User talk:Qwirkle/Archive 1

Jeepery

Jeep

Sorry :( Deunanknute (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No prob.Anmccaff (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeep train

Hi Anmccaff. The article seems to have been built up over time by various editors, and is not identical with the German so I'm not sure how I can help. What I have picked up is that the article started out pretty much in Commonwealth English and has been converted largely into US English which is against the usual Wiki convention. That should be resolved, especially as these things are/were clearly used worldwide. For example, the lede could reflect the different usages and the country sections should use regional usage. Otherwise it should follow the original author's intent. Re the German article, I'm happy to help if you could let me know what you think the particular issues/difficulties are. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I've had another look at this and added the section on Loads and Speeds as that wasn't covered. I'll take another look tomorrow and maybe make some more changes or recommendations. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the original English version was neither Commonwealth nor American, but a pastiche of Denglisch and Googletranslateisch. It was created by the same person who created the German article. I think you can see at a glance that the articles were both somewhat factually challenged, and the German is still.

the particular areas I am having trouble with:

• The editor selected something close to a literal nonce word for the title of both articles. Nobody ever called these things "jeepomotives," ever, except as a pun. There appear to be only three uses of the pun out there, they are all obviously wordplay, and other descriptions of the same events don't use the word. Deciding to adopt a non-standard name has real consequences, since it tends to drive people looking for other sites away from real scholarship, and toward stuff which is based on Wiki itself. "Jeepomotive" simply doesn't belong on wiki for this reason. It's the worst sort of OR.

• The original editor uploaded several images, using his preferred pet-name, and occasionally scrambling the location, nationality, and year of the persons, places and things in the article. Requests to rename some have been denied because "'jeepomotive' is a German word" The original editor admits that it isn't, first insisted that it's an English word, and then justifies it, roughly, because it's catchy. I could use some help with this.

The stuff on loads and speeds on the German site is almost meaningless. There are a good many different wheels used, many different operating modes, different track profiles, and different operators. A trained driver using purpose-built wheels with a brakeman riding the switched cars on the flat could haul loads that no one in their right mind would even attempt on hilly terrain.

Anmccaff (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anmccaff. I'm struggling to understand why you reverted my changes after inviting me to help with the article. Normally when editors are working jointly on an article there is discussion before edits are cancelled out. Please respond on the article talk page unless you are content to restore what I'm asking for there. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I've covered this on the article talk page, but let me know if there's anything else that more belongs here.Anmccaff (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox flag icons at Ford Pygmy and Willys MB

I don't see an exception at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG for this article, nor generically for articles of this type. Would you please explain how you came to the conclusion there is an exception to the style guide for this article? In response to this edit summary, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't count as an exception. Further, I removed 23 such instances in Category:Military light utility vehicles out of 95. If we're to assume that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS proves there is an exception, it would seem the proof is the other way around; the predominant style is without the flags. I also note that the infobox template being used, {{Infobox weapon}}, states that in the origin field "Flag icons should be avoided in this field". So, it would seem that even the template instructions stand against the use of flag icons in this infobox. Can you explain your restoration of these icons against the style guide and against the template instructions? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see an exception at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG for this article,

Aside from the word generally?

nor generically for articles of this type.

Again, the MOS is quite clear that it lays down general guidance, and explicitly notes hard-and-fast exceptions to this.

Would you please explain how you came to the conclusion there is an exception to the style guide for this article?

Competently written articles using it suggest that competent writers...excuse me. editors...feel it is useful, and that suggests you should consult, article by article, or in an appropriate project page, &cet, before just nuking the hell outta them.

Example textIn response to this edit summary, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't count as an exception. Further, I removed 23 such instances in Category:Military light utility vehicles out of 95. If we're to assume that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS proves there is an exception, it would seem the proof is the other way around; the predominant style is without the flags.

I believe Emerson addressed this better than I could; what was that he said about hobgblins?

Those 93 reflect vehicles which are not adopted by any one country, vehicles which are so widely used that they have no particular associating, and so forth. It could very well be that a flag-in-the-infox is only useful for a small number of them; it is also possible it might suit half.

