User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Born2cycle. 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 1

←

Archive 4

→

Don't try this at home!

Hi, Born2cycle. Backpedalling as fast as you can while eating huge amounts of crow may be hazardous to your health! A bunch of irritated admins can't do anything to you—you've been right too many times and your block log is spotless. Still, if you're getting good advice during this kerfuffle, try to follow it. I'm on your side here; you made good arguments against moving "Pro-life movement" and you just want editors to follow our article naming policies. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kenatipo! Being "right" does not justify driving others nuts. Disagreements here and there are easy to dismiss, but the high number of people who have expressed animosity towards me has gotten my attention. It is challenging to discern what the actual problem is because so many say different things. The common denominator seems to be that I just disagree too often with too many people, and I tend to make mountains out of mole hills, both explicitly in how I word things, and implicitly in the amount of time and energy I spend on them. I've pledged to improve in these areas. It's all good. Thank you again for your support. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Good for you! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

Thanks; but that seems very long term. I am planning to request Mediation. JCScaliger (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC) An RFC does seem the way to go. But I would make it about one or two of them. Dicklyon has been comparatively reasonable, and suggested a compromise version (I think PBS has a point, but one thing at a time). Without the profane revert warriors, he would have nothing to stonewall. JCScaliger (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree he's the most reasonable of the three. Actually Oh Confucious has been difficult to work with too. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

BIG FAVOR - Please take a look

Thanks for your note. However I'm fully engaged in other issues now so I'm afraid I can't help at this time. Will Beback talk 06:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, even better... anyone you could recommend? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan (disambiguation)

Since you were involved in Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation), you may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taiwan_island_group, since it is one of the items listed at the disambiguation page. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Revert your last to Elen's page, or you'll be sitting out for a while. Elen was quite clear in her warning to sit out for a while, but you couldn't be bothered to listen, so we'll see if blocking helps.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't want to take that tone, but given all the warnings you've gotten over the past couple of days, I didn't think being politer was going to work.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, much appreciated. Now that a few minutes have passed, and having put the TLDR statement in a separate file in my user space User:Born2cycle/DearElen, along with a short note about it on her talk page, I see how that's a much better way to handle this. I will remember to use this technique in the future. So thank you very much. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I regret to say that while that list seems reasonable, it was a tad long even for me to read. Save it for Elen in her other hat, when it will be her unhappy duty to read this; and you may want to look at WT:MOSCAPS, where Dick is trying the same tactics. JCScaliger (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Workaround

Making a redirect with the parenthetical, and putting the category there. (This requires a notice on the article page, so we don't have double cats; but it can go at the very bottom, where it won't disturb the reader.) All this is in the discussion. JCScaliger (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Group behavior

Have you seen the film 12 Angry Men ? Even if you have, I suggest you rent it and very carefully track every nuance of how the writer and director had Henry Fonda play his character. I bet you’d enjoy it. Greg L (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's like my favorite movie, man. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But I never thought about channeling the Fonda character. Brilliant! --Born2cycle (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

“Channeling”: that’s the word. Greg L (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

300 words

And you’re up to 228. You might take it to his talk page and see if you can make peace there. Greg L (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought I was at 250 or something. Been keeping track in my edit summaries, LOL. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried. By the way, I think he's well over 300 words... --Born2cycle (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved comments to liberate your 300-word quota

Hi. Tony started off new subsections, I thought it would be best (and welcomed) for me to move the mini-thread between you and Dicklyon to its own discussion section. It is here at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Early_exchange_between_editors. Greg L (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. At first I assumed the 300 limit applied to the subsection, but since others had clearly exceeded it, I reread your rule and thought maybe you mean comments only within the poll per se. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, polling section per se. It keeps polling sections sweet and tidy and not a mile long. Tit-for-tat debate, which many people don’t read except two combatant bulldogs and couple pack members, can go further down where it is easier to ignore. Greg L (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Indentation

Because I had indented my own comment unevenly, it looked like two paragraphs I had written were by you; they were level with your signature - and that I had inserted a comment in the middle of yours.

