User talk:Gaijin42/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Please comment on Talk:Arctic sea ice decline

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arctic sea ice decline. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jasmine Tridevil

The article Jasmine Tridevil has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BLP1E

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Gaijin, look at this [www.wtsp.com/story/news/weird/2014/09/23/tampa-three-breasted-woman-hoax/16103527/]. Most hilarious "outing" ever.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
MilowentWow, thats hilarious. I agree the hoaxness of it was pretty obvious, but as an article, It might be "viral enough" for me - mainstream coverage from many countries at this point.. do we have Stuff that went viral in 2014 or anything like that that would be a suitable redirect?

Nomination of Jasmine Tridevil for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jasmine Tridevil is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Tridevil until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Flow

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Flow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

Re: press section

The press section is not subject to reliable sourcing, we aren't citing anything there. But the wiki was certainly mentioned.

Are you saying that we can add a permanent link to any source to any Wikipedia talk page, merely because a Wikipedia article was mentioned? I think that opinion is incorrect. There is no reason for us to link to poor sources anywhere. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Any source? No. One that caused ripple effects including multiple meta-mentions by other sources, multiple responses from the Tyson, and a drop-by from Jimbo? Yes. The source may or may not be usable in a BLP, but closing our eyes, sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling "la la la it doesn't even exist" is not helping anything. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Please. This is a manufactured controversy. There are no "ripple effects", these are political operatives linking to each others blogs and getting mentioned by marginal, unreliable source, in turn being noticed in passing by larger sources. This is a non-controversy, controversy, and it deserves no mention on Tyson's page at all. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Boxcar

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Boxcar. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

AWB

Picking up on your recent comment - actually, I'm not sure it occurred to me to use AWB for mass notification. Most Arbcom issues have a small number of parties, some are larger, but I haven't closed any of the large ones yet. I will have to keep that in mind next time. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick The issue is that currently you have to know how to use Regex to parse the page/section for the user links. I just created an AWB feature request to be able to generate the list of users easily. Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Generate_a_list_of_user_pages.2Fuser_talk_pages_based_on_editors_who_have_commented_on_a_particular_page_.28or_better_yet.2C_particular_section_of_a_page.29 Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, if that feature is added, it will help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Participation advice

I've recently voiced brief opinions in a couple of venues where I haven't ventured before. Since I don't see any others at my level doing that, I'm questioning whether I should be doing it. I feel I have something worthwhile to add, but I can't know the extent of what I don't know, since I don't know it. I don't wish to acquire a reputation for overestimating my competence, nor do I want to distract from important business. Do you think I should refrain for awhile longer? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Mandruss Do you have any particular examples? If you are starting or closing RFCs or processes or other discussions, then I think it is more important to be on firm footing. If you are just dropping in a comment in an existing discussion, I think you can do that safely in general since if you aren't aware of a policy or guideline someone can tell you about it, and there are lots of other voices that will weigh in. Most important is just to be collaborative, don't go in saying "Policy demands that we do X" unless you are really really sure. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Three examples, all related to Lightbreather's RfC attempt yesterday. In the RfC itself, my !vote and a later comment. The comment in particular seems pretty close to "policy demands", or at least very assertive (aggressive?). Then, one comment in this postmortem discussion. It still seems like it was fair idea, and one that no one else had come close to (worthwhile input by definition), but as there was no reaction I'm assuming that no one deemed it worthy of a response, even a negative response. That tends to create self-doubt. I don't need constant validation, but at this stage a little would help. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Update: I've decided to remove ANI and similar pages from my watchlist and confine myself to editing articles. It's really not in my DNA to watch something that dysfunctional and not say something about it on a somewhat regular basis. At the same time I have enough historical perspective here to know that anything I could say has been said hundreds or thousands of times before, to no beneficial effect. Tilting at windmills would be detrimental to my mental health. So I don't need a reply to the above. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

Please comment on Talk:Prem Rawat

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prem Rawat. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

IP edit warrior

You believe the edit warrior at the Toeppen article to be Toeppen himself? I wondered the same the second time I reverted him. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Teti

The Army Times has weighed in on Teti's claims: 

   ″Mary Schantag, who heads both the POW Network and FakeWarriors.org, has investigated some 5,000 contested claims of combat experience and 
   valor medals. She contends that a contractor simply cannot earn the same status that a military member can.

