![]() |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Completely off topic, but I see from your userboxes that you are a fan of Firefly. I have been working hard on an article about a music artist I greatly enjoy, and he has a fan tribute song to the show which is wonderful, you might want to check it out. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi MjonirPants, your removal of that {{ POV-section}} tag suppresses good-faith discussion and was actually a DS violation. Could you please restore the tag until the concerns are fully addressed, or there is consensus to remove the tag? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 03:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
community is generally not very receptive to this sort of "But they did it first!" argument.I'm afraid you've misunderstood the situation. When the tag was removed, that established that adding it was controversial. Since it was controversial, it should have stayed off until we formed a consensus. When you added it back in, that was a DS violation, but one done in good faith, for the reasons you just expressed above. When I removed it, I did so as part of a larger edit intended to address the concerns expressed in that thread. That edit undid the DS violation. I'm sure there's someone who would argue that both of us should be sanctioned, and perhaps a few who would argue that I should be sanctioned and you should not. But, I believe we both know that the plurality (if not majority) of editors in a discussion over this particular issue would agree that reverting a DS violation should be permitted under most (if not all) circumstances. When considering that my reversion was done as part of an edit to bring the section closer to the version preferred by those who added it, I'm completely certain that the number of editors who would endorse it would increase significantly.
it is hard to see the removal of the tag in the middle of the dispute as anything other than an attempt to deligitimize your fellow editors' contributions.I'm afraid that's why WP:AGF is a policy. It may be hard to see it any other way, but it's beholden upon us to do so, until doing so becomes highly problematic. I assure you that my removal was due to the exact reasons I stated: I don't believe that any NPOV problems remain after making the edits I made. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Think about it, that would just lead to spiraling edit wars.No. The DS sanctions establish a particular state which is preferred. Namely, the state before the edit was made.
enforcing DS is simply not a valid excuse to further violate DS.That presumes that enforcing DS is violating DS, which is quite a stretch. There's been no community discussion on this that I'm aware of, however I've indicated my thoughts as to how such a discussion would go above.
And yes, I do feel like the various POV concerns that were raised have been delitigimized and ignored, partly by you.The POV concerns which have been raised early on were vague and unspecific. Those have been essentially ignored, in favor of the issues I took with it in my first comment in that thread. I'm sorry, but I can't read minds. Without specific complaints, I can't address them. I have noted more specific and recent complaints, but I have not responded because I disagree with them and -again- I can't read minds. I don't know what edits would satisfy you or anyone else there. Hence my comments about only one side of the debate editing the section. With specific proposals, we can discuss them. But with nothing more than "phrase X is an NPOV violation", when phrase X is verifiable and worthy of inclusion, I can't really do anything except make alternate proposals. That is something I'm leery of doing because at times, it seems as if I'm the only editor in recent US politics articles to be willing to even entertain the notion of compromise, and one of a small handful willing to look outside my own political views. I'd rather not be berated by both sides for proposing something that should, by all rights, be acceptable to both sides. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
And yet, making alternate proposals is often an effective way to break a talk page logjam.Hence my comments about who's editing the section, and my suggestion to propose a draft.
The problem is often no sourcing, or language, or even redundancy, but overall quantity and what the appropriate level of summarization should be.Hence my comments about how you may be surprised at what I would support. I could see that section being half as long, yet still covering the important points. A well-written section that was half as long, but still pointed out what was wrong with the story and how we know that's wrong would be perfectly acceptable to me. Unless it contained some sort of apologetics or defense of the false claims, of course. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I personally hate Commons for the exact same reasons. Thank you for the heads-up! Could you reupload a copy here? The AfD rationale is wrong, but they are strange at Commons and may go along with it. Thanks!-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 05:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi MjolnirPants. I recently submitted a request for a cropped and colorized version of an image at the Graphic Labs. I don't know whether you are still active there or not but as you had done a great job back in January 2015 when you colorized a photo of the Duchess of Cambridge, I thought you might be able to do the same thing for this one as well. As far as I know the request hasn't been taken yet so I'll be so happy if you decide to work on it. Thanks. Keivan.f Talk 00:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Amirite? TimothyJosephWood 20:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you underestimate the sheer unfettered access to pornography and cat pictures that Orwell failed to predict.I just saw this, and I graciously concede the point. <wanders off to look at cat-porn-fail-copypasta-rickroll-memes> MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't bother me at all! As you have probably seen on my talk page many times before, many people use it to make casual conversation and have fun. Fine by me! It's kind of what it's there for in the first place (within policy of course) :-P ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
How did he get Unblocked? 72.168.128.134 ( talk) 22:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
A while back I made these: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Costume_Construction_Kit
However, it should be obvious that the figures are not as flexible as they could be.