I note that Noetica and Dicklyon (and Tony elsewhere) talk both about territory and about subversion. This shows the mindset of this very small group; they write as though they were one mind, out to conquer and control Wikipedia. This should be mentioned in any future RFC. JCScaliger (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Or, preferably, we lead them away from thinking in battleground terms. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be preferable. I would like to believe it practical. Thanks for the reminder. JCScaliger (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm naive, but that post from Dick was a real eye-opener for me. I mean, he had to see it as a battleground from the moment he (after Tony) first reverted me in December. He openly admits it was "to not let a cheater win" (paraphrasing) rather than substantive. Pure posturing. And now the "he must back off" language. No wonder it's so hard to work out anything. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think they're convinced I see it and treat it as a battleground, so they feel justified, perhaps even compelled, in doing so too. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarek of Vulcan

…was the only respondent at your section and he seemed less-than-impressed. Please learn to play the good hand of cards and leave the one with a pair of 2s on the table. Besides, the section you added that to was a motion on a single issue. The proper response there is to either second the motion or bitch about how my proposal sucks; not introduce an entirely separate issue (and a damned weak one at that). You’ve already taken your request to Elen’s talk page; cross your fingers. But don’t muddy a success by attaching weak baggage to it. Greg L (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarek's "not impressed" comment referred to me deleting a comment of his suggesting I be quiet when I temporarily hid that section. I figured since I was hiding the section, the comment no longer made sense. He re-inserted it, along with the "not impressed" comment eventually creating the very kind of confusion I was trying to avoid.

Anyway, why are you so hard on me?

"Your" proposal is to implement an edit that I made on Dec 21 which was then already obviously supported by consensus as I explained in the accompanying comment on the talk page. It was reverted not for any substantive reasons, but because I made that edit, and you initially did not support my change.

This edit to COMMONNAME is equally obviously supported by consensus, and was also rejected soley because I made it, and you again are not supporting me on it. At least not initially.

Weeks ago, around the end of the year, in response to you asking what the first edit and dispute was about, I explained and provided supporting links. But, despite something like 8 or 9 people clearly supporting my edit at that time (which you would have seen had you read the sections to which I linked) you concluded that the difference between the two versions "seems superficially innocuous", "unobvious as ever what the distinction is meant to accomplish", and "there is no practical and real distinction between the two except for that which is imagined by those who stare at them too long and debate this nonsense".

Then, two weeks later, you seemed to finally see and appreciate a difference. On Jan 15 you wrote: "My preference is for a more explicit version of #1 with examples...". Then, on Jan 23, your support for the original wording finally became strong: "FWIW, I prefer 'to readers familiar...'. It assumes readers have a flying clue what they are reading up on...". Of course, soon after you started the poll that hopefully finally settled this.

Why didn't you support me from the outset? Why are you not supporting me on this COMMONNAME edit? It should be even less controversial. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I’m having a hard time understanding precisely what it is you want. The community voted on this version of the WP:AT. If what you desire is not there, then it is indeed unfortunate I didn’t coordinate with you so you could direct me to a version you liked better. But the two options I chose were back-to-back reversions by two editors who seemed to be representing two camps. So I chose JCScaliger’s version and then Kwamikagami’s reversion. That is what the community was polled on. They chose JCScaliger’s version. It would be wrong to expect an admin to change the text to something that the community did not precisely consider in the premise for the poll. If what you want is not currently embodied in JCScaliger’s version, then you will have to act like the father bull, discuss things with others, meet *bad* speech with *better* speech, and drive towards a consensus. Greg L (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You've totally missed my point. I'm delighted with JCScaliger's version - it's identical to the one I created on Dec 21, the edit that was reverted first by Tony, then by Dicklyon, before the page was first locked. It's the version I explained was supported by consensus. It's the version about half-a-dozen editors immediately supported -- all back on Dec 21. It's the version Tony, Dicklyon and Noetica have been reverting whenever I, JCScaliger or anyone else tried to apply to the page. Do you not realize that?

All those things I quoted of you saying in comparing two versions that were in question in December, those were identical copies of the two versions your poll asked about. Do you realize that?