I also note that the infobox template being used, {{Infobox weapon}}, states that in the origin field "Flag icons should be avoided in this field". So, it would seem that even the template instructions stand against the use of flag icons in this infobox. Can you explain your restoration of these icons against the style guide and against the template instructions? Thanks,

again, you are answering your own question. Should is different from must. Anmccaff (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think perhaps you are missing the point of guidelines. Your reversions have created non-standard applications of the template and the application of the guideline. Please, if you would, point to where there is an exception for these articles or this article type to the guideline and template instructions? Barring presentation of such an exception somewhere, I will be reverting your against guideline reinsertion of those flags. This of course would be easier if you would comply with guideline and revert yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• The MOS makes explicit why over-flagging an article is a bad idea - selective emphasis, jingoism , visual distraction, &cet, &cet, ad naus. Those are all legitimate issues, and something to watch closely. This is not intended, however, to exist for its own sake...which is what blithely nuking parts of a quarter of the articles in a category suggests. Anmccaff (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Guys, apart from the language of MOS:ICON, I did a quick review of the infoboxes for well-known U.S. military equipment from 1940 onward:

1. M4 Sherman (no flag);
2. M48 Patton (no flag);
3. M60 Patton (no flag);
4. M1 Abrams (no flag);
5. M1 Garand (no flag);
6. M1 Carbine (no flag);
7. M14 rifle (no flag);
8. M16 rifle (no flag);
9. M4 carbine (no flag);
10. Vought F4U Corsair (no flag); and
11. North American P-51 Mustang (no flag).

None of them use flags in the infobox for country of origin. I also seriously question whether we should be using flag icons for the countries that have used the items of equipment, as listed at the end of the articles, but that's another story. In any event, I see no precedent for adding "country of origin" flags to the infoboxes. If you want to do this, I think it should be discussed with the Military History WikiProject first, and I suspect you will find the WikiProject has its own internal guideline against doing so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Those are two legitimate points -similar material, even more iconicly national, not flagged up, and a possible local consensus inside a project among actual writ...Umm, editors -and far more germane than a passing handwave at the MOS. (I also disagree with some of them, the Garand is up there with mom and apple pie, like the Kalashnikov to mat' and borscht.) Anmccaff (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• The Garand was widely exported and used by a great many countries with exports numbering well in excess of 1 million. The Garand doesn't represent the United States anymore than apple pie does, which is made worldwide and in fact didn't even start in America. I think moms are pretty universal too, but I don't have a cite for that :) --Hammersoft (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• ...but Russia will always have mat' and borscht. I think, though, without beating the dead horse even deader, Garands, AKs, SMLEs MGBs, Cadillacs, and Cuckoo Clocks all have certain legitimate national associations. Well, maybe we don't wanna start a war between Switzerland and the Black Forest. PS-I think you'll have to concede that "apple pie" is, in fact a NorthAmericanistani thing, USAnian except for the Maritimes and the Loyalists; yer average briton would have called it a tart. Anmccaff (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ok look, this is a very clear case of where the flag should NOT be in the infobox for country of origin. You're trying for apple pie and moms and I'm pointing to guideline and instructions on the template page instructions. With respect, you have no leg to stand on. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a simple solution to the problem. [[1]] Fixed.

Streetcar Conspiracy Theories

Comments on General Motors streetcar conspiracy talk page

Can I request that you are a little more careful in your use of language while discussing the accuracy or otherwise of the General Motors streetcar conspiracy in the talk page section 'Grossly inaccurate sources can be removed, right'.

To my mind you have not justified any changes to the article in a convincing manner on the basis of the conversation to date. I am sure you have a useful contribution to make, but I am not able to find it within the current conversation and I am getting close to the point where I will stop responding to your comments due to lack of progress.

Examples of the types of statement you have made in the section that I have issue with include:

• "I think that Snell's scholarship is so bad, so nonexistent, that pairing it with, say, Span, is an insult to Mr. Span" ('so bad' and 'so nonexistent' may be your views but are probably impossible to justify and don't really move the conversation forward. You may be 'insulted' by this, but it isn't really a basis for changes without something more concrete.) PeterEastern (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"It has been posited that the decline of U.S. rail passenger transportation, a downward trend coming on the heels of a Golden Age of rail passenger service that featured glamorous streamlined trains, was caused by the automobile. Others believe that the passenger train was solely the victim of wrongheaded economic regulation, while some see a plot hatched by General Motors to put the passenger train out of business and thus increased the sales of automobiles. "In his book The Passenger Train in the Motor Age, Gregory Lee Thompson does an excellent job of dispelling these mistaken perceptions and presents instead a compelling story and intelligent analysis of what really happened.

George M. Smerk, Professor of Transportation and Director, Institute for Urban Transportation, Indiana University, in Transportation Research Part A 29A (July 1995):328-330. (Btw, Snell (mis)used Smerk as a source, IMS.

" I would argue that these [Snell's] interpretations are not correct, and, further, that they couldn't possibly be correct..."

"...so completely oversimplified it is difficult to take seriously"

George Hilton, (who Snell relied on as a source.)

Those are names to conjure by.