Would you be interested in producing some updated versions of these that can be posed, so myself and other contributors, have to re-draw each new pose (my thinking is some of the balletic ones are missing) long-hand.
The costume construction kit pages also have various other clipart cutouts in them that it would be nice to have "poseable" as well..
In the very long term it would be nice to have some kind of "free" tool for croqui generation analagous to the Make Human tool for doing 3D human models, but as I've not found one online yet, I'm not hopeful of such a thing ever happening.. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 23:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
[Moving here so as not to clutter Talk:Bart Ehrman.]
No, bog standard four tildes. But I'll take out the em-dash to see if that's what's confusing the notifications code. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 08:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't think you're evil.
But you might have a witch in your ancestry. :-P 79.40.43.26 ( talk) 20:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
After a rebuild I no longer have whatever font it is Mjolnir is in. So now you are just SQUARESQUARESQAURESQUARESQUARESQUARESQUAREPants. That is all. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
much smaller stable build without all the crapI had heard such things were but a myth... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm actually seeing the same problem. I'm on the latest stable build of Google Chrome on OSX. AlexEng( TALK) 21:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I have been asked to write up an editorial for The Signpost. It is at User:Guy Macon/Draft of Signpost Editorial. If you have time, could you give it a quick look and correct any glaring errors you spot? Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
"The Wikipedia page on the wheat and chessboard problem explains that nothing can keep growing exponentially forever. In biology, the unwanted growth usually terminates at the death of the host. Exponential spending increases can often lead to the same undesirable result."
All good. I don't think classification of problem by means of growth alone is very solid, as described by my bit about childhood growth.I agree with that, but I think I was unclear earlier (Okay, I can plainly see that I was, my bad). What I meant was that the central point of the analogy is out-of-control growth, or at least the appearance thereof. In reality, it takes people at the WMF to direct this money, so the growth in spending is obviously being controlled, but that's just a weakness of the analogy. The strength is that it provides a framework to examine the issue in a way that leads us to question the motivations of those controlling the spending. Are they spending logically? The evidence Guy compiled seems to suggest not (though to be fair, it may be that a counter-argument could produce just as much or more evidence to suggest that it is). By the way, check out the latest version, I noticed the other day that Guy made some changes and said they were due to your comments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe someone needs to explain to him what a secondary source is [2], or maybe I misunderstand what "independent of the subject means". Slatersteven ( talk) 16:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven by coincidence I have only just been looking at the Talk page guidelines and WP:TALKNEW states "Don't address other users in a heading". You might like to consider a more neutral heading for this thread such as "primary or secondary sources". I leave this with MjolnirPants as it is their Talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to rub your ego... and it bit me! ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 23:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Bullshit.
They're direct comments on the long-term false narrative he's been peddling -- and SANCTIONED BY ARBCOM FOR -- regarding reliable sources and his misuse of them, and his FUD campaign to denigrate reliable sources. I strongly suggest you learn what personal attacks actually are before giving advice about them. -- Calton | Talk 09:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
De728631 (
talk) has given you a
Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!
You just made my day with the
calculus reference at Bish's talk page.
So please have a Royale with Cheese!
De728631 (
talk)
13:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{ subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:burger-munch}}!
@ De728631: I'm glad someone else found that as funny as I did. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Club Car. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Let me tell you something, You know a lot about ANI comments. You make the best ANI comments. They're terrific. Everyone agrees. :D Bravo! -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 07:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Should I be worried about this...because I feel like I should be worried about that. I...am extremely confused how that happens. TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear User:MjolnirPants, I apologize for my accidental click that caused a revert on your talk page. I hope you are doing well! With regards, Anupam Talk 20:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you a question with regards to your response over at the Trump dosser talk page. I'm not trying to change your mind, debate , etc. or else I would have brought this up at the talk page. I'm only asking for my edification, and asking you because you happen to be one of the last people to post there. You basically said Gregory's opinion was one of many, which is true. But that article is full of opinions, which you may not have reviewed because the Rfc was limited in scope. What makes one person's opinion more relevant than anothers? Is it not the relevant experience that truly matters when deciding if an opinion should be included? If you haven't read the entire article, could you please do so? While the question of whether or not Grregory has expertise in matters of intelligence gathering is a fair point, that litmus test doesn't seem like it has been applied to the other attributed opinions. Thanks for listening. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 04:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
MP,
this started with some bad english. It does not really allow to decide whether to give due weight to the "exponential" or the "nine-fold" side of the statement, but the real problem is that there is no reference backing up the paragraph. I'm no expert in drug overload, so I had in mind to add a "reference needed" template, in the hope that somebody else can help; have no idea where to find such a template. Can I ask you to point me in the right direction?