My point is this. I'm very frustrated. I'm frustrated my Dec 21 edit was ever reverted. I'm frustrated that despite 8 people supporting it (eventually 14), and nobody substantively opposing it, it wasn't allowed within a day or two, or even within a week or two. I'm frustrated that when you got involved, you said there was no difference between the two versions.

Eventually you did figure it out, or at least you did when you saw it as "JCScaliger's version" vs. "Kwami's version" rather than "Kotniski/B2C version" vs. "May/Dicklyon/Tony/Noetica version". So I'm wondering why you didn't support this version the first time you looked at it, and, now, I'm wondering if whatever answer there is to that question doesn't also answer why you're not supporting my edit to COMMONNAME. Namely, have you even looked at it seriously? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

B2C - I realize you're frustrated. I think many of us, including Greg, are and have been. But I think Blueboar said on the talkpage that when there are proposals on top of proposals, and discussions going on in twelve different directions, people get frustrated and burned out. I think that's what's going on here. The people have spoken on the "readers familiar with..." language. So let's implement it. One step at a time.

As for your edit - in an ideal world, substance would be the only consideration. We live in a world, however, where context is as important as substance. When, where, and how you raise an issue matters. Your edit, if made a month - a week - from now, might well be accepted without question. Or at least be susceptible to an open debate. Right now, though, I think we all need some space to let the dust settle and take a deep breath. The atmosphere is still too thick. At least, that's how I read it. Just something to think about.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

B2C, I simply went to the last two battleground versions (the version embodied by JCScaliger’s post and the alternative version embodied in Kwamikagami’s post). To have gone any further into the past than necessary would have run an enormous risk of accidentally undoing intermediate edits on material to which all parties consented. I am really, really, really confused. Your first non-seconding of my motion-to-close was here in this perma-link version of WT:AT where you wrote as follows:

I request the edit to WP:COMMONNAME discussed below at #Clarifying ambiguity also be made to this policy page, to make that section also more consistent with the principle that is now confirmed to clearly have community consensus support.

That sure looked to me like you were asking that an admin make further changes to WP:AT (WP:COMMONNAME is a section within WP:AT) that weren’t considered in the poll. But reading your post, above, it now appears you desire to signal that you are frustrated and you desire that some sort of decree be made memorializing the fact that the text the community voted for is the text you had a hand in crafting all along. I have a slight stomach ache and don’t want to address this anymore today.

You realize, don’t you, that ArbCom will not be pleasant? I can’t get into Sarek’s mind, but I have a hunch that your persistence today may well have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. Greg L (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are confused. But I was too a little. You're talking about versions of the entire page and I was talking about versions of the Recognizability wording, and how you initially said there was no difference between the two wordings, but eventually you came around and supported the version I wanted all along. It's frustrating that you didn't see that and support it from the outset. As to the other change... that's frustrating too, but it doesn't matter that much. Forget about it. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And I am still confused. I figured out what the difference between the two was (much earlier I had asked the inhabitants there to explain it to me and everyone was clueless), decided to state my preference at WT:AT for the “somewhat familiar” version, real quickly discovered my view was the one you (and a pile of other editors) had been advocating for all along, started a poll to settle the dispute once and for all in a manner where the mutual combatants had 300-word duct tape over their mouths, witnessed the biggest landslide consensus ever, motioned to recommend that WP:AT reflect the community consensus, and you made the request quoted in the above quotebox. And now I am confused and have acid stomach. That much I know. But I will try to take your advise and forget about it. Greg L (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dohn joe, I must be just wired differently from anyone else. I'm thinking that now, while everyone is already paying attention anyway, is the time to make changes. If you wait until things quiet down, then there's arguably less consensus support for the change. In fact, that's how we got into this mess, because that change taking out the familiarity wording was done back in May, when no one was paying attention. And, by the way, the fatal original move of Yogurt to Yoghurt was done on Christmas Day, again when no one was paying attention. Face palm. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration case

I have filed a request for the Arbitration Committee to look at long-term issues with editing in the Article Titles and MOS areas at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Article titles/MOS. Your input would be welcome. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Home of Peace