   'I don’t care if you’re a veteran of however many contracting scenarios,' she said. 'It does not make you a combat veteran.'

”[1]


The Special Forces Association on September 30, 2014, stripped Joseph Teti of his membership and he is ineligible to rejoin the organization stated SFA President Jack Tobin. 

    “He’s an embarrassment to the Regiment, because of the falsehoods, lies and embellishments he’s used in association with his Special Forces 
    qualifications,” says retired Army Sgt. Maj. George Davenport, a “life member” of the organization.

    Among Teti’s lies, says Davenport, are claims that he was a graduate of the Special Forces Combat Diver and Special Forces Sniper courses.

    “I personally checked with the Special Forces schools and he did not go to those courses. There is no record of him attending,” says Davenport, 
    founder of the “Special Forces Poser Patrol” Facebook page, which added Teti to the group’s “Wall of Shame” Sept. 30 in the wake of the SFA’s 
    decision.

[2] Jogershok (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140429/OFFDUTY02/304290052/Discovery-Channel-reality-show-star-trades-fire-over-combat-experience
  2. ^ http://www.armytimes.com/article/20141001/OFFDUTY02/310010083/-Dual-Survival-star-stripped-SF-Association-membership

Re: Historicity of Jesus

Why would 1rr level the field? Is someone currently subject to such a restriction on an individual level?

If we assume for the sake of this argument, that edit warring (EW) is a problem on the historicity of Jesus article, then by enforcing a 1RR on all editors we would address the problem and level the field in terms of editors trying to force one version over the objections of another. Article 1RR restrictions force qualitative improvements over quantitative revisions. This levels the field for all editors, as they no longer have to compete against multiple reverts. The objection of course, is that some editors will tag team their 1RR, but this would lead to protection and sanctions anyway. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

Please comment on Talk:Shades of Deep Purple

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shades of Deep Purple. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

68.117.88.143

Hi, I'd already thrown this one to WP:AIV before i saw your WP:AE comment, dont know if its worth waiting to see how that one plays out or to come at them from both angles? Amortias (T)(C) 20:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Amortias I was in the process of filing at AE, but I see he has now been blocked. Ill hold off for now and see if he learns his lesson. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

En passant

You comment at ArbCom made me read En passant, although you didn't link it. Very interesting, even though it must be 20 years or more since I played (very poor) chess. From such weird associations, happenstances and downright serendipity does my knowledge grow! - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joni Ernst

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joni Ernst. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

Please comment on Talk:Bible

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bible. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Zombie star

Input on which hook you prefer, please. I think we got this turned around on a dime. Nicely done! Good team effort. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering the article is 2 hours old, I'm pretty proud of it. Thanks for the help :) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure. It is nice to see editors working together, not sniping. DYK has become very bitchy lately. Unfortunately, lately the politics of DYK is sometimes like dealing with the Queen of Hearts, or God forbid, the Red Queen. I can see why reviewers are disappearing, but that's an issue for another forum. If I can help, please let me know.7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
We need one more citation. User: Yoninah is looking into getting an administrator to queue jump. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 Isla Vista killings. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

Zombie (disambiguation)

I always try to add links to other pages when I create a page. Its one thing to create a page, it's another to make it visible. Does this say enough? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Zombie star

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Homecoming DYK

Hello,

Returned to article with aim of putting webpage cites in same form as text cites, only to find your changes. Linked to article on main detractor of Homecoming. Used your useful book review links. Can you please review the result?

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Georgejdorner I made no changes to the article. Perhaps you have confused me with Yoninah ? When I mentioned the Amazon reviews, I did not mean the end-user reviews, but the two reviews listed as "Editorial Reviews" which are probably out on the net somewhere as sources themselves. I think the additions you have made improve the article, probably enough to get past the DYK sourcing barrier, but it could certainly be improved further. Searching for the book title in Google Books/Scholar finds a number of citations, it may be worth seeing if any of them have anything worth adding.
I still think there may be too much reliance on the source itself, which risks WP:OR in analyzing the book. For example the article states "The most extreme example cited states" - Who has decided it is the most extreme? The selection of which details to include also hints at OR. Using the citations in other books will help with that, because it will identify which bits other sources found important.
Also it seems like some of the "compilation" actually belongs in Summary. I will make a stab at that now. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, this tag team editing can lead to some confusion on my part—it was indeed Yoninah who changed the form of my cites. As for reliance on the source itself...a plot summary is standard in a book review. In the absence of an ongoing account of events amounting to a plot, I have generally described the book contents in lieu of a plot.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