Thanks! 79.40.43.26 ( talk) 19:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
"fix, don't edit war" you said when you created the phrase "The idea was published, notably from the geographer Carl Sauer".
I was not trying to edit war. I honestly hadn't a clue what you were trying to say. There was no way I could fix it. Now you've left it as "The idea was published by the geographer Carl Sauer,[10] but was generally ignored by the scientific community thereafter".
What idea? It wasn't his idea, it was Hardy's. Carl Sauer responded to the idea as I said in the first place.
Over to you. Chris55 ( talk) 00:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I honestly hadn't a clue what you were trying to say.Your edit summary was "ungrammatical". If you have a problem with the grammar of an edit, then fix the grammar, don't just hit revert. See this diff which compares my two edits for an example of how to fix something.
What idea? It wasn't his idea, it was Hardy's.What do you mean "What idea?" The sentence doesn't say "his idea" it says "the idea". You can't figure out that it's the subject of the article from the context of it, you know, being in the article? Hell, the more specific subject of the article also being the subject of the sentences preceding it and following it also didn't also make it clear? Don't be disingenuous, and stop fighting over the article. You're only hurting yourself with the way you've approached this. I mean, I'm seriously trying to help you and you're just fighting me every step of the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
If you don't recognize that the sentence that I quoted above is ungrammatical, it will be hard to have a conversation.If you can't describe what is ungrammatical about it, then it's not. And you haven't pointed out any grammatical problems with it, instead you're saying it doesn't accurately reflect the source. But you're ignoring that it wouldn't have accurately reflected the source in the version you reverted to. So just fix it, then! I haven't read the source, I put my trust in you and the other proponents working on this article that it did so. If that trust was misplaced, then complaining about it on my talk page as if it were my doing is just disingenuous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"The idea was published...from...Carl Sauer".That quote does not appear in my edit. My edit made it say "The idea was published by the geographer Carl Sauer..."[emphasis added], which you accurately quoted above. Ideas can most certainly be published by people. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Kindly note your user name was listed in category, though it was not your page creation. This has been done under section G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. Thanks. Junosoon ( talk) 11:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
... enjoy this. I hope.
87.19.188.227 ( talk) 18:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The level of 'red mist' that jps induces in me makes it not worth my while having any interaction with him. The article can go to the dogs for me - you know, the fat, bald, aquatic dogs. - Urselius ( talk) 09:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm actually very interested in knowing what the specific claims that aren't true actually are. If you don't mind telling me here, I'd appreciate it. I like improving. jps ( talk) 18:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "
Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
04:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Plant. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to complain, since I think many uninvolved users would have closed the same way if they even bothered, but I think it was technically out of line for you to close in line with your own previously expressed opinion. The TBAN was still on the table, and if one discounts the trolling/hounding and canvassed !votes, the ban had significantly more supports than opposes. An uninvolved admin might have chosen to do so or not, but given that you had already said Give them a stern warning and let David mentor them
. We'll see if the IDHT continues or gets worse now (I honestly think it got worse again once it looked like the TBAN was off the table). I hope I don't have to be the one to open the next ANI discussion.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
06:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
with the disruption endedAs I think I stated on ANI, the disruption appeared to have largely subsided while the TBAN was on the table, then returned in a minor but visible way when it looked like "consensus" was gathering against it, then dissipated again once "this user was canvassed" tags were placed below several of the oppose !votes and the trolling IP comments were collapsed. But look at his latest response to me on his talk page, now that you've formally closed the discussion. IDHT, IDHT, IDHT. I explained to him the difference between a user essay and a Wikipedia essay that most users take as normative (with one of three or four reasons being the tiny number of pages where users have cited the former), and his response was "It's not about the number of links". Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 21:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry to put this on you, but ... well, you probably haven't noticed, but I haven't contributed much article content in the last two weeks. Part of if is that I've been busy IRL (some of my students graduated, I then left the school and had to say goodbye to the rest of them, I visited Tokyo for the Saint Patrick's Day weekend, post-finishing at school I had to attend to a bunch of office work, including designing a sample lesson, translating it into Japanese, and then translating all my colleagues' sample lessons, binge-watching the latest Marvel Netflix show, which sucked and made me depressed), but I still find myself having to constantly react to being pinged/mentioned on various noticeboards and user talk pages, which I really wish wasn't happening.
