User talk:Joeldl

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Image:Anglospeak.svg[edit]

The main point is that the dark blue is where English is used both by many of the people and also as a language of government administration, and your edits seemed to make this less clear. Apparently some individuals in the past have complained about Quebec being colored the same as the rest of Canada, and the Quebec passage was an answer to such objections... AnonMoos 15:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that some people had (bizarre) objections in the past is a reason for singling Quebec out.
You say, opaquely, "used" by many people, but how could an official language not be used. For example, I'm pretty sure that in Ghana, where English is official, it is also the main language used in education and the press, and yet Ghana is in light blue. I actually think that what you're getting at with "used" is that it's the mother tongue of a significant number of people, and I don't see why that shouldn't be made explicit. This is the main distinction between a country like Ghana and the ones in dark blue. Joeldl 02:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Just add to your comments that English is an official or de facto language of governmental administration in the dark-blue countries (except of course at a provincial level in Quebec), and things should be fine... AnonMoos 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Your comment about Quebec means that if it were a country, it shouldn't even be in light blue. I haven't mentioned Quebec, because then we'd have to talk about the provinces of Cameroon, various states of India, and many other subnational entities for which English is an official language at the national level only. Joeldl 03:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The above is a perfect example of why I say you are argumentative. After AnonMoos gave you a good suggestion, you continued arguing. Maybe you don't realize you are being argumentative. Perhaps that is why s/he stopped responding....ReveurGAM (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me for my frankness, but I feel it is necessary so that progress can be made on this image.

  1. I live in Indonesia and, aside from Internet sources, I have access to almost nothing. This problem is exacerbated by lack of time as a teacher and lack of money to purchase resources. There are scant resources in English in the library and stores, and official documents written in Indonesian are above my level of ability.
  2. Therefore, the suggestions are made "off the cuff" because of the lack of information on which I can base my suggestions. They are there as suggestions and broad guidelines which need to be honed down to more specific guidelines that can be supported by existing data. I do not expect that they will be accepted "as is."
  3. My feeling on the survey, which I believe you created(?), is that you made it to advance your own cause, which seems to be in violation of the neutrality rule. This is the impression I have been given by your comments to myself and others, and your deconstructionist approach. If you didn't want to be perceived this way, then you should have put up a notice on the relevant pages: English_language and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Anglospeak.svg, advising all interested parties of the existence of your survey? Don't worry, I've already done that. I fully expect that there will be those who disagree with me, but at least the survey will be useful because of many people's comments.
  4. You claim that you are not being argumentative, yet I get the opposite feeling. I do not see you trying to build consensus (other than your own) in a positive way. I see you negatively deconstructing others' suggestions and not providing supportive/positive suggestions to help them clarify and improve their ideas. If you really want this survey to succeed (as I do), you would do well to try to present your responses in a more positive way that offers compromises and helpful suggestions, instead of making people feel uncomfortable or just plain wrong. True, you refute things (such as my original 70%), but you tend to take a negative tack with your comments.
  5. I want this survey to succeed so that the map can become better. I agree that some countries are miscolored, and that many which are grey deserve another color. Can we please work towards a compromise instead of what is happening now?