Signing

You probably want to re-sign this. Stickee (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lindy West

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lindy West. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:France

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:France. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gaijin42. You have new messages at Booksworm's talk page.
Message added 18:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Booksworm Talk? 18:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems with Darren Wilson's story as told by the leakers and

You wrote: 

 Salon - Wilson’s defense entirely hangs on what happened next, and witnesses seem to be divided. 
 The best-known account goes that Brown turned back toward Wilson and put his hands in the air in the universal sign of surrender, 
 when Wilson shot the teen in cold blood. Others say that Brown moved toward Wilson, possibly in an aggressive way, leading Wilson 
 to believe that his life was in danger. It was then, some say, that Wilson decided to shoot Brown in self-defense.

The Wilson team, hapless as they are, have put themselves into a box, in my opinion. Apparently, they concocted their stories before they knew where the bullet holes were and before they knew how many shots had been fired and before they knew how many witnesses were actually watching that day.

The funny thing is that Michael Brady gives them the best defense that they could ask for at this point. Brown's hands were down at his belly and he was stumbling forward. That isn't charging. That's a person who could plausibily be going for that gun that he hasn't bothered to use up to that point. But they were so quick to put all of this on the theory of a charging rhinoceros who was going to kill him with a body slam that they are hopelessly incapable of salvaging their own credibility at this point.

I actually believe that the last three shots were taken when Brown's hands were down at his stomach. What is clear to me at that point, and I recently found a reliable source that discusses this idea but can't recall where exactly, is that Brown was collapsing, due to the loss of consciousness, due to the loss of so much blood. Wilson misreads his arms and his forward motion as a threat somehow.

If you listen to the audio, there is a bit of a pause after the seventh shot. Then bullets 8, 9, and 10 are fired about as quickly as one can squeeze off three shots. Bullet 7 may have started his fall forward. Then two of the three final shots went into his head in basically a top to bottom motion, anatomically speaking, though obviously not top to bottom with respect to elevation above the ground. After all of those misses, Wilson final got two shots to the lethal torso shot area. But the lethal torso was no longer being presented to him. Rather the top of the head. Hence the final two shots.

The realization that Brown never had a gun after all is what I think explains the look of grave concern that we see on Wilson and the other officers who were with him at that point. And so a decision was made to make up a different story. Wilson, being so focused on the actual encounter between himself, Brown and Johnson, never had any idea how many people actually saw what was going on. Of course, the police got many witness statements in the four hours that ensued. But it takes a while to synthesize all of that. What they did believe after knocking on the door of every apartment in the area was that there was no actual video of the shooting. So they decided that they would take their chances with a he-said-she-said approach, knowing how sympathetic prosecutors and white juries and grand juries are to the police version of events in such matters.

Then the audio recording came out -- a recording that its maker didn't realize contained the sound of gunshots at the time that the police were interviewing residents on August 9th. And all of a sudden, the police have a lot more to explain. And they can't explain it without contradicting earlier claims. So they are stuck. They put all of their eggs into the "charging" basket for which there is almost no witness support whatsoever. So the best they can do now is to go back to the car encounter, as was Jon Belmar's total focus when he told the Wilson story on August 10th. They roll out little new tidbits and the loudly proclaim as leakers that the physical evidence supports Wilson's version of events.

Editors such as the person who started the blood thread and I find that ridiculous. But the New York Times was so happy to get the exclusive that they don't want to poison their relationship with the leakers by discrediting them in their article where they reveal what the leaker said complete with the leakers synthesis of what they said. So we have this reliable source article which is about as journalistically questionable as it gets. But its out there. And we run with it. And the Wilson defenders win. And truth loses. Which renews my lack of faith in Wikipedia as a source for truth. And makes me depressed. -- since it's all there is.