Anyway, this comment was unnerving. I already asked him to retract it, but I'd really rather not have to go into detail about why it's inappropriate to speak that way to someone who's going out of their way to help you.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Why should I? I'm not an admin.could be interpreted differently, and the fact you still haven't done what I requested despite repeated requests supports my initial interpretation. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if you're up to speed on the argument from authority thingI'm not; I checked his contribs and saw him editing an article thay didn't appear to be related to right-wing news media and online social media, and took it as a good sign, but I didn't look into the discussion beyond that. I actually didn't even know Ender had a history with Ponyo (?). Anyway, now that someone other than me has told him that he's still being mentored, maybe he'll return to where he was in the last few days of the ANI thread. We might be creating a civil POV-pusher, but that's at least better than an uncivil POV-pusher.
Have you ever heard of a prediction market? I'm rather fascinated by their accuracy, and I see WP in a similar light: The more editors we get, the more accurate we can be. There are a number of logical reasons for this that I don't want to go into now. So I don't really agree that WER is a bad thing, but I do agree with your complaints. I think WER is going about retaining editors in the wrong way. IMHO, editor retention should take the form of an outreach and educational activity which takes the form of teaching people (not just Wikipedians, but explicitly including them) how to evaluate sources and sift through rhetoric to find facts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
we have just as many people who are anti-Christian and they want to grab onto this(his emphasis) but both groups are significant.
This is mostly to @ Hijiri88:: (1) I agree that the diff you provided at top is inappropriate behavior by Endercase. I just notified him in his mentor section here. However, I have no recollection of ever being told about this diff. If you insist you told me, show me where. (2) Also, I never said I would stop mentoring Endercase. Please do not make things up like that. I continue to talk to him. I am not as quick to scold him so frequently. I am trying to encourage good editing and discussion as is going on at Appeal to authority. (3) He did not say he was going to stop receiving advice. He said that mentoring was "optional". I think he is technically correct. That does not mean he won't listen. But I do think there is too much stick and not enough carrot. (4) He did not close the mentoring section as you allege. It is still there [6]. He just added archiving on his talk page [7] (see edit note) that he thought was stale, which I *told* him he could do, when he asked here. It looks like he may have done it wrong. If he did it wrong, help him. Geez. Please assume good faith. All these false bad faith allegations are just making things worse. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Hijiri88:I just noticed your link to the Ehrman/Price debate (moderated by Matt Dillahunty, no less!) and I'm listening to it now. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I was about to repost on my page with the jpg from Big Trout, before realising it was really really big. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
If this was a subtle reference, I don't get it. Wrong thread? Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Please do not remove the tag without fixing the problem. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not interested in talking to people who are lying about my motivations, so I'll reply to you here, rather than on that page, to keep the kibitzers out. The crux of the matter is: finally being able to use the list of redlinked categories is apparently so useless that the person I was talking to may actually have to go back to writing articles. The conflict was presented as "selfish goof-offs allowing damage to the encyclopedia" vs. "selfless encyclopedia maintainers", but the person I was talking to is admitting that, once you remove all the user page stuff, there are hardly any other problems to "maintain". Ultimately, my point is, I shouldn't have to convince anyone that other redlinked categories are funny; I don't even have to think they're really funny myself; I simply liked having them, and it turns out that once you get rid of them, no significant benefit is actually achieved. If there were a significant benefit, I wouldn't have said anything; but there apparently isn't. I don't know why the third person in that thread is upset that I'm not happy about it, to the point where they need set up ridiculous strawman motivations on my part; I'd have thought winning would be enough. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I want to resolve the dispute over the E&E, but it seems you do not wish to answer any more good faith questions. What do you expect me to do? I can wait and eventually if nothing else happens consider consensus has been established and starting editing on that understanding. I don’t know what you would do at that point, are you going to start reverting my changes and still not answer my good faith questions? That’s rather WP:Tendentious editing. Would you rather try mediation or something else to try to resolve the content dispute? - Obsidi ( talk) 23:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article"". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 April 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
01:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article", to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
16:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Can you look over the article, especially the last subsection of the "Research" section? jps ( talk) 15:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
[8] Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I just now read your comment, and while I agree with most of it, you mentioned YouTube comments, and I last week encountered one of those that essentially amounted to "Kill the [name of religio-ethnic group]". (You can guess what the word I cut out was, as it's pretty obvious. I just didn't want to repeat the exact phrase on Wikipedia.) I would honestly have no qualms calling direct incitements to violence themselves "violent". This has nothing whatsoever to do with blocking on Wikipedia. Just that you mentioned YouTube comments as something that are inherently non-violent. I'm sure if some more of Martin and Ehrman's videos had comments enabled they'd be a magnet for comments like the one I saw last week... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot ( talk) 04:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Completely off topic, but I see from your userboxes that you are a fan of Firefly. I have been working hard on an article about a music artist I greatly enjoy, and he has a fan tribute song to the show which is wonderful, you might want to check it out. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi MjonirPants, your removal of that {{ POV-section}} tag suppresses good-faith discussion and was actually a DS violation. Could you please restore the tag until the concerns are fully addressed, or there is consensus to remove the tag? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 03:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
community is generally not very receptive to this sort of "But they did it first!" argument.I'm afraid you've misunderstood the situation. When the tag was removed, that established that adding it was controversial. Since it was controversial, it should have stayed off until we formed a consensus. When you added it back in, that was a DS violation, but one done in good faith, for the reasons you just expressed above. When I removed it, I did so as part of a larger edit intended to address the concerns expressed in that thread. That edit undid the DS violation. I'm sure there's someone who would argue that both of us should be sanctioned, and perhaps a few who would argue that I should be sanctioned and you should not. But, I believe we both know that the plurality (if not majority) of editors in a discussion over this particular issue would agree that reverting a DS violation should be permitted under most (if not all) circumstances. When considering that my reversion was done as part of an edit to bring the section closer to the version preferred by those who added it, I'm completely certain that the number of editors who would endorse it would increase significantly.