I thank you very much for taking the time to make the survey. I think it's a good idea.ReveurGAM (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did create the survey. What I said was that I wasn't criticizing what you said just to be argumentative, but because it wasn't clear what was meant. The criteria you suggested are not easy to apply. To the extent I can understand them, they are also not the most appropriate ones for a map of the English-speaking world.
Thank you for giving notice of the survey at w:en:English language. However, the images on the Commons may be used at various articles on Wikipedias in various languages, so I don't think it's fair to accuse me of acting illegitimately on the basis that I didn't advertise the survey at that location. I don't think there's anything in my approach that is non-neutral. Joeldl (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have tried, again, to clarify myself. I apologize for any lack of clarity. I am giving suggestions from a broad perspective in the hopes that others will help to narrow them down to a more viable range.
If what I've suggested is not acceptable, so be it, but please help make better criteria instead of nitpicking. I certainly find the currently used criteria for the map are not adequate - and I think you do, too. I also sense you are frustrated that you have not been able to get the changes you want made to the map and I am actually trying to help you do that, albeit in a possibly different way than you expected.
I am not aware of other articles where the image is used, so I only put it on those two talk pages. Where DID you advertise your survey?
I am not trying to make you feel bad - I'm simply trying to make you aware of how you may be perceived because of the way you approach other people's comments. I was telling you how I felt. Feelings are a funny thing, and how you present your responses has an effect on other users' feelings. I wanted to make you aware of my feelings. My feelings do not define reality, merely my own limited perception. You are free to disagree with how I feel, but I suspect that Angr may feel the same way. If that is the case, then perhaps others also feel that way. You might consider revising your approach so that you are more constructive and working towards a consensus for all, instead of the way you're doing things now.ReveurGAM (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I did not advertise the survey. What I'm saying is that when questions are decided at the Commons, it is not practical to impose a requirement that things be advertised on Wikipedias. In any case, I don't appreciate the suggestion that I acted inappropriately because of that.
I don't feel I'm nitpicking. I think there are major problems with the suggestions you're making. At first, I tried to get you to clarify what you meant in order to facilitate discussion. After a certain amount of clarification, it appears that you favour criteria based on the influence of the various countries. I don't think that's appropriate for this map or easy to make precise. We can see if others agree. I doubt Angr will because in his answer to Question 1, he said that he favoured objective, straightforward criteria. Joeldl (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm banging my head over here. I did not suggest that you "acted inappropriately" - I suggested that people may perceive that you did. Again, it goes back to approach.
You may not be required to advertise your survey - but what is the point if you don't even advertise it in the most relevant place? Do you understand my point?
My criteria for PURPLE is based only partially on influence, but then you will see that when you read my response in the survey. That is not the basis of the other colors I suggested, and this is yet another example of your approach. You tend to take things in isolation for some cases, and you apply things to where they have not been applied for others. You accused me of basing my criteria on accents and other such poppycock, when I never had. Your very liberal interpretation of my suggestions, without appropriate suggestions of your own, leaves me at wits' end.
I don't know whether you are deliberately being difficult, or if you don't the capacity to read and understand things without distorting and redefining them, but either way I find your comments to be far less helpful than I'd hoped for, considering you are the creator of the survey. I have yet to see you provide a selection of criteria such as what I have provided. Put your money where your mouth is, or just stop hassling me.ReveurGAM (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that you want inclusion to be based on a combination of various factors, some of which I think are quite difficult to quantify. I don't think that's desirable. If you can find sources, then at least we'll have something to base our discussion on. As for my own preference, I've said what that was on the talk page. It would be based on straightforward criteria of official status and number of native speakers. Now I'd like to wait and hear what other people have to say about what's appropriate for the map. If people say they favour your system, or a system resembling yours, then we can talk about it again. Joeldl (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
As I've already mentioned, I am in a position where it is difficult for me to provide sources. You know that, yet you chose to state on the survey that the burden of providing proof goes to the person who suggests. We're dealing with a survey that is aimed at arriving at consensus, so that means no one person will be the creator of the new map rules - and then all people will be equally responsible for proof.
After I went home, I was thinking about the situation, and I've come to the conclusion that I need to apologize. I can see that my frustration over your inability to understand me has warped my perception of the situation. Also, I should have stated there that my suggestions were only general guidelines that needed refining. I don't believe I made that entirely clear, so that you felt you had to comment the way you did. That still doesn't, in my view, justify your approach, but I am sorry for over-reacting.ReveurGAM (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
ReveurGAM, my asking you for sources at that stage was because I thought that it was unlikely we would ever find sources that followed precisely the criteria you were suggesting, or that would tell us precisely the information you considered relevant in your classification. The criteria you were suggesting didn't seem appropriate for that reason. Joeldl (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed[edit]

21:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)