P.S. Did you see that Mr.X is threatening to block me again? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, the salon thing you quoted above is a direct quote from Salon, and not any kind of paraphrase or interpretation by me. You describe one plausible scenario above. But the known evidence is consistent with many other plausible scenarios too. (Although I think almost all of them will deal with the final 3 shots the same way, yes he was likely falling to get the headshot). The shots are so close together it is very unlikely Wilson had any intent/decision making whatsoever between them. He was trained to shoot in bursts, and shot in a burst. (One may argue that the burst itself was unjustified however).
In the end, I wouldn't object to an indictment. Certainly the burden of proof to have a trial should be less than the burden of proof to convict. However, I think its going to be almost impossible to secure a conviction. Race could play some part in that, but even given a "fair" jury, I think its going to be really tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brown didn't assault Wilson or present at least a reasonable (if possibly mistaken) threat. (Particularly when there is video of him assaulting someone mere minutes before hand). As I've said before, perhaps the bar for self defense in general is set in the wrong place, and there should be more burden on the defender to prove justification - but that's not something that is going to (or should) change during an individual trial. And as multiple sources have stated, Federal rights charges are very unlikely.
Regarding a hypothetical ban for you, You have valuable input (the suggestion for the Tahoe recently as an example), but you regularly come across accusing the other editors (and the media/public) of various failures. Some of those are mere incivility. Some of them (dealing with the media/officials) are themselves BLP violations. If you continue on that path a topic ban is fairly likely. I say this as someone who is myself subject to a topic ban - and for similar reasons to the path you are on. That would be a shame, because if you could reign it in a bit, or restrict yourself to user talk pages for the WP:POLEMICs you can be a valuable contributor to the topic. Quite often you come across as matching WP:THETRUTH and WP:TIGER. Please read them (I am not trying to attack you here, or be condescending. I am seriously trying to point out where you are going astray so you can fix it). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Gaijin42. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ping: User talk:Born2cycle

I thought you might want to know that you have replies at User talk:Born2cycle, if you weren’t watching the page. Cheers. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrative standards commission

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrative standards commission. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

SOMB

Just letting you know that I have backed away from defending the BRD process against Bdel555 because things were getting out of hand. The issue is in the D phase of BRD with a 3-3 tie, no consensus for the change. I would summarize his position as: "No one has countered my (latest) arguments for inclusion, so I will include". That's contrary to my understanding of how things work. You and others can do with it what you will, but I've had enough. The thread is here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm Myopia123. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from 2014 Ferguson unrest. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Myopia123 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Punjabi language

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Punjabi language. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

neutral RfC notification

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting thanks. Collect (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Songs for the Deaf

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Songs for the Deaf. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

StG 44

Hey Gaijin, not that I'm trying to skirt the line of our topic ban, but from a historical and terminology standpoint what do you think of this edit. I thought it was a better explanation and certainly had better sentence structure and flow. Happy Belated Thanksgiving! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod general firearms edits unrelated to gun control are not subject to our ban, so I think your edit and this discussion is fine. I could see your edit both ways. "storm rifle" is certainly the direct translation, so I think specifying that in the lede is good. On changing assault to selective fire though, this particular weapon is the origin of the word assault rifle so dropping that seems like a mistake to me. I could see selective fire assault rifle as being a good option though. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Right, I agree with your points, but my intention was to clarify the situation given the special circumstances involved...
Since the term "assault rifle" had not been coined yet, using it to describe the StG 44 is misleading. Granted, it is the firearm that is acknowledged with starting the usage of term and I used that in the sentence that I edited. Hence:

The StG 44 (abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "storm rifle 44") is a German selective fire rifle developed during World War II that was the first of its kind to see major deployment and is considered by many historians to be the first modern assault rifle.

I start with generic terms (selective fire, which is a true statement), but acknowledged future jargon as well. If anything, this ties it the assault weapon article even more. The only thing that I did not include was the phrase "an intermediate-power cartridge" which would be accurate as well. Your thoughts?--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

Arbitration clarification request closed

Hi Gaijin42, just letting you know that I've archived the clarification request you filed regarding the Gun control case here. The arbitrators who commented were in agreement that you should not make the edits in question as doing so would likely be considered a violation of the ban. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephens City, Virginia

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Stephens City, Virginia. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hands up, don't shoot