it is hard to see the removal of the tag in the middle of the dispute as anything other than an attempt to deligitimize your fellow editors' contributions.I'm afraid that's why WP:AGF is a policy. It may be hard to see it any other way, but it's beholden upon us to do so, until doing so becomes highly problematic. I assure you that my removal was due to the exact reasons I stated: I don't believe that any NPOV problems remain after making the edits I made. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Think about it, that would just lead to spiraling edit wars.No. The DS sanctions establish a particular state which is preferred. Namely, the state before the edit was made.
enforcing DS is simply not a valid excuse to further violate DS.That presumes that enforcing DS is violating DS, which is quite a stretch. There's been no community discussion on this that I'm aware of, however I've indicated my thoughts as to how such a discussion would go above.
And yes, I do feel like the various POV concerns that were raised have been delitigimized and ignored, partly by you.The POV concerns which have been raised early on were vague and unspecific. Those have been essentially ignored, in favor of the issues I took with it in my first comment in that thread. I'm sorry, but I can't read minds. Without specific complaints, I can't address them. I have noted more specific and recent complaints, but I have not responded because I disagree with them and -again- I can't read minds. I don't know what edits would satisfy you or anyone else there. Hence my comments about only one side of the debate editing the section. With specific proposals, we can discuss them. But with nothing more than "phrase X is an NPOV violation", when phrase X is verifiable and worthy of inclusion, I can't really do anything except make alternate proposals. That is something I'm leery of doing because at times, it seems as if I'm the only editor in recent US politics articles to be willing to even entertain the notion of compromise, and one of a small handful willing to look outside my own political views. I'd rather not be berated by both sides for proposing something that should, by all rights, be acceptable to both sides. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
And yet, making alternate proposals is often an effective way to break a talk page logjam.Hence my comments about who's editing the section, and my suggestion to propose a draft.
The problem is often no sourcing, or language, or even redundancy, but overall quantity and what the appropriate level of summarization should be.Hence my comments about how you may be surprised at what I would support. I could see that section being half as long, yet still covering the important points. A well-written section that was half as long, but still pointed out what was wrong with the story and how we know that's wrong would be perfectly acceptable to me. Unless it contained some sort of apologetics or defense of the false claims, of course. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I personally hate Commons for the exact same reasons. Thank you for the heads-up! Could you reupload a copy here? The AfD rationale is wrong, but they are strange at Commons and may go along with it. Thanks!-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 05:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi MjolnirPants. I recently submitted a request for a cropped and colorized version of an image at the Graphic Labs. I don't know whether you are still active there or not but as you had done a great job back in January 2015 when you colorized a photo of the Duchess of Cambridge, I thought you might be able to do the same thing for this one as well. As far as I know the request hasn't been taken yet so I'll be so happy if you decide to work on it. Thanks. Keivan.f Talk 00:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Amirite? TimothyJosephWood 20:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you underestimate the sheer unfettered access to pornography and cat pictures that Orwell failed to predict.I just saw this, and I graciously concede the point. <wanders off to look at cat-porn-fail-copypasta-rickroll-memes> MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't bother me at all! As you have probably seen on my talk page many times before, many people use it to make casual conversation and have fun. Fine by me! It's kind of what it's there for in the first place (within policy of course) :-P ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
How did he get Unblocked? 72.168.128.134 ( talk) 22:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
A while back I made these: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Costume_Construction_Kit
However, it should be obvious that the figures are not as flexible as they could be.
