User talk:HWV258

Welcome
Hi! Can you give a &lt;wave&gt; to your colleagues on wpMOS for me? -  Amgine | t 04:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Not helpful"
I note your criticism of my response to Peter1's efforts to remake this project's Style Guide is you second edit to the project; let me throw your own words back in your face, that is not helpful. This is not Wikipedia, there are not thousands of contributors. One person's jihad to change a policy they, apparently, never intend to put to use - by writing in the main namespace - is taking up the time of three or four _real_ contributors. It is borderline disruption, and your response is unwarranted. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding to my post, however I must observe that you have made no attempt to address the concern I raised.  HWV258 . 09:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will also note the following about Brian's post:
 * I'm guessing that "Peter1" should be "Tony1".
 * To offer to "throw your own words back in your face" is an unhelpful and combative approach.
 * "Jihad" refers to a religious duty by Muslims and is therefore a poorly selected word in this context.
 * "...they, apparently, never intend to put to use..." is an assumption.
 * As to "unwarranted": on the contrary, anyone has the right to ask polite questions, and to expect relevant replies on a wiki site.
 *  HWV258 . 10:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I meant Tony1 - it was early. Let me, once again, use the link I pointed Tony1 to, and the one I pointed you to meritocracy, and WN:NOT. With a community of less than 30 regular contributors, entangling over 10% of that base in debate over policy is disruption.
 * Do you intend to make main namespace contributions here? Do you, or Tony1, have relevant journalistic experience? What have either of you written in a news style? It is fundamentally different from encyclopedic work. Tony's edits to both WN:SG and the guideline template demonstrated a 'lack of clue' in that regard.
 * As to not responding on the SG talk - check the page history to see why I refrained; there is so much excess verbiage that it exceeds the limits of my 3G device. Oh, and I assume Amgine's above sarcasm is lost on you? --Brian McNeil / talk 10:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Brian, I have not yet responded to your comments on the SG talk page, but a few things you've said here warrant an immediate rejoinder.
 * 1) Actually, sarcasm is inappropriate on a wiki, and one would expect a bureaucrat and ex-arb to be discouraging it, not reinforcing it with another negative comment.
 * 2) I see you have linked to WN:NOT. Could I point out that you have seriously breached No. 5 in your recent posts on the SG talk page and my user talk page: "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement." You have done all three to me, yet we look to you as an example.
 * 3) I see no rules about eligibility to contribute to Wikinews—in particular whether a user has contributed to mainspace, or intends to, or has journalistic experience. Wikinews, like other Foundation projects, requires input from users with a range of skill profiles, and the notion that there is some hoop one must jump through before daring to discuss a style guide is not helping the project.
 * 4) You have made it abundantly clear at the SG talk page, and no doubt elsewhere, that you hold en.WP in contempt. This is very damaging to WN, since WP is where most English-speaking wiki users are based, and you'd think it would be the ideal source of budding journalists you'd hope to attract here. You are right: 30 editors is far too few to run WN; why has the community remained so small? Dictating to editors what they will or will not contribute to, and insulting and denigrating them at the same time, is an odd way to recruit WN users you so desperately need. Labelling WP editors who come here as incompetent, or insisting that they write or copy-edit journalistic pieces before they dare to encourage the improvement of a style guide, is self-destructive for this project. Clothed in a notion of "meritocracy", you appear to discount that journalism is not an island unto itself, and requires a complex set of skills, or "merits".
 * 5) You leave open the suspicion that you feel your personal power might be threatened by an influx of en.WP editors (or even a slow trickle of them). That is my impression of the situation, and it is very sad. Please rethink your attitude to newcomers: I arrived as a friend to the project, and to its editors; not a threat; yet I have been treated as a criminal.
 * 6) The SG needs to be copy-edited, and others have said this too. I believe you, and Amgine, have a perfect opportunity to collaborate in this, imparting your particular knowledge and skills, rather than to slap down with abuse people who are willing to contribute, creating hurdles wherever you can. I will disregard the insults and put-downs, except to say that you have re-introduced several problems into the template text—things I note you introduced without consensus, unilaterally, only a few months ago. Yet you used my edit there to denigrate me further at SG talk.
 * Yes, as it happens, I do have journalistic experience, but that is not the business of anyone here. Where I want to contribute first to this project is neither anyone else's business. Tony1 (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tony1 for covering this. Yes, the lack of "assume good faith" at WN is an eye-opener. Like other newbies, whether I remain to help a project depends on my initial impressions and reception.
 * Brian, your arguments hinge on a foundation of "disruption", and you claim that the basis for that "disruption" is that there are not enough established editors to handle the issues being raised. Please don't mix your perception of the need to address the well-intentioned actions of editors such as Tony1 with the inability of this project to attract sufficient numbers to handle the daily workload. Have you considered why there are (by your own admission) too few editors on this project? With respect, the ownership issues I've witnessed within the first day might be a clue.
 * Tony1's point about there being different dimensions of skill is important. Article writing, administration, clean-up, policy-setting, policing etc. are all different dimensions required for a successful collaborative project. Few can claim to be good in all areas, so editors should apply their skills appropriately. It is not healthy when one editor feels it is their duty to roam freely over all areas of a project. The tighter you squeeze a handful of sand, the more grains will fall out. Brian, perhaps it's time to take a deep breath, take a step back, and wait to see what experienced editors such as Tony1 and Greg L have to contribute? WN won't implode because of edits to the Style Guide, so why don't we all take the time to evaluate what is being proposed?
 * Regarding "Oh, and I assume Amgine's above sarcasm is lost on you": Brian, I've responded to Amgine's comment as I intended.
 *  HWV258 . 20:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)