Thanks for your edit. I don't think I feel strongly enough to move the section back to the top, but I should share that the reason the pants section was first was because I was trying to keep the article in chronological order. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Another Believer That makes sense, but in this case I don't think chronology is particularly important. My thought was you describe the movement/event first, and then describe the counter-movement/event. Although the two subsections may have happened later, conceptually they are part of the initial action (hands up), and not a re-response to the initial-response (pants up). Also the pants up bit is just plain less notable than those other two instances (as measured by the mainstream media coverage) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You may wish to share on the article's talk page, since I mentioned the order change there, too. Your reasoning makes sense to me. Perhaps I will throw some dates into that section for additional context. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

Hey, I was having a hard time following what was going on at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell, until I realized that you had made two separate posts of Lightbreath's evidence, one completely replacing the other. There was no notation that this was the case and I was never notified. (I though I was going mad, my evidence first habbed and then disappearing from her talk page without any notification to me of all the changes, then the "evidence" unaccountably changing in the sockpuppet investigation.) Thank god someone notified me that things were going on and I should keep my eyes open. Just now I looked in the page history and saw you posted two different versions, one completely replacing the other So when Drmies edited you posting of it, I thought I would too, to make it clear that there were two posts by you, one completely replacing the other, with no notation that was the case. I really believe that this type of thing should be transparent and open. I thought that was kind of a wikipedia rule, right? EChastain (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For being a great example of an editor that can work with others despite differences, and for your always polite and constructive online demeanor. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Censorship of research published in important and respected mainstream international peer reviewed journals

Dear Gaijin42,

Can you kindly clarify why do you insist to delete my additional approach to the solution of the black hole information paradox concerning the time dependent Schrödinger equation? That approach has been indeed published in an important and respected mainstream international peer reviewed journal, i.e. Annals of Physics (Impact Factor of order 3, last Editor in Chief, the Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczeck!) and represents the time evolution of a black hole model which has published in another important and respected mainstream international peer reviewed journal, i.e. European Physics Journal C (Impact Factor 5.4, higher than Physical Review D!). You make an unacceptable censorship.

Sincerely, Darth Sidious 69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Sidious 69 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Darth Sidious 69 Most of it boils down to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)#Respect_primary_sources Where it says things like
  • In general, scientific information in Wikipedia articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources, or on widely cited tertiary and primary sources.
  • In all cases, the reliability and relevance of a work is determined by other researchers in the relevant field.
Your research is new, and has therefore not been covered in secondary sources, nor cited by other researchers. Since you the author are the one to try to add it into wikipedia your WP:COI is involved, and is itself a further indication that your research has not yet become notable enough for inclusion (if it was already seen as important and notable, someone else would be stepping up to add it)
We on wikipedia are not experts, not physicists. We cannot evaluate the research to determine which ones are important and notable and "real" vs which ones are crackpots, or pet theories that will not gain any traction. I do not say this to insult you, just so you understand the process that wikipedia goes through. That your paper was published by a reliable journal is a good sign, but many things get published that are not covered in wikipedia - in general we much much prefer to rely on secondary and tertiary sources. See Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_earth_is_not_flat (PLEASE Note, I am NOT comparing your research to a flat earth claim, just showing that we do not have the capacity here to tell the difference, and so we rely on the secondaries.)
This topic (firewalls, black holes, etc) receives extra scrutiny on wikipedia due to problems caused by Friedwardt Winterberg Who has repeatedly edit warred and WP:SOCKPUPPETed to claim that he discovered the concept of firewalls (based on a one-line footnote mentioning him in the AMPS paper). He repeatedly edit warred to put his claims into the article, and rightly or not, you are being lumped in with him.
In any case, edit warring is not going to be a successful tactic for you. You have now been reverted by multiple editors. If you persist in edit warring, it will result in your being blocked, the article being locked down again, and editors becoming more entrenched in their opinions that you are being disruptive and that your research should not be included.
If you think your research is sufficiently notable and cited to be included, the place to make your case is on the talk page of the article. succinctly make your case, and build WP:CONSENSUS for the change, perhaps through use of a WP:RFC. But be careful that you don't fall into WP:POLEMICs and just fighting with those who disagrees with your position.
Drmies could you weigh in please? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Dear Gaijin42,

Actually,I am not the author of that research, but his attorney at law instead. In fact, when I wrote "my additional approach" I was meaning that I was the person which was adding that approach to Wikipedia. As you correctly emphasize that "In all cases, the reliability and relevance of a work is determined by other researchers in the relevant field", this means that a research paper which overtakes the peer review process in a traditional, important and respected mainstream international peer reviewed journal, having a good Impact Factor of order 3 and a Nobel Laureate as last Editor in Chief, as been positively evaluated by, at least, two or three other researchers in the relevant field (referees, Editor and Editor in Chief). Therefore, the criterion that "the reliability and relevance of a work is determined by other researchers in the relevant field" is surely satisfied. Concerning published, reliable secondary sources, give a look to this link: http://www.unisrita.it/annals-of-physics.html. Thus, I kindly ask you to stop the censorship of this important scientific paper.

