Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Evidence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration | Highways

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kacie Jane (talk | contribs) at 00:38, 9 June 2006 (→Discussion of evidence presented by Northenglish: Cute.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discussion of evidence presented by Northenglish

"The version of the page he cites uses "State Route 599 (Washington)" as the article title, yet starts with "Washington State Route 599" in the text. This inconsistency was not fixed until June 1, 2006, 19 days after it was moved to "State Route 599 (Washington)", and 41 days after it was originally moved there and reverted by PHenry."

This is exactly my point - stuff gets messed up when it starts out in the wrong place.

"The naming convention "Washington State Route X" has precedence, and IMHO, consensus. (I will provide evidence for this consensus claim at a later date.)"

Whether there was consensus - or groupthink - is immaterial. What matters is correctness. --SPUI (T - C) 00:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Now see if you can read the rest of what I wrote. If the title of the article and how it appears in bold at the beginning of the article text is so important to you, how do you explain letting these inconsistencies last for 19 to 185 days? -- Northenglish 02:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can't all change the world. I do my part, and then I decide to work on something else, hoping someone else will fix it. --SPUI (T - C) 02:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, if you wanted to make a valid contribution to the encyclopedia through these page moves, your modus operandi should have been to make the page move, then immediately edit the text to reflect the page move.
I should point out that your comment can be interpreted to mean that you realize you made an error, but you don't care enough about it to fix it yourself, you just hope someone else will come by and clean up your mess for you. "I do my part... hoping someone else will fix it." These are not the comments a bonafide contributer should be making. -- Northenglish 02:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what the arbitrators have to say about that. --SPUI (T - C) 22:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cute. The fact that you put it in Proposed decision (which only arbitrators may edit) instead of Workshop further proves that you have no respect for process on Wikipedia. -- Northenglish 00:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of evidence presented by PHenry re: Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll

The piece of evidence claiming SPUI "attempted to end the process 6 days early" is invalid. PHenry's edit summary for his first revert of the reject tag says "is it 14 days after May 26? doesn't look that way."[1] However, the proposal clearly states that there is to be 7 days of discussion, followed by 7 days of voting -- not 14 days of discussion. The discussion yielded 9 votes to oppose the proposal compared to 8 support votes; anyone actively involved with this case (including PHenry) opposed the proposal. SPUI applied the reject tag on the 8th day correctly, as we had voted not to vote. I have since put the reject tag back on the proposal. -- Northenglish 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence I may or may not eventually use

I just thought I'd include it here for now until I can figure out how to work it into my actual evidence.--Northenglish 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways/Evidence&oldid=57621562"