Wikipedia talk:How to edit a real time update

message: To all readers: please review the edit history of this page and consider restoring the removal of flames and precis I made in  and  Mr. Jones 21:51, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of flames 

message: Please note that this is in no way official Wikipedia policy and should not be taken as such. violet/riga (t) 07:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a proposal - opened for comment, that's the right thing to do.  I think the general idea that ITN tends to be somewhat US-centric is valid.  I think this proposal could be modified into a set of suggestions for rebalancing that - a list of places to look and things to consider.  As a set of rules it's too prescriptive for my taste, but developed into suggestions it could be useful -- sannse (talk) 12:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the three days between the original post and your reply the article has been changed quite a bit, including the articles name. violet/riga (t) 17:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A lie. The guidelines have remained exactly the same, but the other sections were added and the Template changed into a Wikipedia page. This can easily be confirmed by looking at older versions of the VP News section or other pages. -- Simonides 20:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I have to spell everything out for you?  I never said the entire article contents had changed, just that the article had.  That referred to the structure and the fact that it is now a vote which, previously, it was not.  This was, after all, a thread about the guidelines and that was to what I was talking about.  violet/riga (t) 20:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: What silly contortionism - are you as stupid as you assume your readers to be? "The article has been changed quite a bit - I meant the article had changed, not the contents - I meant the structure - I mean it was not a vote - (and what does "that was to what I was talking about" mean anyway?)" ...  to avoid getting your panties in a knot you should 1) clarify the facts to yourself; 2) not transplant Talk pages from different contexts (your comments belonged to the Template), to spite the creator of the article; 3) not pretend that the context hasn't changed, then decry loudly that the context has changed when your complaints are shown to be hollow. -- Simonides 21:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any idea what you're talking about?  Poor thing, you're very confused, aren't you? I never contradicted myself at any point but you seem to have been unable to understand simple English.  Please learn how to interpret the written word correctly. violet/riga (t) 21:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Before you pity anyone and commence a monograph on the interpretation of simple English, I suggest you find out whether "that was to what I was talking about" makes sense in any language. -- Simonides 21:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: While a slight butchering of the English language, I admit, I think it's quite easy to understand.  Not for you, it would seem.  Look, this is senseless – you're being stupidly petty and taking things the wrong way.  You don't even know my view of the policy suggestion because you're blanking things out due to your disregard for my opinion.  Please stop being so defensive – I disagree with you and have expressed some of my opinions.  The only chance you have of getting this policy through is to change some parts of it.  If you bothered to listen to any suggestions I have then perhaps you'd get somewhere – communication is the best way to resolve disagreements, not petty arguments. violet/riga (t) 21:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: You've done much more than disagree with me, you've gone out of your way to disrupt my efforts at finding a public for a genuine complaint - If I'm "stupidly petty", you're off the chart. As for making the general idea of this policy go through, I am going to find a way to do it - I see it has already had an effect on the news editors of the past two weeks. If you wish to help, you're welcome to make suggestions here, as I've requested other no-voters to do; but being obstructive is hardly the same as awaiting or requesting discussion (which you never tried to initiate) and you should not confuse the two. -- Simonides 22:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not disrupted the suggustion or been obstructive - please show me any example where I have.  What I have done is stopped you enforcing the policy without proper discussion.  I've not made any suggestions because I've been too busy arguing stupidities with you. violet/riga (t) 22:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I can come up with several examples of your disruption, and you know what they are. Nevertheless, if you have any actual suggestions to make, please do make them below. -- Simonides 22:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of any examples.  As for suggestions the main one is to shrink the whole policy down a huge amount and turn it into a guideline.  I too hate the Americocentric aspects of Wikipedia and want to stop it, but to write such a strict guideline is going to cause edit wars, decrease the interest in updating it and generally suffer from instruction creep. A polite notice on the ITN page is sufficient, imo. violet/riga (t) 23:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I have more than one intention - I don't want just want to make the Current Events and ITN pages less Americentric but also 1) more global (ie I don't want Americentric items to be replaced simply by UK or Eurocentric items); 2) more encyclopaedic, ie pertaining to issues that might be little known among the public but important, ex. science or art news or political issues in little-known countries - this helps to attract attention to the weaker areas of Wikipedia and improve them; 3) less tabloidish, which they are on occasion. The lengthy guidelines are meant to help people out of the usual rut, rather than make them balk, though of course they could be shortened; if the first two points are taken care of then everything else should follow, ie the lack of interesting/ diverse/ etc material. -- Simonides 23:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the people that edit the current events and ITN pages get their information from American or European news sources.  Those sources themselves are totally biased and finding information about goings-on around the world are hard to find.  What is important to people in, for example, the UK is the hunting ban not the thousands of people dieing in wars around the world.  It's sad, but that's the case.  Yes I'm all for getting people more aware of the crap that goes on outside of our media-led world but it's difficult to do that when our sources are based on those very same media.  My favoured course of action is to see a news team (perhaps a wikiproject or a linkup with the new Wikinews project) be put in charge of ITN at the very least.  Indeed, with Wikinews being globally updated this could solve all the problems. violet/riga (t) 23:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not official policy 

message: I presume somewhere there is a list of all countries. Perhaps we could "adopt" countries (at random?) and their surrounding regions and seek out stories and information about them. Making commitments to cover a country and listing the results would improve the wikipedia and be something to be measured by. Mr. Jones 21:10, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Adopt a country

message: Just put "Nophilos" (No philosophy) or Nephilim as the time code, and have autocomplete update in real time.
Brendan Lloyd 219.90.231.18 (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Janus Code