|
Archives
|
A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. You are also indirectly mentioned in this comment. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you reverted my edit adding a pointer to the Rhode Island "Bloodless Revolution" in the disambiguation header for Glorious Revolution. I think your revert was reasonable as the term and incident are both extremely niche. Google searching does suggest the term is used in the small number of academic history/political science texts that discuss the incident (eg a Google Books search). Would appreciate your feedback - do you think creating the redirect page Bloodless Revolution (Rhode Island) would be reasonable, or is this also excessive? GlobeGores ( talk page | user page) 23:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Really, only preserving one sentence from the Wild Cartoon Kingdom article for the merge into Chris Gore? Shameful. TheNewMinistry ( talk) 20:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
That userbox that I created about vindication has nothing to do with by upcoming three month ban if you were thinking that. That was the first time I created a userbox as well, and don't yet know how to do it right yet. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 02:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm concerned that when you merged Meddle Tour (as a result of the AfD), you added a bunch of unsourced content to a good article, thus violating the " factually accurate and verifiable" part of the criteria. In this instance, the point is somewhat moot as I've got some book sources here that I can use to resolve the issue, but I would just add a word of caution for future merges. Cheers! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
What should I do about repeated talk page rule violations? 27.33.119.160 ( talk) 22:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Please give one example of my wrongdoing? Don't remove edits. Aburh ( talk) 09:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 10:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
User:BlueboyLINY keeps deleting discussions on talk pages, then puts personal attacks on my talk page. User:BlueboyLINY has a WP:COI. 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 02:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Several motions have been proposed at the Jonathunder's use of admin tools in content disputes case request which you are a party to. You can view them here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
One year! |
---|
(looks like your 2021 talk didn't make it to the archive) - Prayer for Ukraine -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Terminally ironic complaint
|
---|
You are using socks on here for personal attacks. We know that. Stop please. Uyuyioiop ( talk) 16:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
|
pinging @ Primefac: here too, because they commented that it wasn't outing before I removed it.
My thought is that even though this is probably easily found through Googling, we still shouldn't be linking someone's physical address and phone number if they haven't disclosed on-wiki. Do either of you have info I don't on why this is OK? If you want to email instead, that's fine too. I know this was done in good faith, no worries on that front. if I'm overreacting, I'll undo it. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such informationRyan's user page already did post that information. I can't have "outed" information that was always "inned". Due to this site's history of doxxing for harassment, I understand why you, Floquenbeam, ad Barkeep49 are sensitive to this but I would not have posted what I did if I did not think it was already public. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [ [1]] Cheers Elinruby ( talk) 02:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Please add a paragraph to the Tiny Banker Trojan page that scammers often use this resource to convince victim's that they are 'infected' and they then proceed to ask for payment for 'removal' or other methods of extracting cash from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.129.57 ( talk) 16:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Thank you so much for the help you provided me. Also, about finding me some sources. A simple "Thank you" is not enough. That's why I decided to give you that start. Please continue to be as kind and nice you are now! Fisforfenia ( talk) 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
Hello. In your close, you wrote that The four options can roughly be divided into two "use" (Options 1 & 3) [sic] versus two "don't use" (Options 3 & 4) outcomes. It is overwhelmingly clear by both the number and strength of arguments that the discussion participants rejected the latter two options, making this discussion more about under what condidtions use of the Skeptical Inquirer is acceptable.
Your close seems to be a
WP:SUPERVOTE that rejects the ability of users to make a determination as to whether the source, in its area of expertise is considered to be
WP:GREL or not. You more or less sidestepped addressing any of the substantial arguments within the discussion—the extent to which the source has
as editorial control or a reputation for fact-checking.
