Talk:Teeswater sheep: Difference between revisions

 

===Discussion===

{{hatnote|Some of these comments were initially posted at [[WP:RM]] itself}}

@Justlettersandnumbers, while SMcCandlish is currently banned from making undiscussed moves (as of July 15) these moves were done prior to his ban. Would you object to having a centralized move discussion for all the sheep articles? It looks to me that some editors might support these moves. It's a lot of work for an admin to do a mass revert and then have to move all the articles back later per discussion, if that turns out to be the result. Why not have the discussion first? The issues in this set of articles don't even involve capitalization (as in [[Talk:American Paint Horse#Requested moves]]). It's only a question of natural versus parenthesized disambiguation. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 15:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

::I could go on, but I don't think it would be useful to do so. I'm not angry at Jlan for having personality clashes with me; rather, the arguments presented by this editor to mire or derail this and related RMs are not sustainable under any RM-relevant rationale, and that's all that needs to be shown here.<br />I've suggested that Jlan (and Montanabw) and I shoudl probably engage in a formal [[WP:Dispute resolution]] process; much of this heat vs. light appears to be a personality conflict, not a [[WP:AT]] one, really. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Update: Montanabw has pointedly refused dispute resolution.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJustlettersandnumbers&diff=626138806&oldid=626020413] <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 06:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

 

*'''Comment''' I really don't want to be involved in this messy business but I will point out to SMc where he questions why Fowl is only used on some chicken breeds - Fowl exclusively refers to birds within the poultry fancy with Game in their name (i.e.: [[Gamecock|Gamefowl]]). We don't have Rhode Island Red fowl, but Old English Game fowl is acceptable. Shamo fowl would make no sense because no Game in the name. You really have to take things by case by case. No one system is going to work. [[User:JTdale|<font color="maroon">'''JTdale'''</font>]] [[User talk:JTdale|^{<font color="green">'''Talk'''</font>}]] 11:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

**Understood. Having a few breeds named "X Game fowl" isn't problematic, any more than having a few pig articles named "X swine" instead of "X pig" because the sources indicate it's conventional. No one has suggested some kind of robotic conformity enforcement that would prevent "fowl" or "swine", though the [[straw man]] position that such ideas are proposed has been common enough in previous related debates. The specific content of these and other ongoing related RMs is actually proof that no such "hyper-conformity" proposals are on the table at all. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

**The utter lack of any form of consistency within almost all breed categories (much less between any of them) is why this ever arose in the first place. The horses category is much more consistent than most, which is a blessing, and I've repeatedly supported you in resisting moves that would thwart it, which you seem to forget. No one is accusing or suggesting that the equine wikiproject is or could be "imposing [their] views on other animal projects". Rather, we have a [[WP:AT]] policies that are being ignored by many articles in most of these categories. There is no provision at [[WP:AT]] policy "that a certain amount of deference should be given to the article writers"; we have that policy, and have elevated it to policy level, specifically to avoid the problems inherent in article writers dictating how "their" articles are named. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

***Before you came around, there was consistency at least within the pigeon category, focusing on parenthetical disambiguation. Same was true for poultry. Thank you very much. --[[User:PigeonIP|PigeonIP]] ([[User talk:PigeonIP|talk]]) 12:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

*'''Comment 2''': SMC's ongoing page move and titling disputes, combined with a penchant for rather vicious personal attacks while simultaneously [[psychological projection|accusing others of attacking him]] (see, e.g. [[Talk:Kiger Mustang]] are really getting out of hand and I am wondering if it time to discuss how to stop this endless drama. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]^{[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]} 21:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

**Actually, you just proved my point with another personal attack. Thanks for being so unmistakably clear in this regard. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

***If you don't see how your behavior is coming across to others, then ask yourself why I am basically siding with people who hold a view opposite from my own preference on titles: It is because you are bullying them and in your insistence that your way is the only way, you are rapidly becoming one of the most tendentious and annoying people on wikipedia. That's not an "attack," that's a statement of reality. When you feel picked on, consider that it just might be your own behavior boomeranging back at you. Look in the mirror. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]^{[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]} 08:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

****Okay, Montanabw is being {{em|extra}}-clear in admitting that they are "siding with" others against me, not on the merits but to make a point and to attempt to silence me personally. This editor clearly needs to read [[WP:GANG]], [[WP:POINT]], [[WP:HARASS]], and [[WP:ARBATC]], including its prohibition on personalizing article title debates, about which Montanabw was formally notified the day before they posted this. I've already suggested on Montanabw's own talk page to be amenable to [[WP:Dispute resolution]], the proper venue for this stuff. Yet Montanabw just made it unmistakeably certain that this is a personal dispute for them, not a discussion about the merits of these renames, so they are disrupting [[WP:RM]] to pursue a personality conflict, even after it's been pointed out that this is what they're doing. It has to stop.<p>There is no "my way" that I'm insisting on. We have clear article title policies, and I've made moves that conform to them, accepted some criticism for doing so without discussion, and now we're having that very discussion, which seems to be going the way I suggested anyway, since it's the way based on policy, not "my way" or "Montanbw's way". Other moves I've requested, on a policy basis not some random personal preference mind you, almost invariably also are accepted (see [[User:SMcCandlish/RM log]] for just one month's stats, in which my RM actions are {{em|over 95% accurate}} in predicting move or don't-move outcome). Montanabw is conflating a) their previous, unrelated article-titling personal disputes with me (in some of which they were correct about that content, while I was in others), b) an ANI resolved over two months ago about move process (not content) in which Montanabw was involved, and b) the substance (content, not process) of the moves in question now. These are three {{em|different}} topics. Montanabw muddying the waters of the ongoing proceeding (and doing so again, in ways that demonstrate they don't understand how RM works, at [[WP:AN]]) on the basis of my alleged personality is the [[fallacy ad hominem|fallacy ''ad hominem'']], and a sterling example of a [[WP:NPA]] violation {{em|again}}. Montanabw has already had way more than enough warnings in that regard. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ </span> 16:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)</p>

****** I agree with Montanabw here. I can't even be bothered to contribute to this discussion because its such a mess, but all you seem to do SMc is throw accusations and policy links at people, half the time citing yourself. I've seen you start a discussion by accusing someone of disrupting Wikipedia simply because you disagreed with their interpretation of rules or their style of writing instead of discussing it sensibly or letting the person explain their changes. For gods sake start acting in a reasonable manner. [[User:JTdale|<font color="maroon">'''JTdale'''</font>]] [[User talk:JTdale|^{<font color="green">'''Talk'''</font>}]] 11:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

 

====Comment on pigeons====