Would you be interested in producing some updated versions of these that can be posed, so myself and other contributors, have to re-draw each new pose (my thinking is some of the balletic ones are missing) long-hand.
The costume construction kit pages also have various other clipart cutouts in them that it would be nice to have "poseable" as well..
In the very long term it would be nice to have some kind of "free" tool for croqui generation analagous to the Make Human tool for doing 3D human models, but as I've not found one online yet, I'm not hopeful of such a thing ever happening.. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 23:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
[Moving here so as not to clutter Talk:Bart Ehrman.]
No, bog standard four tildes. But I'll take out the em-dash to see if that's what's confusing the notifications code. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 08:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't think you're evil.
But you might have a witch in your ancestry. :-P 79.40.43.26 ( talk) 20:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
After a rebuild I no longer have whatever font it is Mjolnir is in. So now you are just SQUARESQUARESQAURESQUARESQUARESQUARESQUAREPants. That is all. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
much smaller stable build without all the crapI had heard such things were but a myth... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm actually seeing the same problem. I'm on the latest stable build of Google Chrome on OSX. AlexEng( TALK) 21:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I have been asked to write up an editorial for The Signpost. It is at User:Guy Macon/Draft of Signpost Editorial. If you have time, could you give it a quick look and correct any glaring errors you spot? Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
"The Wikipedia page on the wheat and chessboard problem explains that nothing can keep growing exponentially forever. In biology, the unwanted growth usually terminates at the death of the host. Exponential spending increases can often lead to the same undesirable result."
All good. I don't think classification of problem by means of growth alone is very solid, as described by my bit about childhood growth.I agree with that, but I think I was unclear earlier (Okay, I can plainly see that I was, my bad). What I meant was that the central point of the analogy is out-of-control growth, or at least the appearance thereof. In reality, it takes people at the WMF to direct this money, so the growth in spending is obviously being controlled, but that's just a weakness of the analogy. The strength is that it provides a framework to examine the issue in a way that leads us to question the motivations of those controlling the spending. Are they spending logically? The evidence Guy compiled seems to suggest not (though to be fair, it may be that a counter-argument could produce just as much or more evidence to suggest that it is). By the way, check out the latest version, I noticed the other day that Guy made some changes and said they were due to your comments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe someone needs to explain to him what a secondary source is [2], or maybe I misunderstand what "independent of the subject means". Slatersteven ( talk) 16:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven by coincidence I have only just been looking at the Talk page guidelines and WP:TALKNEW states "Don't address other users in a heading". You might like to consider a more neutral heading for this thread such as "primary or secondary sources". I leave this with MjolnirPants as it is their Talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to rub your ego... and it bit me! ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 23:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Bullshit.
They're direct comments on the long-term false narrative he's been peddling -- and SANCTIONED BY ARBCOM FOR -- regarding reliable sources and his misuse of them, and his FUD campaign to denigrate reliable sources. I strongly suggest you learn what personal attacks actually are before giving advice about them. -- Calton | Talk 09:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
De728631 (
talk) has given you a
Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!
You just made my day with the
calculus reference at Bish's talk page.
So please have a Royale with Cheese!
De728631 (
talk)
13:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{ subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:burger-munch}}!
@ De728631: I'm glad someone else found that as funny as I did. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Club Car. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Let me tell you something, You know a lot about ANI comments. You make the best ANI comments. They're terrific. Everyone agrees. :D Bravo! -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 07:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Should I be worried about this...because I feel like I should be worried about that. I...am extremely confused how that happens. TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear User:MjolnirPants, I apologize for my accidental click that caused a revert on your talk page. I hope you are doing well! With regards, Anupam Talk 20:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you a question with regards to your response over at the Trump dosser talk page. I'm not trying to change your mind, debate , etc. or else I would have brought this up at the talk page. I'm only asking for my edification, and asking you because you happen to be one of the last people to post there. You basically said Gregory's opinion was one of many, which is true. But that article is full of opinions, which you may not have reviewed because the Rfc was limited in scope. What makes one person's opinion more relevant than anothers? Is it not the relevant experience that truly matters when deciding if an opinion should be included? If you haven't read the entire article, could you please do so? While the question of whether or not Grregory has expertise in matters of intelligence gathering is a fair point, that litmus test doesn't seem like it has been applied to the other attributed opinions. Thanks for listening. That man from Nantucket ( talk) 04:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
MP,
this started with some bad english. It does not really allow to decide whether to give due weight to the "exponential" or the "nine-fold" side of the statement, but the real problem is that there is no reference backing up the paragraph. I'm no expert in drug overload, so I had in mind to add a "reference needed" template, in the hope that somebody else can help; have no idea where to find such a template. Can I ask you to point me in the right direction?