WP:SOURCE (a part of
WP:V, a core content policy) states that we should [b]ase articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
. That policy also notes that the publisher of the work can affect reliability, so I really don't see any direct contradictions with policy here. I'd kindly ask that you withdraw your close and instead allow for someone to substantially address the arguments made as to the extent that SI has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as an organization, as well as the extent to which its editorial policies reflect or fail to reflect the typical qualities of
WP:SPS (which is, by the way, a policy). That there's a consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy
is tautological, but it's absolutely meaningless given substantial disagreements in the discussion over how those policies ought be interpreted and applied. If there's no consensus as to this in the discussion, then it's fine to say it, but the close as written seems like a supervote against the concept of there being a difference between Option 1 and Option 2 in the standard source reliability RfC. —
Mhawk10 (
talk) 19:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
it would have been an actual supervote to do what you ask and express an opinion of which was true, I'm also not asking you to express a personal opinion on which is true. I'm asking you to provide a closing summary of a lengthy discussion that addresses how the various participants approached the issue and to ascertain the consensus by examining the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of the issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. I don't really see a basis for the statement that the 4-option RfC
can roughly be divided into two "use" (Options 1 & 2) versus two "don't use" (Options 3 & 4) outcomes, nor does it seem to have been a point of discussion in the actual RfC. This matters in a number of areas, such as FAC that requires
high-quality reliable sourcesas opposed to marginally reliable ones, as well as for citations that support contentious claims in biographies of living people. These are some of the exact sorts of things that were discussed in the RfC. If there's is or is not consensus as to these use cases, that's fine, but the absence of any mention thereof in the closing summary amounts to sidestepping the dispute wholly based upon arguments that participants themselves did not so much as attempt to make. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 20:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
[t]he only way that this would have been decidable is on a simple headcounting basis, that sounds an awful lot like a "no consensus" close in light of WP:DETCON, seeing as headcounting is not how consensus is ascertained. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 20:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Closure_review_of_the_Skeptical_Inquirer_RSN_RfC. Thank you.— Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023! | |
Hello, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023. |
Two years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, you closed this RFC. I had some questions, but since you have been inactive, I started a discussion here. Thanks, Politrukki ( talk) 19:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
|
Archives
|
A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. You are also indirectly mentioned in this comment. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you reverted my edit adding a pointer to the Rhode Island "Bloodless Revolution" in the disambiguation header for Glorious Revolution. I think your revert was reasonable as the term and incident are both extremely niche. Google searching does suggest the term is used in the small number of academic history/political science texts that discuss the incident (eg a Google Books search). Would appreciate your feedback - do you think creating the redirect page Bloodless Revolution (Rhode Island) would be reasonable, or is this also excessive? GlobeGores ( talk page | user page) 23:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Really, only preserving one sentence from the Wild Cartoon Kingdom article for the merge into Chris Gore? Shameful. TheNewMinistry ( talk) 20:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
That userbox that I created about vindication has nothing to do with by upcoming three month ban if you were thinking that. That was the first time I created a userbox as well, and don't yet know how to do it right yet. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 02:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm concerned that when you merged Meddle Tour (as a result of the AfD), you added a bunch of unsourced content to a good article, thus violating the " factually accurate and verifiable" part of the criteria. In this instance, the point is somewhat moot as I've got some book sources here that I can use to resolve the issue, but I would just add a word of caution for future merges. Cheers! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
What should I do about repeated talk page rule violations? 27.33.119.160 ( talk) 22:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Please give one example of my wrongdoing? Don't remove edits. Aburh ( talk) 09:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – AssumeGoodWraith ( talk | contribs) 10:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
User:BlueboyLINY keeps deleting discussions on talk pages, then puts personal attacks on my talk page. User:BlueboyLINY has a WP:COI. 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 02:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Several motions have been proposed at the Jonathunder's use of admin tools in content disputes case request which you are a party to. You can view them here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
One year! |
---|
(looks like your 2021 talk didn't make it to the archive) - Prayer for Ukraine -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Terminally ironic complaint
|
---|
You are using socks on here for personal attacks. We know that. Stop please. Uyuyioiop ( talk) 16:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
|
pinging @ Primefac: here too, because they commented that it wasn't outing before I removed it.