Sincerely, Darth Sidious 69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Sidious 69 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Gaijin42, you should probably find a physicist to have a look at the claims made in that edit, and I'll ping Randykitty for a comment on the journal, which seems legit enough for now--but I'm no expert. How odd--an attorney writing Wikipedia content for a published author: there's a first time for everything, if that's indeed what's happening. But the content is really a matter for the talk page. Darth Sidious, there is no censorship going on, just a disagreement on what's appropriate and what is not. You're picking on Gaijin here but this addition was reverted already by two other editors, Waleswatcher and Rolf h nelson. That suggests you are in fact edit warring and I would seek consensus for the addition on the talk page. Insert it again, without consensus, and you will likely end up being blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The journals are indeed legit (although Watson's antics over the last few weeks show the reliability of the "Nobel brand"). I did not look into the cited articles themselves and whether they are primary or secondary. Primary sources can be used up to a point, but secondary ones are preferred. Note that we have the WP guidelines for a reason... --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

All papers published in peer reviewed journals have been reviewed by other scientists. That is the absolute bare minimum of review. The WP:WEIGHT we are talking about is how much traction that work has subsequently gotten, in particular, how much coverage it has gotten relative to the other theories in the field. Since you did not just list off all of the places where the work has been cited or commented on, one can only assume that it has not (yet) been. How many papers are published about the information paradox? How are we to decide which ones to cover, and how much coverage each one should get? Also, since you brought up that you are an attorney, I should inform you about Wikipedia:No legal threats. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing photo

Hi, I was picked at random by a bot to participate in a RFC it looks like you started on an image. But there is no image. AlbinoFerret 02:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

AE

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Factchecker_atyourservice - Cwobeel (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Just checked the article, and after less than a day in which I stopped participating, and all I can say is wow. The article is being decimated and work of months gone while discussions are still ongoing. Entire sections deleted, leaving the article now upside down now and UNDUE, with no consideration for balance. Amazing. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel Are you talking about my recent changes (merging most of the media witness accounts) or the stuff that CG is doing? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The merge is fine, and was long overdue. I was referring to the glossing over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data executed by CG. Soon the article will read that there was no controversy whatsoever, that the Prosecutor did an admirable job and deserves only praise. :) - Cwobeel (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Mm. it is an issue that WP:WELLKNOWN allegations in WP:RS are not WP:BLP violations. But some of his complaints are also not meritless. I think moving to the summary view will help , because it is undeniable that the POV exists and is notable, and at the summary view issues with the way a particular source worded things is not an issue, because you are taking the aggregate opinion. However, even where he does have merit, if he continues in the combative way it is likely to end poorly for him (And CG sorry for talking about you while you are in the room, but this isn't anything I don't think I haven't said directly in any case) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The point of presenting "Opinion as fact" was the issue with most of it, but I think that has been largely resolved. When we use "said" and give an accusation as fact, it is concluding that Accusation is proven by Claim. When Claim is wrong, Accusation is clearly wrong when it is based on Claim. The presentation is the issue:
  • "X says Accusation is proven by Claim"
  • "X says Claim is evidence of Accusation."
The impact and implication of the arguments change by their ordering. Professional writers do this because it frames and defends arguments by using the mind works and processes information. You process the Accusation and then get a Claim which you can reject or agree with. However, a rejection does not lead to a rejection of the Accusation upon which it is supported or advanced by. instead, you are more likely to reject an argument based which presents a fallacy before its conclusion - that is the key to its success. If we are actually and deliberately include logical fallacies because they are opinions - at least give them a less deceptive ordering.... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I will stick to my commitment not to edit the article for a few weeks, and see where the article ends up. It may be a better article at the end, or not. That would depend on what active editors do there to counteract CG's super-narrow interpretation of BLP, NPOV and V. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Like old times

It is good to work with you again! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Amy Pascal

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Amy Pascal. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you think this is OK?