--Anmccaff (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• "It's interesting that a story in which government was a major villain, a corporate demon is always found instead" (I suggest that the word 'always' should be used very carefully, and in my view never for statements as sweeping as this.) PeterEastern (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing sweeping about it; it's referring to a closely defined subject. Antitrust, refusals to allow rates increases to reflect actual costs, and, of course, the Utilities Holding Act had severely damaged electric traction before NCL was a glint in Fitzgerald's eye. Government action -on almost all levels of government - destroyed most systems. Cities wouldn't allow fares that supported costs,the feds prevented any effective consolidation of traction systems, and the illegalized symbiotic relationships with power companies.Anmccaff (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Compared to, say, FDR, Frank Lloyd Wright, Robert Moses....well, you are probably aware how long a list could be made...GM was a piker" (I have no idea what FDR has to do with this or what a 'piker' is and find it impossible to respond to these tangential statements.) PeterEastern (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A piker? A second or even third rater. A feckless nonentity. FDR had a love of highways, a dislike of monopolies, real or imagined, and a desire to push rural electrification on the cheap. The anti-trust action against Stone and Webster and the UHA both reflected that, and did tremendous damage to electric traction. He was also a demi-Keynsian, like most pols, and viewed some of the more destructive elements of motorization not as loss of a resource, but of creation of jobs.Anmccaff (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Any piece that makes Quinby a simple sailor-man returning to expose a dread conspiracy is so contra-factual that it is breathtaking" (again, if you can focus on verifiable statements that would be helpful. What precisely is so 'contra-factual'. Also.. I also have no idea what Quinby being a naval officer has to do with your argument;) ) PeterEastern (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Quinby was a dedicated anti-busman well before WW II, he founded the ERA. Quinby was a reservist who used his military status to help wrap the flag around his cause. (Have you read Quinby's screed, BTW? It's a real piece of work. Suggests W C Fields at his most bombastic.)) Quinby was a man of parts; he was an electrical engineer, a rail historian, founder, of course, of the Electric Railroader's, a river-boat corporate officer, an organist, and, last but hardly least, a working public relations man. His skill at PR and politics was what kept the Delta Queen in operation long after SOLAS should -rightly, many would say- have sidelined it. Aside from the parts that might have suggested a mild lithium deficiency, that letter was a well-crafted shot in an ongoing rearguard fight against motorization, but it didn't reveal anything that Quinby hadn't discussed before. No secret (except for the locked-in expendable supplies, of course.)Anmccaff (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• "You can footnote that til our porcine friends take wing over the frozen reaches of Hades, but it's still lacking factual underpinning." (The article is heavily sourced due to the controversial nature of the subject and I don't believe that it can be criticised on those grounds. Do please demonstrate that any particular source is being used inappropriately and we will fix it. Possibly best to also leave Hades out of it!) PeterEastern (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, you have a big block of snellery paraphrased, backed with end-notes of the original, cited in a strong Snell opponent's work. That's wrong on 3 levels. More critical, though, are the "facts" underpinned by footnotes that don't go to a credible source.Anmccaff (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, however I think you have missed my point. I was talking about the tone of your discussion and the frequent use of broad unverifiable generalisations which I suggested were unhelpful when developing an encyclopedia. Personally I feel that your responses to my examples have only further illustrated my point, adding numerous additional generalisations. Please please do not respond to this comment by further trying to justify your specific statements in relation to GM etc which would be missing my point again. My intention was to talk about your language and tone, not to discuss the article itself. If you wish to discuss the article then lets do that on the article talk page. Personally I suggest that we leave this now, I have made my point and you have responded. Finally.. please do not move this conversation to the article talk page. PeterEastern (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I have, but I am fairly certain you have missed mine. To make an analogy, let us compare this attempt to make an accurate, yet compact description of...well, there's a fundamental difference about what the subject even is, but let's call it "The NCL Stuff"....with a journey from Ipswich to Penzance. We have been on the road for a bit, and are now staring up at Holyrood. You are asking whether we should turn left or right; I am pointing out that we need a new map, or we'll wind up at the ferry at John o' Groats; pointing out all sorts of minor details to convince ourselves we've reached destination -yes, we are at land's end, more or less, on a peninsula, where some people talk funny...surely this must be Cornwall!

I am discussing, IOW, the fundamentals of the the piece, its roots. To give some examples, the article begs the question whether there was any "program" to destroy transit, or to destroy electric transit; it simply assumes it to be the case. It refers to "convictions" in that regard, yet it cites sources that directly -and accurately- contradict that. (NCL et al were convicted of restricting the sources of buses and supplies to their subsidiaries, and nothing beyond that.) It refers to "over 100" systems affected; credible sources show about 30 electric systems affected, most of which were quite small, most of which were already well on the road to motorization. (Looking at the systems in detail suggests that NCL and its leadership may have extended the life of PCC electric traction.) It refers to the PE, almost completely uninvolved, yet it shows a picture of cars scrapped several years later by a government agency. This is an article that needs to be reworked from the ground up, not given a little pruning here and there. I am not saying this to call for any action from you, but to explain why, as time allows me, I'm going to be making some fundamental, radical changes, and to give a broad idea of the reasons behind that.