Hello, B2c. I'd like your expert opinion on a naming issue. We had two articles, one called "Home of Peace", the other "Home of Peace Cemetery". I moved "Home of Peace" to "Home of Peace Cemetery (Helena, Montana)" and moved "Home of Peace Cemetery" to "Home of Peace Cemetery (East Los Angeles)". FYI, there are several Home of Peace cemeteries in the US, most of them in California. So, would you have moved the two articles to new names, and, what would you have named them? Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think what you did is perfect since I doubt either is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The only nit is that the dab page should probably be at Home of Peace Cemetery, with Home of Peace redirecting to it since "Home of Peace Cemetery" is the undisambiguated name being disambiguated. Either that, or the two articles shouldn't have "Cemetery" in their titles - it depends on whether "Cemetery" is part of the name. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, B2c. I thought the moves were COMMON SENSE, but I'm getting a little static from the owners of the Montana article. I probably should have consulted them first. I see what you mean about the disambiguation page but I don't want to change anything else just now. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

TLDR

And as you have already observed of yourself for yourself, wouldn't it be an idea to learn to write in a more concise manner? I had noticed that on more than one occasion, I take a first look at a wall of text and recoil. Then I read the first paragraph, and my interest levels wane exponentially from thereon end. My interest levels in subsequent posts continue to decline from the previous post if they remain long, which they invariably are when you are trying too hard to labour a point. Also, you could come across as much less overbearing if you could resist the temptation to always have the last word. Having said the above, I welcomed the concise and informative posts on my talk page. Regards, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no denying my tendency to make WP:TLDR posts. But that's hardly a reason to disagree with me, or seek sanctions to be taken against me. But I appreciate the reminders and tips. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that WP:TLDR says this: "['TLDR'] is sometimes used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing." I suggest that's what this WT:AT dispute is all about, since I posted a very concise substantive explanation of my edit from the outset, and those who opposed still didn't read it nor give it due consideration, not then, and not in the month that has elapsed since. See WT:AT#Clarification of recognizability lost. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reminder:

5) I'll look for signs from others, especially those who have taken the time to commented here, to let me know how I'm doing.

6) I will continue to welcome, and will encourage even more, specific suggestions on what I could do to improve my disposition in all discussions in which I'm involved.

7) I will not think, believe, convey or say that just because I'm not violating the letter of any policy or guideline does not mean there is no problem to address.

Will Beback talk 21:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Will. Do you think anything I just said above that is not doing that? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you think? Will Beback talk 23:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I demonstrate I'm doing all 3 in the above. I acknowledge, agree with, and thank Oh for his input (5, 6), and nothing I said was intended to convey or say that there was no problem with anything I did (7). If you got a different impression I'd like to know. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar Point

		A Barnstar Point
		Awarded for remarkably pithy commentary: "While the title should be recognized as a reference to the article topic by someone familiar with the topic, for the uninitiated, it is the purpose of the article lead, not the article title, to identify the topic of the article." 17:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC), Wikipedia talk:Article titles thread "Common names", which made my list of "Smartest things I've seen on Wikipedia". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Bande à part vs Band of Outsiders

In light of your previous participation in film titling issues, the discussion at Talk:Bande à part (film)#Requested move may be of interest.—Roman Spinner (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Expand language

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Expand language. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Observation about Page view statistics

B2C, in a recent discussion you stated Page view counts are useful evidence there. when trying to measure what readers are searching for. I don’t think that’s really true, and I’ll address that in a minute. The reason I am a bit hard over on naturalness and recognizability as titling criteria is that it puts an unnecessary and impossible burden on editors to defend a title based on what readers are thinking or reacting to. When there is no empirical method (even a grossly inaccurate one) to validate what readers are thinking or reacting to, any answer is the right answer and thus serves no useful purpose in adjudicating a title decision. When opposing editors believe they have the right answer but neither side can empirically defend it, we find ourselves in contentiousness that in the end never serves us well. Unlike Commonname, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency which put the burden on actual title and can reasonable be adjudicated with empirical evidence from sources and such, naturalness and recognizability cannot.