Thanks! 79.40.43.26 ( talk) 19:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
"fix, don't edit war" you said when you created the phrase "The idea was published, notably from the geographer Carl Sauer".
I was not trying to edit war. I honestly hadn't a clue what you were trying to say. There was no way I could fix it. Now you've left it as "The idea was published by the geographer Carl Sauer,[10] but was generally ignored by the scientific community thereafter".
What idea? It wasn't his idea, it was Hardy's. Carl Sauer responded to the idea as I said in the first place.
Over to you. Chris55 ( talk) 00:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I honestly hadn't a clue what you were trying to say.Your edit summary was "ungrammatical". If you have a problem with the grammar of an edit, then fix the grammar, don't just hit revert. See this diff which compares my two edits for an example of how to fix something.
What idea? It wasn't his idea, it was Hardy's.What do you mean "What idea?" The sentence doesn't say "his idea" it says "the idea". You can't figure out that it's the subject of the article from the context of it, you know, being in the article? Hell, the more specific subject of the article also being the subject of the sentences preceding it and following it also didn't also make it clear? Don't be disingenuous, and stop fighting over the article. You're only hurting yourself with the way you've approached this. I mean, I'm seriously trying to help you and you're just fighting me every step of the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
If you don't recognize that the sentence that I quoted above is ungrammatical, it will be hard to have a conversation.If you can't describe what is ungrammatical about it, then it's not. And you haven't pointed out any grammatical problems with it, instead you're saying it doesn't accurately reflect the source. But you're ignoring that it wouldn't have accurately reflected the source in the version you reverted to. So just fix it, then! I haven't read the source, I put my trust in you and the other proponents working on this article that it did so. If that trust was misplaced, then complaining about it on my talk page as if it were my doing is just disingenuous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"The idea was published...from...Carl Sauer".That quote does not appear in my edit. My edit made it say "The idea was published by the geographer Carl Sauer..."[emphasis added], which you accurately quoted above. Ideas can most certainly be published by people. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Kindly note your user name was listed in category, though it was not your page creation. This has been done under section G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. Thanks. Junosoon ( talk) 11:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
... enjoy this. I hope.
87.19.188.227 ( talk) 18:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The level of 'red mist' that jps induces in me makes it not worth my while having any interaction with him. The article can go to the dogs for me - you know, the fat, bald, aquatic dogs. - Urselius ( talk) 09:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm actually very interested in knowing what the specific claims that aren't true actually are. If you don't mind telling me here, I'd appreciate it. I like improving. jps ( talk) 18:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "
Request to overturn administrator's decision". Thank you. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
04:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Plant. Legobot ( talk) 04:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to complain, since I think many uninvolved users would have closed the same way if they even bothered, but I think it was technically out of line for you to close in line with your own previously expressed opinion. The TBAN was still on the table, and if one discounts the trolling/hounding and canvassed !votes, the ban had significantly more supports than opposes. An uninvolved admin might have chosen to do so or not, but given that you had already said Give them a stern warning and let David mentor them
. We'll see if the IDHT continues or gets worse now (I honestly think it got worse again once it looked like the TBAN was off the table). I hope I don't have to be the one to open the next ANI discussion.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
06:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
with the disruption endedAs I think I stated on ANI, the disruption appeared to have largely subsided while the TBAN was on the table, then returned in a minor but visible way when it looked like "consensus" was gathering against it, then dissipated again once "this user was canvassed" tags were placed below several of the oppose !votes and the trolling IP comments were collapsed. But look at his latest response to me on his talk page, now that you've formally closed the discussion. IDHT, IDHT, IDHT. I explained to him the difference between a user essay and a Wikipedia essay that most users take as normative (with one of three or four reasons being the tiny number of pages where users have cited the former), and his response was "It's not about the number of links". Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 21:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry to put this on you, but ... well, you probably haven't noticed, but I haven't contributed much article content in the last two weeks. Part of if is that I've been busy IRL (some of my students graduated, I then left the school and had to say goodbye to the rest of them, I visited Tokyo for the Saint Patrick's Day weekend, post-finishing at school I had to attend to a bunch of office work, including designing a sample lesson, translating it into Japanese, and then translating all my colleagues' sample lessons, binge-watching the latest Marvel Netflix show, which sucked and made me depressed), but I still find myself having to constantly react to being pinged/mentioned on various noticeboards and user talk pages, which I really wish wasn't happening.