-- Anmccaff (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 14:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your specific comments (many of which I could dispute) that relate to the subject matter and that you may wish to cut and paste into the article talk page where we can can discuss them. My point here on your talk page is about your choice of language and use of generalisations. Trying one more time to express clearly what I am saying:

• My first example of this referred to your claim that "It's interesting that a story in which government was a major villain, a corporate demon is always found instead". That claim is remarkably broad given and requires you to demonstrate that there has not been one instance in history where a corporate demon has not be found. Clearly that is impossible. My point was that this is unhelpful and undermines the credibility of your wider contribution.PeterEastern (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"A story," not "any story." A single, rather specific subject, that of streetcars, NCL & al. Relating only to the matter at hand. If someone told you it was nice weather, would you point out that it was probably quite unpleasant in Tierra del Fuego at that moment?Anmccaff (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Another example was "Any piece that makes Quinby a simple sailor-man returning to expose a dread conspiracy is so contra-factual that it is breathtaking". It may appear breathtaking to you, but not to me and I don't see how it alters the text even if it was. We simply state in the article that his pamphlet stirred things up.

Did it, except in long retrospect?Anmccaff (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sure I note that in your response to the Quinby point above you mention that he "a public relations man" and "used his military status to help wrap the flag around his cause". If he was a PR man then it might explain why he was able to produce an effective bit of PR and why he drew on patriotism if it could but does nothing to undermine the current text that I can see. I won't even ask why it is relevant that he was an organist!

Passing over (heh) the praeterition, that's exactly the point. Quinby's temporary status was irrelevant. Would you describe J D Rockefeller primarily as "a lay preacher" when discussing monopoly?

• I don't believe that your analogy of a train journey does anything to forward your argument.

I don't believe I wrote a word about trains.Anmccaff (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Nor you did. Corrected. PeterEastern (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My point is still that you need to be more careful in how you construct your argument if you wish to make a positive contribution to the article. You certainly haven't convinced me that the article needs serious changes, quite the opposite actually.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspect any further conversation here, outside of narrow points of fact, would be unproductive. Be seeing you elsewhere.Anmccaff (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I do have to agree with you. PeterEastern (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Streetcar Article

I would be happy to help with the article. I agree that the current article seems too accepting of the politically and culturally accepted narrative at the expense of getting the facts right. It might be worth having a section talking about the popular appeal of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Damage to talk page?

An edit of yours a few hours ago to Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy appears to have deleted 7K of content, including a chunk of my contributions. Can you fix, or request help if you are not sure how to do this reliably? PeterEastern (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dunno how that happened, but that's the second time that changing a small number of characters seemingly caused a massive change.Anmccaff (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

re:There's a couple of semi-major changes I've made to the Streetcar conspiracy page; I'd appreciate it if you took a look.

This sentence is a bit wordy for a lead: [diff] "Conspiracy theorists put the number as high as 100, but reliable sources suggest that National had already acquired 20 city systems and two interurbans by the end of 1937,[1] and these should be subtracted from the 46 systems mentioned in the case,[2] and adjusted to reflect the splitting of the Elgin-Aurora line into two systems. Systems included St. Louis, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Oakland." I think perhaps a summary that conspiracy theorists think x, reliable sources say y is enough for a lead, if a discussion of those numbers is important, put it in the body. Bonewah (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a little clunky. Will simply moving the section into the body, and replacing it with a tighter summation work, or will that raise hell with the attached citations?Anmccaff (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion opened at DRN: General Motors streetcar conspiracy

Hello, Qwirkle. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy discussion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please respond to Inquiry 1 at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy discussion. Thanks. DRN volunteer --Bejnar (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Scrambling other peoples contributions on talk pages

Anmccaff, you have again scrambled someone else's contribution to a talk page, by splitting up their text and responding to it phrase by phrase here with time to a contribution by @Trackinfo: PeterEastern (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, no. I split his contribution. Scrambling would mean confusing the order.Anmccaff (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This causes two major problems:

• Firstly, people can't understand the other contributors point was in the round. PeterEastern (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That can be a valid point, but I didn't think it was here...and nor did Trackinfo, by the look of it. Given that his input was above an outdent, and mine below it, I thought it trivial to see his paragraph as a unit, but that might be a dying skill as old BBS and Usenet users die, also.Anmccaff (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Secondly, it is now unclear to readers who wrote what. PeterEastern (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, a useful point in general, but not so much for a short paragraph, minimally spread out, directly above an outdent. A pain to edit, though, and I'll try to take that into consideration going forward.Anmccaff (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I also note that you have mis-formatted an outdent and messed the indentation of Trackinfo's text. I have cleaned issues like these up for you a number of times to date. This time can I politely ask you to do it yourself, and to take more care in future. Do respond here, I am following your talk page, so will see any response you make here. Many thanks,