Now my observation about Page Views. From my reading of Wikipedia:About page view statistics, the statistic for any given page is incremented when a reader navigates to the page. That navigation can occur in a number of ways:

A reader searches Google or such for something and a link to a WP article shows up in the search results
A reader uses the WP search function, gets the article title perfectly and navigates directly to the article
A reader uses the WP search function, gets the article title imperfectly or clicks search instead of Go and gets a results list. A click on one of the results will take the reader to the article
A reader is not searching for anything, but instead is reading an article and clicks on a wikilink in an article and is taken to another article.
An editor knows the name of an article and navigates to it directly to do some editing.

If we believe paragraph two of information about Page Views: There is no way to know why people have seen the article. Perhaps they wanted to read about it, but there are other options. Perhaps they were seeking something else with a similar name, perhaps the name was interesting or similar to something else and called their attention, perhaps they were browsing articles seeking some specific information, perhaps they were doing maintenance... then the only thing that can be deduced from Page Views is that some unknown % of readers were searching for the page in either Google or WP, but we cannot deduce exactly what there were searching for. Also, because readers navigate to pages via wikilinks embedded in articles, I find the statements such as readers will be confused if the article title is not exactly what they are searching for or something to that effect, in complete contradiction to actual practice. One, I know of no empirical way to determine the level of confusion a reader might be experiencing, but more importantly we don’t make that same argument for wikilinks embedded in the prose of an article. Statistics about page views are useful, but they don’t give any information about what readers are searching for or how they react when they navigate to an article. BTW, were you confused when you clicked on the second and third link to: Wikipedia:About page view statistics in this post? I believe the intent of Naturalness and Recognizability are valid, it’s just that as titling criteria they do far more harm than good and their intent can be dealt with through other criteria. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this earlier. I won't get into a semantic argument defending the readers will be confused point. I don't believe I've ever said that. But I do think you're missing something. While it's true that page view stats tell us nothing about why any one person made it to a given page, it certainly tells us quite a bit about trends. For example, we know Google orders results by popularity. So if someone Google searches for a given term, looks through the results (which typically include enough content from the page to indicate what it is), and clicks on the 12th item in the results, that slightly increases the rating of that page. If enough people do that, it starts moving up in the results. So if someone arrives at a page after clicking on it in Google results that's likely to be what they are looking for. Further, if they're not looking for that, then they're likely to either click back to the Google results and click on another result until they do end up at the page they are looking for, or getting to the dab page via a hatnote link and then getting to their desired page, thus eventually bumping up its page view hit count one way or another. Yes, that one user bumps up the page view counts of the pages he hit inadvertently just as much as he bumped up the page view count of his desired page, but with multiple users the more popular page will over time get a higher count.

Consider five uses of a given term A, B, C, D and E. Say C is what most (say 80%) people are looking for, and the other 20% are divided up evenly among the other pages, but the first page they go to is via a method that turns out to be totally random. So of the first 100 people, 20% end up initially at A, 20% at B, 20% at C, 20% at D and 20% at E. But each of those people eventually finds their way to their desired page. So in the end C gets 20 (initial - of which 80% or 16 are at their desired destination and 4 are looking for something else) + 80% of the others (16 of each of the 20) for a total of 20 + 16 *4 = 84 page views, while A, B, D and E each get 20 (initial - of which 5% or 1 is at the desired page, 80% or 16 are looking for C, and the remaining 3 are looking for one of the other non-C pages) + 5% of the others (1 of each of the 20) for a total of 20 + 1 * 4 = 24.

That is, even though we can't account for the reasons that any one page view occurred, the total page view count over time, relative to the page view counts of other articles, is a very strong indicator of how likely people are to be seeking that article relative to other articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't disagree with the logic until you get to the last bit. Only some % of page views result from readers searching for a topic via Google, some other % are direct navigation because someone actually knows the name in WP, and some % are from wikilinks in other articles. In a recent RM, an editor actually complained that the pageview statistic was skued toward an alternative title because another editor had used the alternative title extensively in Wikilinks in a lot of other articles. All I am contending is that collective page view statistics are an unreliable indication of what readers are searching for because they accumulate from several different types of reader (an editor) activity unrelated to searching for a topic. If we had reliable, empirical information that on average X% of page views result from searching, that % was consistent across a wide range of articles, it might be a useful determinant. But absent that, it is much too unreliable because of the multiple ways page views are generated. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

But obscure cases aside, I suggest it's generally true that an article A which is significantly more likely to be sought via search than article B is also more likely to be visited via links than is B. For example, London is both more likely to be sought than London, California, and more likely to have visits from links than is London, California. So even if a significant percentage of article page views come from links it's still a valuable measure of relative likelihood to be sought.