I just checked the article after the "cleanup" by CG. See this: [1], and let me know if you believe that section is an NPOV and accurate representation of the shooting, or if it is an attempt to completely slant the article into a direction that is not representative of the sources. IMO, the work that CG has done over past few days almost alone is a total disgrace and a violation of NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have my biases, which by now you already know of, and I have committed not to edit the article for a while, with the expectation that there will be a good debate and collaborative editing. But what I see now, is total abdication, unless there will be some editors that care about NPOV and undo the damage. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You assert that the article needs to be in "chronological order" and reflect the convoluted and often contradictory statements surrounding the release of information, leaks and other issues. The article is far from complete or properly balanced - it is actually swung a little too far back and forth a few times over the editing. Wilson's rambling testimony is way too long and frankly - its ultimately self-serving and in his interests, but given that details are missing and others made undue... it is a lot to handle all at once. I discarded my 10 different drafts of the article some time ago, but I find it hard to continually push for the inclusion of dubious conspiracies that rest entirely upon flimsy evidence.

When the report and video were released, the police stated that Wilson had known Brown was a suspect in the robbery.[201] Not long after, Jackson said that the robbery was unrelated to the initial contact, and had nothing to do with Wilson stopping Brown and Johnson.[201][188] Later that day, Jackson reported that Wilson recognized Brown as a suspect because he saw a box of cigars in his hand.[202][203] This information release would become a subject of dispute until the grand jury documents were released.[201]

Considering we still have "He encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson as they were walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic, though it is unclear when or if Wilson associated the robbery suspect descriptions with the two men." in the article when the article links to transcripts, numerous sources and other issues portraying what is some tiny conspiracy rooted in an attempt to clarify "when" Wilson suspected Brown. Gaijin will certainly let me know if I made a big screw up in placing all the "controversy" stuff in its own pile when it has no bearing on the result. That video and "incident report" release being clear cases. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but the fact remains that this issue is still controversial and disputed, despite Wilson's testimony and the changing narratives from Jackson, as well as the strategic leaks and the rest. So, we ought to take a sober approach and not "decide" that this is close and done, because obviously it is not. That is not a "conspiracy theory", unless you have sources that call it such, in which case we could present that viewpoint if properly sourced as a significant opinion. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been out of town all day. Ill review the changes and give some feedback tomorrow probably. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:River Soar

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:River Soar. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Please comment on Talk:Chupacabra (The Walking Dead)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chupacabra (The Walking Dead). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

AN/I

Please weigh it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_for_Cwobeel_for_BLP_violations - - Cwobeel (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

EW

You are edit warring at Steve Scalise. In fact, you have made four reverts in last eleven hours. I'm sure you already know that exceeding three reverts in 24 hours can result in you being blocked. You may want to self-revert to avoid that possibility.- MrX 15:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't, you already did. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I'm not going to report you.- MrX 16:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of literary awards

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of literary awards. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gaijin42 reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - MrX 15:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

What's the problem? on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&oldid=639995452&diff=prev

I think you are insisting on a less valid presentation compared to my mild adjustment and your comment seems rather intolerant of a normal improvement. What, exactly, do you find so offensive?

Xgenei (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Education noticeboard

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (yarn) @ 21:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

OneClickArchiver at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown

In your recent use of the OneClickArchiver at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown, there may be a bug in it because some of the archived items didn't come out properly in Archive 25. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Bob K31416 Thanks. I have manually fixed those archives, and reported a bug to the OCA author. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning

In accordance with BLP discretionary sanctions you are admonished for making a personal attack and warned that further incivility, personal attacks or disruptive editing will result in an extended block or topic ban. This admonishment and warning will be logged and can be appealed to me on my talk page, to WP:AE, WP:AN or the Arbitration Committee (please see WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc Factchecker_atyourservice Is the referenced attack "you must be smoking something"? That was meant jokingly and I certainly did not intend it as an attack. to any degree that it was perceived as an attack, I apologize. Nor did I feel that FCAY's reply that I must be drunk was an returned attack. Statements like that seem fairly common as a "I don't understand what you are talking about" colloquialism. The later discussion certainly did become more heated as it continued but I think taking either of those statements as an attack is an overreaction. I hereby do appeal the warning and also the block on FCYAS as I do not feel either is justified (or at least certainly not justified on that evidence) 01:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd be willing to consider that yours wasn't intended that way and I'll remove the warning from the log but given the warning which FCAYS received 11 days ago I'm not going to be easily moved from the position that it's a continuation of the same issue especially given their conduct in that section from then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Scalise article