My thought is that even though this is probably easily found through Googling, we still shouldn't be linking someone's physical address and phone number if they haven't disclosed on-wiki. Do either of you have info I don't on why this is OK? If you want to email instead, that's fine too. I know this was done in good faith, no worries on that front. if I'm overreacting, I'll undo it. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 22:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such informationRyan's user page already did post that information. I can't have "outed" information that was always "inned". Due to this site's history of doxxing for harassment, I understand why you, Floquenbeam, ad Barkeep49 are sensitive to this but I would not have posted what I did if I did not think it was already public. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [ [1]] Cheers Elinruby ( talk) 02:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Please add a paragraph to the Tiny Banker Trojan page that scammers often use this resource to convince victim's that they are 'infected' and they then proceed to ask for payment for 'removal' or other methods of extracting cash from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.129.57 ( talk) 16:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
Thank you so much for the help you provided me. Also, about finding me some sources. A simple "Thank you" is not enough. That's why I decided to give you that start. Please continue to be as kind and nice you are now! Fisforfenia ( talk) 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
Hello. In your close, you wrote that The four options can roughly be divided into two "use" (Options 1 & 3) [sic] versus two "don't use" (Options 3 & 4) outcomes. It is overwhelmingly clear by both the number and strength of arguments that the discussion participants rejected the latter two options, making this discussion more about under what condidtions use of the Skeptical Inquirer is acceptable.
Your close seems to be a
WP:SUPERVOTE that rejects the ability of users to make a determination as to whether the source, in its area of expertise is considered to be
WP:GREL or not. You more or less sidestepped addressing any of the substantial arguments within the discussion—the extent to which the source has
as editorial control or a reputation for fact-checking.
WP:SOURCE (a part of
WP:V, a core content policy) states that we should [b]ase articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
. That policy also notes that the publisher of the work can affect reliability, so I really don't see any direct contradictions with policy here. I'd kindly ask that you withdraw your close and instead allow for someone to substantially address the arguments made as to the extent that SI has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as an organization, as well as the extent to which its editorial policies reflect or fail to reflect the typical qualities of
WP:SPS (which is, by the way, a policy). That there's a consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy
is tautological, but it's absolutely meaningless given substantial disagreements in the discussion over how those policies ought be interpreted and applied. If there's no consensus as to this in the discussion, then it's fine to say it, but the close as written seems like a supervote against the concept of there being a difference between Option 1 and Option 2 in the standard source reliability RfC. —
Mhawk10 (
talk) 19:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
it would have been an actual supervote to do what you ask and express an opinion of which was true, I'm also not asking you to express a personal opinion on which is true. I'm asking you to provide a closing summary of a lengthy discussion that addresses how the various participants approached the issue and to ascertain the consensus by examining the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of the issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. I don't really see a basis for the statement that the 4-option RfC
can roughly be divided into two "use" (Options 1 & 2) versus two "don't use" (Options 3 & 4) outcomes, nor does it seem to have been a point of discussion in the actual RfC. This matters in a number of areas, such as FAC that requires
high-quality reliable sourcesas opposed to marginally reliable ones, as well as for citations that support contentious claims in biographies of living people. These are some of the exact sorts of things that were discussed in the RfC. If there's is or is not consensus as to these use cases, that's fine, but the absence of any mention thereof in the closing summary amounts to sidestepping the dispute wholly based upon arguments that participants themselves did not so much as attempt to make. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 20:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
[t]he only way that this would have been decidable is on a simple headcounting basis, that sounds an awful lot like a "no consensus" close in light of WP:DETCON, seeing as headcounting is not how consensus is ascertained. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 20:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Closure_review_of_the_Skeptical_Inquirer_RSN_RfC. Thank you.— Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023! | |
Hello, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023. |
Two years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, you closed this RFC. I had some questions, but since you have been inactive, I started a discussion here. Thanks, Politrukki ( talk) 19:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)