The only time this wouldn't be true is in a case of two articles A and B in which even though A has significantly more page view counts than B, it has a disproportionately high percentage of page views due to visits from links, such that the number of page view counts B has as a result of searches is higher than the number of page view counts A has as a result of searches. I suggest it would be very difficult if not impossible to find a case like that. That's why I think it's reasonable to ignore that factor, and just assume that the percentage of page view counts that result from searches is close enough to being the same to presume that are the same.

But, just in case, we do also look at link counts. In a case where A has significantly more page views than B, but B has significantly more link counts than A, it's probably a no primary topic situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Born2cycle. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Article titles and capitalisation Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 939 words and 50 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 06:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your evidence was submitted late, and will not be considered unless there is a compelling reason you were unable to add evidence on time. AGK [•] 20:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been very busy with real life and found out on Feb 12, 2012 that there was a deadline... Feb 12, 2012. I submitted the bulk of my evidence before the end of the day (well, before the end of the day my time... Pacific Standard Time), and only made a few minor tweaks after that. Is that a problem? Sorry, I've never participated in one of these before. Where do I request a waiver or whatever? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahem -- when was that again? :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks, fixed! --Born2cycle (talk)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

How are things going?

…at WT:Article titles? Smooth enough? Greg L (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, back to normal smooth sailing now that the recognizability wording issue finally seems to be resolved. I miss GTB, Kotniski and PMA-SCCaliger, however. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, yeah; PMA: Great help if he’s on your side. Greg L (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, flagellating yourself only does so much. Why don't you write a nice begging letter to Bacchus asking him to come back, while confessing your sins, promising not to sin again and saying three hail marys? ;-) I miss PMA like I miss being kicked in the teeth – strange that I was never able to see very much on the positive side of his contributions. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I generally agreed more with PMA than I disagreed with him. But there is no point hoping that his help would be of any real advantage during debate and discussion because the manner in which he elected to help wasn’t a good fit for the community. While dressed in the persona of “JCScaliger,” he was better able to conform to conduct-expected. That tells me Mr. Anderson’s disfunction around here was by choice. Greg L (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm very bothered by nebulous language like, "the manner in which he elected to help wasn’t a good fit for the community", especially if used in the context of a discussion about whether a ban was appropriate or justified. Agree with them or not, socking in order to circumvent a topic ban is a clear and blatant violation of community standards even if the behavior of the sock is not problematic in and of itself... that is the justification for the ban, not because "the manner in which he elected to help wasn’t a good fit for the community". --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. There were two different restrictions; I was referring to his topic ban. That was when PMA was restricted from participating in any discussions anywhere on the project on technical aspects of English. I generally agreed with his positions on technical aspects of English. However, (again), the manner in which he elected to participate in group discussion (tendentious and demanding) wasn’t a good fit for the community. That is precisely the reason for why he received his topic ban. As for his operating a sock, that is a different issue entirely and I don’t defend him one iota on that score—I doubt anyone does. He operated his sock for the express purpose of circumventing his topic ban because he was weighing in on WT:Article titles. And for that he received a one year block. My other point is that while operating as a sock, he was able to fly under the radar for quite some time by not being as tendentious as he usually was. That means he was capable of not being so inflammatory, demanding, and tendentious; he merely elected to not abide by conduct-expected while operating under his User:Pmanderson name. Greg L (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether you describe it as "wasn’t a good fit for the community" or "tendentious and demanding", my understanding is that the behavior for which he was topic banned went far beyond that. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. He resorted to uncivil personal attacks and baiting; every nasty, dirty trick in the book to get his way. I’m sensing you perceived here that I was trying to draw a parallel between your past tendentiousness and PMA’s behavior. Sorry for that; there is no comparison. Most troubling of all was that PMA would be tendentious and dig in his heels and pester and needle and bait to get his way even when he was the only hold-out. In other words, he was perfectly content to work against consensus. To your great credit, you were digging in your heels on WT:Article titles in defense of the consensus view. While it wasn’t exactly proper “Barnstar-award” behavior, I think you were merely vigorously defending the community’s right to not have its wishes undermined by Dicklyon’s refusal (or inability) to see reality. That was a commendable objective. Greg L (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the difference. All my TLDR discussion is ultimately about building consensus one way or another, though it's not always perceived that way. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Under discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Under discussion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Dead end

