Talk:Yogurt/Archive 4

message: User:Ecoinus has been adding a section on "Goat-soybean yoghurt", which discusses a (published) research project by a Taiwanese graduate school student.  This product does not seem to be commercialized or widely used.  Ecoinus, could you please explain why you believe this product is worth mentioning in Wikipedia? Without some evidence that it is more than a research project, I don't think it belongs in the WP Yoghurt article.  Thanks, --Macrakis 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goat-soybean yoghurt

message: Really, guys, you have to stop arguing this now before more aggressive means are pursued to end this argument. —METS501 (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What did you hope to accomplish by sprotecting the article when the problem is vomituous amounts of talk page foam by registered users? SchmuckyTheCat 22:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The semi-protection was to counter vandalism on the main article, and was not related to this discussion.  If you would like more information, please contact Centrx, the administrator who actually protected the page. —METS501 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a WP policy that declares discussion should cease on an issue when consensus has not been reached?  Since silence implies agreement, threatening dissenters of the status quo to "stop arguing" seems illogical.  --Serge 00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, Serge. It also states "The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." Attempts to continue to squash debate are in violation of that policy, as far as I'm concerned. Additionally, there was no consensus prior. --Dscarth 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. This is what Daniel Folsom has been doing all along. He said he's going away soon, so we can take this up again in a bit. Let us all strive to address the question en earnest. That way, we'll reach a "robust" conclusion. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-27 15:53 15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact that you have no response to my hung jury example says something. But the point is there are more important things on this article, and we just debated this - why don't we move on to something more important - like citations or questionable sections. Cultural Freedom all you've done on this talk page is call people anti-american, I don't know how you think that's productive.danielfolsom 17:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel, I've done considerably more than call people anti-American. Look again. How I think it's productive? It helps others understand the basis of the irrational behavior of some here. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-29 17:33 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake - you've called people anti-american and irrational! Nice.danielfolsom 22:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, you have made a good point with the first contributor - but that's about it, and I've explained that A) we just voted on it - and a hung jury tends to stay hung for a while, B)the stay with the established spelling rule obviously over-rules the first contributor rule. But, that being said, one of your main tactics has been to use the conspiracy theory card - tryanist, anti-Americans, vote stackers.danielfolsom 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a common knowledge factor. Let's assume that you have a jury, and they can't decide on a verdict after a long time discussing it, so it's a mistrial. Now the case will be brought forward again, but with a different jury. Why? Because if it's the same jury, since there's no new information, you can expect the same result. So in this case, since it's the same people that will vote - you can expect the same result. So why focus on something so miniscule as a letter when you can in fact improve the article. It's like we're starting a company, and we need to decide how it's going to function and how we're going to get started, but we're too busy deciding if the chairs should be padded or not.
This article has missing citations - why isn't that being talked about on the talk page. I'd much rather have a well written fully sourced article called youghouert then an article with missing citations called yogurt or yoghurt, so rather than spend time (or more acurately wasting time) about an h - let's actually do something productive.danielfolsom 02:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the protection was probably to prevent an edit wardanielfolsom 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop now 

message: A request for mediation has been filed here.  The following have been listed as participants:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Please visit the request page to indicate your acceptance of mediation.  I urge you all to accept, as it doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere arguing on this talk page. —METS501 (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, usually I would, but I've just been mentally and emotionally worn out by this debate. If it was just about the name it would be easier, but the fact is it hasn't been about that name it's about the tactics used in the discussion. Feel free to still have it though, but if my opinion/input is needed then refer to my last comment on User talk:Serge Issakov, but I'm out. I'm just done.danielfolsom 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to be done, but it doesn't seem like some other would be.  Oh well, I respect your opinion. —METS501 (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe mediation is very premature.  --Serge 06:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Mediation was rejected because Daniel Folsom opted out.  That's fine, since I don't understand the point of going to mediation when those in favor of keeping the current name/style refuse to discuss the issue.  Here's the problem: if you're happy with the status quo, you have little incentive to work towards consensus, or even defend your position.  --Serge 07:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In all fairness we have discussed the issue, and feel free to take a look at archives 1,2 and 3 for why the name was kept the same.danielfolsom 13:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it has been discussed.  But we have not reached consensus, and you seek to stop discussing (not just by you, by everyone).  --Serge 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already replied to a simmilar comment - but due to odd spacing it might have been missed, so I'll just repeat.danielfolsom 15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a common knowledge factor. Let's assume that you have a jury, and they can't decide on a verdict after a long time discussing it, so it's a mistrial. Now the case will be brought forward again, but with a different jury. Why? Because if it's the same jury, since there's no new information, you can expect the same result. So in this case, since it's the same people that will vote - you can expect the same result. So why focus on something so miniscule as a letter when you can in fact improve the article. It's like we're starting a company, and we need to decide how it's going to function and how we're going to get started, but we're too busy deciding if the chairs should be padded or not.danielfolsom 15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Refusing mediation but continuing to argue is disingenuous at best. --Dscarth 15:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ignore the immediate irony of someone like you making that statement, but essentially I passed on mediation for multiple reasons. 1) Because I'm planning on leaving the debate soon - and mediation is so time consuming that I'd be locked into a huge ordeal. 2) We couldn't even start immediately because I may be out of town soon (hopefully) and I wouldn't have access to a computer. And by the way - I don't have to explain myself to an editor like you - I don't know where you get off making a comment like that - especially given that you've made a total of ... 9 mainspace edits, I have about 800 but I would still never say anything like that because it's not my accuse editors of not attending a very long process because I have no clue what's going on in their lives or what there motives are.danielfolsom 15:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If number of edits had something to do with quality of character or validity of debate, I guess you'd have won already.  --Dscarth 16:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Uhmm try reading the last sentence over.danielfolsom 19:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's about uncivil as I'm going to get. My point is there is no winner here. --Dscarth 19:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: I've combined the spelling and etymology sections into a single section; they had slightly different information in both. I believe I've merged the two properly, but there's still some etymological info that remains uncited. Please feel free to expand upon things. (In particular, if there are source/info about how ğ has historically been transliterated to English, I'd love to see it; the Ottoman Turkish language article isn't terribly complete.) --moof 02:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great start - I'll try to look up some on the g sometime in the next two days or so - a bit busy now, but again really amazing start, you were absolutely right to combine them and you did it fantastically.danielfolsom 03:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combination of spelling and etymology. 

message: For all the attention this article gets, I'm appalled at the state of it. Look at the references section—it's a mess. This is a strange article, for example, what is the reason that images are in this div float? There are many red links and s. You guys are strong editors, and know how to deal with vandalism, so I know it's not that that is keeping this article from becoming as good as it could be. ALTON .ıl 07:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job on the update - more on your talk.danielfolsom 11:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: NO. ONE spelling is to be used throughout the article. Accuracy has nothing to do with it. —JackLumber /tɔk/ 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, Jack is right on this. If the drinks section was a seperate article, we would use American spelling, but generally in articles we like to keep the same throughout. You can check out the Manual of Style for Wikipedia to get some more details.--danielfolsom 15:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disrepair