What a mess, I'm done. I posted what I think is a fairly concise description of the issue and sourced the hell out of it. The cohorts can debate or dismiss what I wrote. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Better or too weasel? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod I don't see any weasel, but I think this version contains a factual inaccuracy. He did admit speaking to the group. (there are some inconclusive/unreliable, reasons to think he may be mistaken, but the admission is on record Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, OK, that makes it easy... Fixed? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Media attention

In 2014, a third-year law student and political blogger, Lamar White, Jr. researched forum posts on the white supremacist website Stormfront. He discovered posts that referred to Scalise speaking at a conference in 2002 organized by the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a group founded by David Duke.[1][2][3][4][5][6] White posted his findings on his blog and soon after the media took note. Scalise did not confirm or deny to the press that he had spoken at admitted to speaking before the conference, but stated that he did not know of the "racist nature of the group".[7] According to John Hayward at Human Events the story of Scalise's speaking engagement in 2002 was "either dubiously sourced, a mistake, or an outright hoax" and noted that the media attention lasted roughly one day.[8][9] Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (R) and congessman Cedric Richmond (D) defended Scalise's character.[10] Speaker of the House John Boehner voiced his continued confidence in Scalise as Majority Whip.[2][11] Several Democrat members of Congress, as well as Mo Elleithee, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, criticized Scalise, and challenged his statement that he was not aware of the group's affiliation with racism and anti-Semitism.[12]

References

  1. ^ Costa, Robert. "House Majority Whip Scalise confirms he spoke to white nationalists in 2002". Washington Post. Retrieved 29 December 2014.
  2. ^ a b Jaffe, Alexandra and Walsh, Deirdra (December 31, 2014). "GOP leadership stands by Scalise after white supremacist speech". CNN. Retrieved December 31, 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ Sarlin, Benjy (December 29, 2014). "GOP leader Steve Scalise may have addressed supremacist conference". MSNBC. Retrieved December 29, 2014.
  4. ^ Reilly, Mollie and Grim, Ryan (December 29, 2014). "House Majority Whip Steve Scalise Spoke At White Supremacist Conference In 2002". The Huffington Post. Retrieved December 29, 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ "House Majority Whip Steve Scalise Was Reportedly an Honored Guest at 2002 International White Supremacist Convention". Retrieved 29 December 2014.
  6. ^ Calderone, Michael (December 30, 2014). "How Louisiana Blogger Lamar White, Jr. Landed The Steve Scalise White Supremacist Scoop". Huffington Post. Retrieved December 31, 2014.
  7. ^ Martin, jonathan and Calmes, Jackie (December 31, 2014). "Republicans Try to Fix Damage Scalise's 2002 Speech Could Do in 2016". New York Times. Retrieved December 31, 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Hayward, John (December 31, 2014). "Media: Um, that big Steve Scalise story probably didn't happen, but he's still 'embattled' anyway". Human Events. Retrieved December 31, 2014.
  9. ^ http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/12/31/media-um-big-steve-scalise-story-probably-didnt-happen-hes-still-embattled-anyway
  10. ^ O'Donoghue, Julia (December 29, 2014). "Steve Scalise attended white nationalist event, but says he wasn't aware of group's views". The Times-Picayune. Retrieved December 29, 2014.
  11. ^ Bendery, Jennifer (December 30, 2014). "John Boehner Backs Steve Scalise Amid Controversy Over White Supremacist Meeting". Huffington Post. Retrieved December 31, 2014.
  12. ^ http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democrats-demand-answers-steve-scalises-ties-david-duke

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I leave this to you

Just like with Trayvon Martin - my role is no longer needed. It was fun, I like working together with you. The most troubling issues are gone, but all the details and fixing will take too much time for me. I answered the call and now I am done since it is clear that this article will not reach GA or FA any time soon, my interest long ago waned and its becoming apparent that as things get more and more finer - playing devil's advocate is not as enjoyable. Even without a handicap - its just not worth it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaijin42/Archive_2&oldid=646114667"