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Dead end. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Republican primaries

I disagree with you about having this redirect link to the current event, rather than the general article. I see you specialise in naming, so thought you'd appreciate this feedback, and most likely inform me of my ignorance! ... WP:RECENT . This is consistent with WP:NOT NEWS, and the current events. I double-checked the democrat primary redirect points to the general article. I reverted your version. I think they should be consistent. Widefox (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Republican primaries. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yoghurt

Your claim that "peace would persist" does not justify your approach. I specifically volunteered (in the argument which spawned the Google chart you insisted on giving graduated colour coding) that if we were to address the rename in an IAR sense, specifically to stop the warring - that is to say if we were voting to change the name DESPITE any rules to the contrary for the better of the community - that I would support it, because I acknowledged that once it went to -H it would never gain enough consensus to move back. That would have been an approach to establish "lasting peace". You could have supported that, or done so yourself in the intervening years. Instead you repeatedly ventured useless arguments about -H's popularity and prevalence, which were COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, and the ridiculous idea that an 8 year old event applied to RETAIN when, if I recall correctly, RETAIN didn't exist in the MOP at the time of the event. You could have approached the matter in a "Please let's just end the fighting" approach, but you didn't, and the only impression I can get from that is that you felt it was stupid, and that you felt the OTHER arguments you made were the real ones. That's precisely why I referred to cultural hegemony. - BalthCat (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, apparently the origins of RETAIN do predate the Dec 2003 edit by a whopping two months. Though 30 minutes later it was changed to "consider", where it remained into 2005, possibly changing as a result of this. Consensus was, for years, that RETAIN (and your other arguments) were insufficient to force a move to -H. You lucked out once. - BalthCat (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Peace would persist was always only one of my arguments. My "approach" was to persuade others through discussion. What's wrong with that? What was almost most compelling for me was that this was not a pure ENGVAR case, like aluminum/aluminium or airplane/aeroplane, because one of the two spellings in this case is prevalent throughout most of the English speaking work, including the UK and N. America. But to the extent that it was ENGVAR, that favored that more common spelling anyway because that was the original spelling used in the article.

It's impossible to know for sure what finally tipped consensus in favor of the move, but I suspect Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory helped. In any case, it's a shame it was such an enormous effort that took so long (years!), but we should all be happy that the article is finally back to a stable title.

Why are you bringing this up now? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I found Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory important and persuasive. I see my username added at the bottom. Note that I proposed a move on the grounds that the October 27 2011 "no consensus to move" close implemented a precedurally wrong result. I expressed no view on preferred spelling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation closed

An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what to do with this (4) but ignore it. You might as well warn Lance Armstrong to learn to ride his bike faster.

I've never been anything but highly receptive to compromise; if anything my efforts to find and build compromise is why I post so much, which is a problem.

I've always always been very tolerant of the views of others. There was no evidence in this case to the contrary, and, AFAIK, none exists.

This whole case was riddled with elements that make no sense like this. What a waste of everyone's time. Very disappointing.

