that someone made the link label this way, intentionally. -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Well of course it was intentional. It would have taken quite a few monkeys randomly hitting keyboards to produce those 12 characters and one space in that exact order. Jeesh, did you expect that these words wrote themselves? --Jayron32 23:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 is an admin. -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your skills of observation are unparalleled. How do you do it? --Jayron32 23:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's very common for the mainstream name of a conflict to mention only the location, rather than the protagonists. Vietnam War came to mind immediately. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You say by WP main page, Vietnam War is ongoing? -DePiep (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No. But Wikipedia uses common names, all over the place. The entries in the "Ongoing" list are often shortcuts for real article names. I think you may be seeing sloppiness in the choice of a shortcut, rather than POV. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

HiLo refers to Hanlon's razor, for the record. A useful link in this current discussion. A more useful one is WP:AGF. But I'm not sure the OP is really bothered in considering the good faith in others here. --Jayron32 23:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) re HiLo48. 'mainstream name' you say? How is that WP:COMMONAME? (you are spinning). Common names is for titles. Not for wikilink labels. common names does not allow to omit half of the parties (well, maybe you can in Vietnam: N/S). My point again: "Israel" should be in that link. Bad WP presentation. -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I get the logic here. Instead of referring to the "Iraq War", should we say "United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Poland and Iraq War"? Formerip (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem DePiep, is not whether or not Israel should or should not be in the title. At this point, you have done your own cause a disservice. Let's just say, for the sake of argument (I have no idea if this is true or not, but I will accept it as true for the purpose of moving forward with the discussion) that you main purpose is to see that the word Israel gets added to the title. The second you accuse people, whom you have never met, and whose internal thought processes you have no access to, of deliberate bad faith, as you did in your initial post in this thread you have hurt your own cause. Once you tell people "you're bad people", they no longer want to help you solve your problem. Now, let's rewind time for a minute. Let's pretend you had written "I think the link to the Gaza Conflict should also include the name of the other country involved, being Israel" or something like that, and then didn't say anything else. Well, what would have happened is we would have had a civil discussion of the matter, you would have presented rational, well thought out reasons why we should do that, people would have understood and likely agreed with you, and we'd have likely already changed it. Instead, when you say something that amounts to "You have to change it or your all bigots!", then what happens is no one does what you want, because, frankly, you have no proof that anyone intentionally kept Israel out (that is, that people considered the notion of keeping the word Israel in the link, and then for bigoted reasons, worked to remove it or prevent it from being added, which is what you just accused everyone of doing). What THAT tactic caused to happen was a) I made fun of you by pretending to not understand what you were saying b) HiLo attempted to explain why you're belief was mistaken, leading to a side debate with him that ALSO doesn't advance your cause. So you see, here's a life lesson for you DePiep, that I hope you take forward. If your goal is to get others to do what you want them to do, don't first tell them they are bad people. That doesn't work. Instead, ask politely, and accuse no one of bad action, and be prepared to make your case in a rational way. That works all the time. What you did never works. --Jayron32 00:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"The problem DePiep, is ..." you say. I say: what are you talking about? Are you the problem-defining monkey in here, number ∞+1? And about the phrase "you have hurt your own cause": only an arrogant admin could write that unsolicited beforehand judgement. -DePiep (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you truly are helping out your cause here, my good/not-arrogant sir! –HTD 01:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pushing an invented cause onto me . Now what is your response to my actual OP? -DePiep (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It actually makes sense. The article is at 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. If we're following "normal" naming procedures in ITN's ongoing ticker, the <year> is usually omitted, and the rest of the article's name as it appears as the title is the one that's being used. –HTD 23:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

So, since you haven't hurt your cause, I assume that means people have helped you? Because I haven't seen that yet... --Jayron32 01:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor is nice Jayron. I have heard and even used some of the sayings in that article. Didn't know there was a name for the collection. Thanks. And I wish I could read Vietnamese. I have read elsewhere that the Vietnamese call what we call the Vietnam War, the American War. (That obviously points to something else.) It would be nice to check. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It would, wouldn't it? Looks like they don't, though. (Note there's a section in the article about naming, though). Formerip (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Round up. So far, these editors have responded: User:Jayron32 (admin), User:HiLo48, User:FormerIP, User:Howard the Duck. The admin went about monkeys, and the others did not even respond to the OP. I remind us that this is the talkpage of English wikipedia Main page. Is this how we maintain quality? -DePiep (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  You seem to want to maintain quality by accusing others of antisemitism. Howsatgoinforya? --Jayron32 02:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If by that post you are saying that I "did not even respond to the OP", I call bullshit. Stop wasting our time here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to say that you went off topic. You did twice, actually. -DePiep (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That was not the offence you described and upon which I challenged you. Let's try again. Are saying that I "did not even respond to the OP"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