-- PeterEastern (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

How is it misformatted...and is it still, after TI passed through?Anmccaff (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Yes it was better after TrackInfo added the signatures, but you still shouldn't split up people's responses like that and the messed up outdent was still, there. I have reworked it into a better format [with this edit]. Note that you first let their response stand, and then quote the bits you want to respond to using 'tq' or 'to quote'. Easily done. PeterEastern (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the increase in volume, but I suppose any solution brings its own problems. It looks good and works nicely here, but on longer paragraphs it could lead to a bloated mess. BTW, wouldn't it make sense to split 6a into separately editable chunks? The smaller the area being editted, the more likely problems will pop out on preview, and the less likely edit conflict becomes.21:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

'tq" I'll try to remember that, thanks. (It's a clue that Wiki wasn't built by classics scholars, too.)Anmccaff (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Rather than splitting the section, I would urge you to work hard to find points of agreement and avoid extensive further discussion. Personally, I am still waiting for the first time that you say, 'ok, for sure - I see where you are coming from, lets do it your way'. PeterEastern (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I dunno. I've noted that, on balance "conspiracy theorist" covers too much ground to be used much in the article without caveats. That's a bit of a change.

On the other hand, what else do you think has been proposed that is amenable for compromise? To use an analogy, what we have here is an article on lunar geology which is trying to incorporate the Green Cheese Theorem.Anmccaff (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Finally, as I've said, I'd be happy to see a re-write based on Bianco and Slater, and Span. While there are many more exhaustive sources out there, they give a fairly accurate overview of what happened, and aligning the article's section on the actual NCL affair to them would be a step forward, although not a stopping point.Anmccaff (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My experience with you and observation of your interactions with others is that you don't put enough effort into understanding the other view and getting to an agreement. The better discussions I have had on WP talk, even with people with very very different views, are ones where the parties work until they understand where the other one is coming from and meet in the middle at what the sources support. PeterEastern (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, you took an interest in a subject you had some peripheral professional connection with, researched it to a point that you felt you had a a grasp on it, and helped turn the article toward that vision. In the 4 years or so since, I hope you've seen that many of the sources you used to evaluate the matter have fallen by the wayside, but you still see the final vision, what you see as the "balance" of the article, as somehow unchanged. You undoubtedly see the frequent re-balancing as stewardship, but it looks a good deal like tag-team ownership from the outside.Anmccaff (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As I also see it, you seem to view the Talk page as a sort of collective user_Sandbox rather than a place to, well, talk. You also seem to ignore the obvious purpose of a cite mentioned in Talk, but not yet integrated into the article; it's there to be evaluated and discussed. I've presented a good many sources far stronger than some of the ones in the article. I have no indication that anyone else has even bothered to read them, though.Anmccaff (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

What I might call the Strong Conspiracy thesis, the idea that the NCL case dramatically effected change in the US transit system, isn't respectable scholarship, and hasn't been so for a good many years - about 20 I'd say, and never gained wide acceptance even back in the day. It's the Green Cheese Hypothesis. Now, the idea that, say, GM's funding model quite openly encouraged systems to go with diesel, that ROI considerations favored short-lived capital assets, and so forth, isn't in doubt at all, but that has nothing to do with "conspiracy" in either the general sense, or the very narrow one that antitrust law uses in the US. The article now reflects neither fact.Anmccaff (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I am still hopeful that after a somewhat eventful few months of editing WP where you have at time been pretty confrontational and rude to other contributors, that you will start working with the rule and the community rather than pushing back all the time. I promise you that if you can do that you will find everything works much better for you and WP. PeterEastern (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I certainly have been rude to contributions, but I suspect I'll take a distant fourth place for rudeness, at most, anywhere where a number of editors imply those who disagree with them do so for surreptitious pay.Anmccaff (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking you to give up on making WP balanced, but do always check if you POV is getting in the way, because it can do. I have on many times been convinced that I am right, only to find after discussion that I was not. Now... either blast me for my insult, or come back with something more considered;) Thanks for reading this. PeterEastern (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we could all take Noll's advice to the Scots once in a while, yupp.Anmccaff (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by that. Please be aware that not all contributors have your cultural context so please always use clear and simple language in your responses. Note that I have requested this to you on more than one occasion already. PeterEastern (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I should think that that might be your cultural context a bit more than mine. The (future) Lord Protector to the Kirk, in assembly: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." My cultural context is more to use Cromwell's surname as a simple curse; my grandmother could describe the fall of Drogheda as though she'd been there, and she wasn't quite that old at the time.Anmccaff (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making these oblique irrelevant references and keep to the subject. All I am asking is that you behave in a civil manner at all times and present your arguments concisely and clearly in a way that others will certainly be able to understand. PeterEastern (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Scrambling other peoples contributions on talk pages part B