When this process started I had nothing but respect for Arbcom. As a result of their shoddy work, all that is lost. What a shame. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted to the PD talk page, and just now realized the case was closed when I looked at the history of the PD talk page. Anyway, at least one ArbCom clerk has without precedent come up with a new rule that people can't post to talk pages of an ArbCom case when the case is closed. So, my post there is likely to be deleted. Given that, I'm reposting it here, as follows:

Born2cycle, please understand; you've been found guilty by ArbCom of making "excessive responses" (whatever that is; it sure isn't codified anywhere) and violating "the spirit of WP:BRD" (which isn't policy or even a guideline, just an essay). With this case, ArbCom has come up with an arbitrary, uncodified standard that must be followed; don't make excessive responses. In this thread alone you've already posted three times. You've been warned about this; I strongly suggest you not violate excessive responses again. You are walking on thin ice. Nobody has any idea how thin that ice is because nobody anywhere has any basis for evaluating what constitutes "excessive responses". Perhaps we should follow WP:3RR as a guide, and avoid posting more than three times in a thread within 24 hours. Call it WP:3R (3 three responses). Maybe we need a warning tag too, like {{uw-3rr}} to help keep people inline who are excessively responding. No doubt, some of ArbCom will believe I'm violating WP:PEDANTIC (excessively pedantic) and being absurd. Of course, a mirror is useful which is the point of my post here; "excessive responses" is an absurd metric, and ArbCom is way out of line in finding someone in violation of this non-existent standard. Then, to further on sanction you for violating it and violating an essay is illustrative of the ArbCom we currently have. My serious advice to you is to drop it, and walk away. No amount of effort on your part will result in this injustice being rectified.

--Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If it had said that, or something like it, I wouldn't have had as big of a problem with it. But it says nothing about "excessive responses". It refers to "receptiveness to compromise" and "tolerance for the views of other editors". I'm insulted. I'm past the hurt phase and well into pissed off phase now. They're apparently just not taking this very seriously. Why do they bother? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It mentions the excessive responses in the Finding of Fact against you. Anyway, I understand your anger. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and that's bad enough - but at least a justification for it can be dubiously rationalized. And it's buried in the decision. The part that got publicly broadcasted in dozens of places is above, and it has no connection with my behavior at all. It's a blatant personal attack ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.") by ARBCOM on me. Is that what being on ARBCOM is? A license to ignore WP pillars?
  I've ignored ARBCOM in my time at WP, until this case. No more. That cess pool needs to be drained. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, your situation is far from isolated. ArbCom makes up rules as they go along. In the past they've ignored the community approved ArbCom policy on jurisdiction. They don't have to inform anyone of who is active on a case until the very moment a case is closed. An arbitrator can be recused from a case, yet contribute significantly to it, even submitting evidence when they are not party to it. There's also no restriction for anon IPs to contribute evidence. So long as you dance IPs with all the evidence you want to submit, you can ignore the 500 word limit on evidence submission. There's lots of absurdly ridiculous stuff like this in regards to ArbCom behavior. In your particular case, the abstract problem is that ArbCom is not required to show any connection whatsoever between evidence and remedy. Par for the course. Of course, they are infallible, can not be overruled, and attempting an appeal is an exercise in futility until some undefined period of time has transpired. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not really, but good to know. Is there any kind of effort to reform ARBCOM? Where do I join? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you e-mail me or enable your e-mail so I can e-mail you? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, how sweet, private off-wiki coordination. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. I was unaware there was a prohibition on using e-mail. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there isn't.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Then why should you care whether I communicate with this editor via e-mail? There's no ultra-secret special-handshake club here. For some types of communication, I prefer to use e-mail, especially subsequent to being threatened by a member of ArbCom. If you want to complain about off-wiki coordination, complain about ArbCom. Most of their work is off-wiki, out of the public eye. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd rather not stoop to their level. Unlike them, apparently, I have nothing to hide. I did create an email recently, and gave it out to one person, and still don't understand what was the point of that interaction. I'd rather do all this, whatever it is, publicly. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to hide either. I do have reason to fear ArbCom, having recently been threatened by them and knowing they willfully violate the policy that controls their actions. Therefore, I choose not to discuss this further at this time in a public forum. My remaining advice to you, for what it's worth; do not make public displays of disagreement with their decisions, especially with respect to you. If you want to continue to edit here, don't bite the eyes that are watching you. They have absolute power, can act outside of policy if they so choose without oversight, and you will lose. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)