As the original suggester of Gaza Conflict for the title of the ongoing link (discussed here), the single only reason for the name suggestion was to attempt to keep the main page free of the NPOV discussions that are rampant on the talk page (and its article) of the linked article. My suggestion was simply as generic and neutral name as possible and anyone clicking through to the article is immediately told further details. As you will see there were no objections raised during the 36+ hours the nomination was active for before its consensus was judged. This really was a good faith suggestion and there really is nothing sinister to read into it. CaptRik (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

What NPOV? The link is to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. What you defend, CaptRik, is exactly the point I question: leaving out "Israel" is making it POV. (Can happen, but this is the MP of enwiki. How strange that there are people still defending this half-a-fact, instead of correcting it). -DePiep (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

How is this more POV than Vietnam War or Korean War? The link is talking about the fact that this conflict is over the Gaza region, not an exhaustive list of the participants. Especially since Gaza is not a participant, various Palestinian groups are. As for the name of the page the link leads to, I would argue that it is incorrectly titled. --Khajidha (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL, Khajidha. Both Korea and Vietnam were a N/S (as I said before), and they have ended. This it actual Israel-Palestine obviously, and Wikipedia should not take side (especially not on main page or by omitting one side). -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What does either of those points have to do with ANYTHING? There were many countries fighting in each of those wars, the names refer more to the location than the participants and whether something is finished or continuing doesn't affect what it is called. To use another example, it is called the Iraq War despite having been fought by numerous countries. Finally, as you point out, this is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Notice that neither nation is mentioned in the link, only the location of the conflict. However, it is becoming clear that you are not here to discuss rationally, so I will not respond to any further posts of yours. --Khajidha (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Reading the OP could explain something. Why do you thing I wrote it? -DePiep (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Had to correct this evasive redirect too: . -DePiep (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request that the page (Main page) be edited to the effect that the "Ongoing" subsection link (now saying: 'Gaza conflict') mentions Israel, like: "current Israel–Gaza conflict". The target page is 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Just explain why you think that title is superior to the current link, and convince enough other people to support it through your powers of persuasion. --Jayron32 23:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This obfuscating editor is not really objecting. I have made a proposal clearly. As for code changes, because of the protection & chained transclusions I can not make the actual code change. Of course, most MP involved editors know. -DePiep (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Jayron's behaviour is disgusting and deliberately obtuse. That he is a moderator scares me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.84.186 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 3 August 2014‎

We don't have "moderators". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• If this is going to resolved by !voting, then I say leave it as it stands, per Khajidha and HiLo48's earlier comments (if not his latter.) If we need further discussion on the matter, wouldn't it be better served by moving it to ITN's talk page? Rhodesisland (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We did take your request seriously. We didn't agree with you. A does not contradict B.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No it was not. It was hidden, twice. I could search & show the edit diffs (of course), but that only proves my point. -DePiep (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I closed it again because there is still no consensus. At your current rate of winning over hearts and minds, I doubt we'll have consensus anytime before peace in the middle east. WinterWall (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems I was mistaken and actually DePiep thinks the way the template was handled is a big deal. I don't understand why but in any case, although not an admin, I'm making sure that the template is handled exactly in the manner proscribed in the docs. Someone else has already marked the template as answered=yes, in accordance with the docs. The only thing missing is:

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.

So yes, the template has now been handled exactly as the docs proscribe. May be not in the order described but I think we all agree it would be silly for me to mark the template as unanswered so I can then remark it as answered. And yes, I'm not an admin so I couldn't actually deal with the template if I did have to carry out the edits, but I'm pretty sure I've done this before and of course it's well accepted that even if it's something that may require an admin in some cases, it's fine for a non admin to carry it out in cases where they can, provided they do so in athe manner an admin wouldthe community expects.

Can we now get on with the discussion rather than this complete daft aside about the way the template was handled? The template which of course was irrelevant since it was an editprotected template, not an RFC or whatever, and only intended to alert an appropriate editor (admin in this case) that there was consensus or believed consensus for an edit (which there wasn't so the template shouldn't have been added, but I can understand DePiep may not have realised this when they initially started this discussion)?

BTW, it seems the template has been moved around at some stage, so it's not at the beginning of this discussion. Which is unfortunate since it makes it appear like DePiep added the template when it was already clear there was no consensus. I don't know who moved it and frankly I've already wasted enough time on this to find out (I WP:AGFed that there was a serious problem here but it seems there wasn't). I don't know if this is one of the things which is getting DePiep so annoyed, but IMO it's fine for DePiep to move it back to the beginning of the discussion so it's clear it wasn't added later.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Talk:Main_Page/Archive_181
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---