Anmccaff, you say above that 'I certainly have been rude to contributions, but I suspect I'll take a distant fourth place for rudeness'. To be clear, you can't be rude to a contribution, that is a nonsense, rudeness is always interpreted as relating to the contributor. It is perfectly possible to very politely pull someone else's logic to pieces; I don't see that from you, what I see if rudeness. I suggest that you take a look at WP:CIVIL which makes it clear that a) "Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia" b) that "No matter how much you're being provoked, resist the temptation to snap back. It never works well; it just makes things worse." In other words, civility is not optional. Even if it isn't true, do please try to give the impression that you appreciate your fellow contributors and their edits. You can then work with them to make the article better.-- PeterEastern (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, I think you...."mistaken" here, on several points. Blasting a position becomes a personal insult only to the degree that someone has personalized it. When someone replies to "These facts are wrong" with "We spent a lot of time on it, and it's been sitting here for years," you have to consider the possibility that they've entwined themselves in the article a good deal too much.Anmccaff (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to ensure that you are not uncivil. You can't duck that by blaming the reader for being offended by you barbed comments. If you won't adapt then I suspect that you will be given time out to think about it. PeterEastern (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally I want to see a real change in your approach to other editors. Note that I am not referring to the accuracy or balance of any particular phrase or content, or the appropriateness of any particular source, or indeed any particular article or subject matter. What I am referring to is your approach to other editors, which I see as being too often condescending, short, rude or ill-considered. Do try to think a bit more about where others are coming from, and give them the benefit of the doubt. Try this in particular with Spearmind, with whom you are engaging at present. Try not to argue back, avoid reverting any of his edits, but instead work out what he is trying to say and then make considered changes to the text and be very thoughtful about your responses on talk.

For the avoidance of doubt, I still find you behaviour unacceptable, and if you don't change your approach then I am confident that someone, possibly me, will request a review of you approach on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Good Lord, of course. I think it obvious that that's one of the many steps the dispute is heading toward. They also deal with "ownership" issues, if memory serves. But first things first; you brought this before the sources review, although I honestly have to wonder why you haven't really had anything whatsoever to say about sources there.Anmccaff (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I will take that as a 'no' ;) PeterEastern (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You do tend to do that.Anmccaff (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: you appear to have lost a nose. Best find it quick, they go bad when long detached.Anmccaff (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by 'you appear to have lost a nose. Best find it quick, they go bad when long detached'? If it is disparaging as I suspect then please delete it (and this response) because it has no place on WP. If it isn't disparaging then please explain what you meant and accept my apologies. PeterEastern (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This fellow:  ;) It looks suspiciously like an emoticon, except its complete lack of nasalitity. The nose is not. It pines for the fjords. PS: why won't this editor display the proper number of blank spaces after the parenthesis mark? Anmccaff (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense. Please stop it. PeterEastern (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a Monty Python fan, I take it?Anmccaff (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And, if you didn't mean the " ;) " as an emoticon, what was it there for? It looks very much like a noseless "smiley." And why were the blank spaces after it in my raw edit suppressed in the final view?Anmccaff (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Your Monty Python reference did not go unnoticed but wasn't really useful so I ignored it. The ;) I used is a wink emoticon frequently used in texting to indicate that the comment should not be taken too seriously. Apologies if that was lost on you. Will bear that in mind in future. PeterEastern (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hardly lost on me, hence the "noseless" remark. A proper smiley, were such a thing to somehow exist (a gentle hint there, I mostly have the AFUnian take on emoticons,)has a nose. :^/ ;-< !~) and so forth.

(.  .)
 @) 

Anmccaff (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring guidance from dispute process?

I note that with this edit you have again introduced the term 'conspiracy theorist' to the General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy article, despite guidance during the recent dispute resolution process (see Holding 1 and Holding 2) that the term should not be used without support from a reliable source and consensus that it's use is appropriate. I have created a section on the article's talk page where I would ask you to respond as the discussion is of general interest to other contributors to the article. PeterEastern (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Tag teaming, template plastering, editwarring,canvasing, and other samples of dog jyt

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on South Beach Diet. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Anmccaff. Unless you provide more data, your complaint at WP:AN3 will probably be closed as No violation. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Two questions: first, does that door swing in both directions? That is, do you see a "no case" on both sides? (Notice the papering above.) More importantly, what would be useful to you to see? There were two very aged cites, well outside the 5 year MEDRS guidline. (The third is an NPOV question, it's about the only reference out of at least 20 similar texts that now holds SB as a "fad diet", and the type of cite, an intro dietician's primer, isn't exactly world grade, but that's a more complex question.) The stuff about using an 11 year old preliminary evaluation is a blatant MEDRS failure, as is the pre-Nurses' Health Study stuff. Anmccaff (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