Anyway, this comment was unnerving. I already asked him to retract it, but I'd really rather not have to go into detail about why it's inappropriate to speak that way to someone who's going out of their way to help you.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Why should I? I'm not an admin.could be interpreted differently, and the fact you still haven't done what I requested despite repeated requests supports my initial interpretation. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if you're up to speed on the argument from authority thingI'm not; I checked his contribs and saw him editing an article thay didn't appear to be related to right-wing news media and online social media, and took it as a good sign, but I didn't look into the discussion beyond that. I actually didn't even know Ender had a history with Ponyo (?). Anyway, now that someone other than me has told him that he's still being mentored, maybe he'll return to where he was in the last few days of the ANI thread. We might be creating a civil POV-pusher, but that's at least better than an uncivil POV-pusher.
Have you ever heard of a prediction market? I'm rather fascinated by their accuracy, and I see WP in a similar light: The more editors we get, the more accurate we can be. There are a number of logical reasons for this that I don't want to go into now. So I don't really agree that WER is a bad thing, but I do agree with your complaints. I think WER is going about retaining editors in the wrong way. IMHO, editor retention should take the form of an outreach and educational activity which takes the form of teaching people (not just Wikipedians, but explicitly including them) how to evaluate sources and sift through rhetoric to find facts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
we have just as many people who are anti-Christian and they want to grab onto this(his emphasis) but both groups are significant.
This is mostly to @ Hijiri88:: (1) I agree that the diff you provided at top is inappropriate behavior by Endercase. I just notified him in his mentor section here. However, I have no recollection of ever being told about this diff. If you insist you told me, show me where. (2) Also, I never said I would stop mentoring Endercase. Please do not make things up like that. I continue to talk to him. I am not as quick to scold him so frequently. I am trying to encourage good editing and discussion as is going on at Appeal to authority. (3) He did not say he was going to stop receiving advice. He said that mentoring was "optional". I think he is technically correct. That does not mean he won't listen. But I do think there is too much stick and not enough carrot. (4) He did not close the mentoring section as you allege. It is still there [6]. He just added archiving on his talk page [7] (see edit note) that he thought was stale, which I *told* him he could do, when he asked here. It looks like he may have done it wrong. If he did it wrong, help him. Geez. Please assume good faith. All these false bad faith allegations are just making things worse. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Hijiri88:I just noticed your link to the Ehrman/Price debate (moderated by Matt Dillahunty, no less!) and I'm listening to it now. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I was about to repost on my page with the jpg from Big Trout, before realising it was really really big. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
If this was a subtle reference, I don't get it. Wrong thread? Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Please do not remove the tag without fixing the problem. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not interested in talking to people who are lying about my motivations, so I'll reply to you here, rather than on that page, to keep the kibitzers out. The crux of the matter is: finally being able to use the list of redlinked categories is apparently so useless that the person I was talking to may actually have to go back to writing articles. The conflict was presented as "selfish goof-offs allowing damage to the encyclopedia" vs. "selfless encyclopedia maintainers", but the person I was talking to is admitting that, once you remove all the user page stuff, there are hardly any other problems to "maintain". Ultimately, my point is, I shouldn't have to convince anyone that other redlinked categories are funny; I don't even have to think they're really funny myself; I simply liked having them, and it turns out that once you get rid of them, no significant benefit is actually achieved. If there were a significant benefit, I wouldn't have said anything; but there apparently isn't. I don't know why the third person in that thread is upset that I'm not happy about it, to the point where they need set up ridiculous strawman motivations on my part; I'd have thought winning would be enough. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I want to resolve the dispute over the E&E, but it seems you do not wish to answer any more good faith questions. What do you expect me to do? I can wait and eventually if nothing else happens consider consensus has been established and starting editing on that understanding. I don’t know what you would do at that point, are you going to start reverting my changes and still not answer my good faith questions? That’s rather WP:Tendentious editing. Would you rather try mediation or something else to try to resolve the content dispute? - Obsidi ( talk) 23:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article"". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 April 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
01:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article", to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
16:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Can you look over the article, especially the last subsection of the "Research" section? jps ( talk) 15:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
[8] Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I just now read your comment, and while I agree with most of it, you mentioned YouTube comments, and I last week encountered one of those that essentially amounted to "Kill the [name of religio-ethnic group]". (You can guess what the word I cut out was, as it's pretty obvious. I just didn't want to repeat the exact phrase on Wikipedia.) I would honestly have no qualms calling direct incitements to violence themselves "violent". This has nothing whatsoever to do with blocking on Wikipedia. Just that you mentioned YouTube comments as something that are inherently non-violent. I'm sure if some more of Martin and Ehrman's videos had comments enabled they'd be a magnet for comments like the one I saw last week... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot ( talk) 04:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)