User talk:Bucoli

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Bucoli, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions on Discrimination templates

Since both you and Rainbowofpeace are relatively new editors I will ask you both to read WP:3RR if you have not already done so. You can take it that I am also warning myself by placing these messages. Even very experienced editors and sysops get blocked if they break the three reversion rule. The edit summaries have remained courteous and there are several ongoing conversations but it is time to work out further ideas for improvement on the talk page. --Mirokado (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination Template

I'm going to suggest a comprimise. First of all although you frustrate me to no end I respect what you are trying to do as an editor. You are right about alot of things I've done and I actually thank you for that. I will delete "Compulsory Sterilization" as it is not discrimination againist anyone really. Slavery is not necessarily based on your status in a group. Scapegoating is also not always a form of discrimination. Diversity is not part of discrimination. Police Brutality has nothing to do with discrimination. Respect also is not discrimination but related to the opposite. Tolerance is related to the opposite as well. Please readd the Ethnic/National forms as they are discrimination. And collapse the main forms. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's good reform work, well done Rainbowofpeace. It's often harder to cut back on things, than it is to add more on/in. Thank you again for the reform mindedness. Bucoli (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Status of religious freedom

I support your first edit to the template, but not your second. Dividing the list of countries into continents makes little sense for this topic; it adds an unnecessary (and arbitrary) layer of categorization to navigate and it makes the template unnecessarily larger in both its collapsed and expanded states. And it looks less sleek than the layout you had just before it. The complete list of countries in alphabetical order is quicker to use when you're surfing through countries. Overall, I think the second edit was not an improvement. AtticusX (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? There are something like 200+ nations today, so that's one very large block of text. It makes it a lot easier for people who want to navigate & conceptualise in the regional sense. Bucoli (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I appreciate your work very much, and I apologize for being so bold as to confront you directly about this matter. I am just singling out this issue because I had previously given it quite a bit of thought.

As far as ease of navigation, if the user has the name of the nation he wants in mind, the alphabetical list is easiest: all he has to do is scan down to that letter. Whereas in a list chopped up into collapsed continent sections, he must think, "Uh, what continent is that on?" (easier for familiar nations than unfamiliar ones, and with unfortunately ambiguous cases like Turkey, at least 50% of users will try the wrong continent first), then he clicks to expand the (hopefully correct) subsection, and then he has to scan for the country alphabetically anyway -- two separate searches instead of one. As of now, there are only about 80 nations in the list, not 200+. (That's how many "Freedom of religion in..." articles there are; there will eventually be more of course, but at this point the list is not excessively large for this context, and breaking it up only makes it more unwieldy). A unified alphabetical list is by far the simplest presentation in this case.

Besides my point that the division into continents makes a simple navigational task more complicated, my more important point is really that as far as regional conceptualisation, continents are a rather arbitrary division when dealing with religious freedom and other country-specific concepts. Freedom of religion does make sense organized by country, concept, and religion, which is why I was such a fan of your first version -- it drew attention to that organisational scheme. Three top layers were nice and simple and elegant. Your second version gives top-level emphasis to the continents, as though the religious freedom of a country had everything to do with which continent it's on or which countries it's near. Plenty of cases show that continental location has little to do with it -- just look at how different the approaches to religion can be in neighboring countries like India and Pakistan, for example. AtticusX (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see what you're saying, those are good points. Ok, make it one group. (If the list grows *huge* in years to come, then someone might divide it again). Best wishes, Bucoli (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for hearing me out. AtticusX (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-cultural sentiment

I have moved this template again for various reasons, please see Template_talk:Anti-cultural_sentiment#Anti-cultural_sentiment. Sorry I didn't notice the previous discussion first. --Mirokado (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Anti-cultural sentiment

Template:Anti-cultural sentiment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]