As an admin, it's not my job to resolve content questions. A problem you face is that the South Beach material is quite technical. Unless the point in dispute is very well explained, any outsiders who check out the controversy won't know what to think. A very clear WP:Request for comment might be an idea to persuade people to support you. Since RFCs are advertised, they can bring in people new to the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I understand that an admin here will only get involved in the most blatant, no-brainer kind of content issues...but I think the cites that fail on MEDRS fit that, and I therefor don't see what I was...no, am... doing as edit warring because of that. That is, I see the ball in Jytdog's court, he needs to address the MEDRS issue before reverting, and doing otherwise is very much edit warring. Do you see this differently? Anmccaff (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There does seem to be an article at food faddism. Contrary to my assumption, we do recognize 'fad' as proper terminology. Still, you would assume that MEDRS-sourced claims would be more technical and medical-sounding. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Before Atkins took off, "fad diet" was used, exclusively, as ordinary English. For a while, roughly the late '70s to around 2000, you saw a...metaphorical isn't quite the right word... but you saw it extended to Atkins despite the fact it wasn't, in the ordinary sense, a fad. By and large, before that, diets seen as silly or dangerous had been also seen as self-limiting; people found they didn't work, and gave them up, so they'd have a short run of popularity and die on their own. Anmccaff (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, take a look at the history for Food faddism if you get a chance; you can see someone posted a reference trhat was actually a review of affordable wines. I suspect that was one of the better cites, whole page is a tendentious confused mess. Anmccaff (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on South Beach Diet. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#boomerang Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

...which, of course, was considered unfounded.

Edit war warning, again

As you know, the last time you tried this, your accusation was considered unfounded.

stepping back

I don't understand where you are coming from, on these fad diet articles. Could we maybe talk a bit about where each of us are coming from? Maybe it would help ease things on the individual articles. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think looking at the talk pages and the edit notes should make that clear. For example, someone -you, I think- piled on a bunch of cites on the Scarsdale article which did not, in fact, support the contentions made; one even directly and unequivocably contradicted it. It very strongly suggested someone grabbing cites off a tendentious search, and barely even bothering to read them.

Next, the "fad diet" article" is a horribly written equivocating mess, and linking any article to it is a very bad idea for that reason. It is never clear in it whether "fad" is being used in the normal sense, or in the (thankfully, fading) sense of "fad-type." Diet fads can be medically neutral; some do no harm at all, some merely harm the wallet. The fact that, say, blueberries become the food-of-the-month does not make a diet emphasizing them evil. The fact that South Beach winds up on Oprah does not make it necessarily bad, but it can be correctly labeled with one meaning of "fad diet" because of that, and a bad editor can then unconsciously or deliberately swap out meanings. In 2003, say, there was a "South Beach Diet" fad; that doesn't mean that is necessarily a "fad diet" in the sense seen in Bastin or DeBruyn, Pinna,&Whitney.

Next, there's a real reason for timelines in sources. When you use a 9 year old cite that specifically notes that some of the information is evolving, a good editor should either reject it, or consider specifically what information has evolved. The Nurses Health Study pretty systematically destroyed the idea that many diets were intrinsically unhealthy, and that has changed perception of lower-carbohydrate diets.

Next, an article about medical matters should mirror accepted medical practice. Frankly, given a choice between the Mayo Clinic and WebMD on the one hand, and Some Guy On the Internet on the other, I'll take mine with Mayo. Both these sources, which might be a little too popularized for a more scientific subject, are more than appropriate for an article that centers on accepted clinical practice.

Finally, this is the English language wikipedia, not the Murricanistani one. Review of ideas about low carbohydrate diets in Britain and Australia have often been less censorious. Anmccaff (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I was asking about - that is tactical/article level stuff. I am asking where you are coming from. Let me explain from my side. If you look at mainstream medical advice about diet - about what you should eat - (the unbranded government/health authority recommendations) like these:

• Scientific Committee report for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015
• Tuso PJ, Ismail MH, Ha BP, Bartolotto C. Nutritional update for physicians: plant-based diets. Perm J. 2013 Spring;17(2):61-6. PMID 23704846 (free full text)
• McEvoy CT, Temple N, Woodside JV. Vegetarian diets, low-meat diets and health: a review. Public Health Nutr. 2012 Dec;15(12):2287-94. PMID 22717188
• USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010
• American Dietetic Association, 2009. Adopting a Plant-Based Diet
• Demark-Wahnefried W, Rock CL, Patrick K, Byers T. Lifestyle interventions to reduce cancer risk and improve outcomes. Am Fam Physician. 2008 Jun 1;77(11):1573-8. PMID 18581838 (free full text)

