User talk:TurboSuperA+
Active talk page discussions
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Cinderella157 (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks. TurboSuperA+(connect) 08:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi, you initially posted this at ANI (here) as part of an ANI involving me. You would say: Cinderella157 hasn't technically broken any policy here, but I do think they went against the spirit of CONLEVEL and CENT.
Quite arguably, editing against the spirit of P&G is more serious than breaking P&G on a good faith error or omission. It could reasonably fall to WP:GAMING or WP:TENDENTIOUS. Regardless, it is an allegation of misconduct. I think that you have now been made aware that the RfC template makes notifications to various places, depending on the options selected and I selected three. I also specifically notified MilHist. Where you stated that the only project they notified was MILHIST
, the inference is this was the only notification made. I think you would now realise that this is incorrect to the point of being false. You only name me in this - ignoring this RfC, which would also go against the spirit of CONLEVEL and CENT
according to your post. You would allege by inference that I am not sufficiently trustworthy to edit P&G. If there were any substance to this, it would be pretty serious and cause for sanction. Without substance, it is clearly a personal attack. I trust from the comments you have received that you understand that there is no substance to these allegations.
I suggest that the appropriate thing to do would be to acknowledge at each place that your post was ill-conceived such as by striking in combination with an appropriate edit summary or similar.
When I first started editing, I held similar views to you (and others) regarding capitalisation and found myself at odds with the MOS. My perceptions were challenged. It was through reading and expanding my knowledge on the subject that I realised that the simplified perception of proper names was adequate in many instances but insufficient for the instances for the many grey areas. It is inadequate where our writing is scrutinised, such as on WP. That is the message in the Suzanne Arnold article. If you haven't read it, you might read User talk:Cinderella157#On what is a proper name. It is a collation of some comments I have made on the topic. It may not change you mind but it should challenge your perceptions. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Cinderella157
Regardless, it is an allegation of misconduct.
- It was meant as an opinion. I did not ask or !vote for any sanctions.
Where you stated that the only project they notified was MILHIST, the inference is this was the only notification made. I think you would now realise that this is incorrect to the point of being false.
- True, the RfC template does notify projects and I completely overlooked the heading. That is my mistake.
That is the message in the Suzanne Arnold article. If you haven't read it
- As my comment here shows, I did read the essay, and even directly quoted it.
- I have edited the part about you and I apologise if it made you feel wrongly accused. I hope this doesn't impact our collaboration in the future as we do cross paths from time to time. TurboSuperA+(connect) 10:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
It was meant as an opinion.
It reasonably reads as an allegation.As my comment here shows, I did read the essay, and even directly quoted it.
A reasonable misunderstanding of what I meant to say. Please read the two sentences as two totally different ideas - ie {{If you haven't read it, you might read User talk:Cinderella157#On what is a proper name}} - ie Please read User talk:Cinderella157#On what is a proper name if you have not already done so. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)- I have read it, and while in some rare cases one can cast doubt on what is or isn't a proper name, I disagree that it is such a problem to identify them.
- For example, here
"we conventionally capitalise the names of businesses and institution such as London's Natural History Museum, even though such names are often descriptive."
you seem to suggest that Natural History Museum is not a proper name, but it is, they capitalise it themselves. "London's" is a possessive noun and is not a part of the name, that part is a description of where the museum is located. - This
"Many people base their perception of what is a proper name on an incomplete definition and a perception that specificity of referent is a defining property when it is not."
makes me think that you are arguing from a philosphical point of view, as in the article proper name (philosophy), but the proper name article reads quite clear to me: Few proper names have only one possible referent: there are many places named New Haven; Jupiter may refer to a planet, a god, a ship, a city in Florida, or as part of the name of a symphony ("the Jupiter Symphony"); at least one person has been named Mata Hari, as well as a racehorse, several songs, several films, and other objects; there are towns and people named Toyota, as well as the company. In English, proper names in their primary application cannot normally be modified by articles or another determiner, although some may be taken to include the article the, as in the Netherlands, the Roaring Forties, or the Rolling Stones. A proper name may appear to have a descriptive meaning, even though it does not (the Rolling Stones are not stones and do not roll; a woman named Rose is not a flower). If it once had a descriptive meaning, it may no longer be descriptive; a location previously referred to as "the new town" may now have the proper name Newtown though it is no longer new and is now a city rather than a town. (emphasis mine)
- You say
"Per the RM, specificity of referent can also occur through the use if the definite article (the)."
but proper names seems pretty clear on that too:proper names in their primary application cannot normally be modified by articles or another determiner
. So if you have to modify it with a the to make it into a specific referent, then it isn't a proper name. TurboSuperA+(connect) 11:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)