What you find is that all say that all of us should not eat too much, and should exercise, and should try to eat lots of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and should get protein from low-fat meat or vegetables, and should do all that regularly, day in and day out. All these branded diets are "fads" in the sense that they come with all this marketing promotionalism and many of them advise crazy stuff focused on short term weight loss. Some of them come pretty close to mainstream medical advice, but to the extent that any one of them emphasize some special aspect (which they all need to do, to differentiate themselves from the others), they fall away from mainstream advice as well. And this is, and has been since they first emerged in the 1970s, the mainstream medical approach to all these branded diets. That is where I am coming from. Will you tell me where you are coming from? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

See, this is a perfect example of "where you are coming from;" McEvoy's work above says nothing about most of the points you raise here, and only addresses exercise in passing as a confounding variable. But that's not important is it? A footnote's a footnote, and, if you can't find one that says what you want, just say it does, or dig back enough in time, or lower the standards for citation quality. The facts can't get in the way of TRVTH!

Btw, the day-to-day, day-in-and-day out part is also a bit shaky. Do any of the cites say that explicitly? And, more importantly, isn't that a waning view, except in fairly strict reducing diets, where daily balance can be an issue?

Where you appear to be "coming from" is that you don't like commercial diets, and have no reservations about slandering them, frankly.

Where you also seem to be coming from is a lotusland where merely identifying a better eating pattern is enough to shift people to it, and doctors and patients who make adjustments for actual human frailty are probably better off put against a pock-marked wall. Anmccaff (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not here to argue. I came to ask about where you are coming from, so I can understand you better, in the hope that this would help us work on specific content better together. (I am not trying to shift the ground so I can "win". Wikipedia is not about winning) I explained where I am coming from to give you a sense of the place i am coming from - to help you understand what I am asking you. So please tell me, why do you care about these named diets? Why are they important to you? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess you are not interested in this discussion? I would like to understand you better, but if you don't want to try this approach, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What discussion? You haven't addressed a single point I've raised. Anmccaff (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scarsdale diet. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pritikin Diet. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scarsdale diet. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

Your comments Arbcom re GMO

I saw your comments here, where you said, "I have had a remarkably similar experience with Jytdog on articles on various commercial diets". I briefly looked at Scarsdale Diet to see what you meant, but I do not know the WP:RS well enough to be able to see if there are problems or not with the edits. Can you say more and give examples in the evidence of the behaviors you saw, whether favorable or unfavorable? I see that Alexbrn also edited there. David Tornheim (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell, Jytdog added three cites apparently from simply googling without even bothering to read them before posting. One didn't even mention the subject, one was superanuated, and one, God help us, was qualified -praise- from a rather strong source. When I added Harding le Riche's comments...i.e, actually read, evaluated and used the cite, Jytdog reverted it, without discussion.

(cur | prev) 02:32, 28 September 2015‎ Anmccaff (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,695 bytes) (+440)‎ . . (A good cite, which Jytdog has =yet to explain his new-found dislike of. [Quit] reverting without substantive discussion.) (undo) (cur | prev) 17:58, 27 September 2015‎ Alexbrn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,255 bytes) (-440)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 683031775 by Alexbrn (talk): Stop edit warring in crappy content, there is no consensus for this bad change. (TW)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 17:53, 27 September 2015‎ Anmccaff (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,695 bytes) (+440)‎ . . (Undid revision 683031775 Undid tag-team revision. If this cite fails NPOV, it did when your teammate added it.k]])) (undo) (cur | prev) 17:44, 27 September 2015‎ Alexbrn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,255 bytes) (-440)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 680078741 by Jytdog (talk): Rv. undue. (TW)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 17:22, 27 September 2015‎ Anmccaff (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,695 bytes) (+440)‎ . . (Cite again undone by Jytdog without discussion, despite mendacious "continue to discuss" in reason.) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:46, 8 September 2015‎ Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,255 bytes) (-440)‎ . . (Undid revision 680078593 by Anmccaff (talk) per BRD please continue to discuss, thanks) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:45, 8 September 2015‎ Anmccaff (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,695 bytes) (+440)‎ . . (Again, explain why this cite was good enough as condemnation?) (undo) (cur | prev) 15:39, 8 September 2015‎ Alexbrn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,255 bytes) (-440)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 680006828 by Alexbrn (talk): Rv. undue/out-of-date/unreliable, see Talk. (TW)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:34, 8 September 2015‎ Anmccaff (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,695 bytes) (+440)‎ . . (Removing your own cite, Dog?) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:50, 8 September 2015‎ Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,255 bytes) (-428)‎ . . (Undid revision 680016534 by Anmccaff (talk) per talk - please work this out there) (undo | thank)

Notice all of Jytdog' references to discussion? Take a look on the talk page. You'll find...none, really. Just a bunch of carefully alternated tag-team reverts.

At about this point, Jytdog went on my talk page to "find out where [I] was coming from." Again the same pattern of Googling up stuff without even reading it, along with an apologia for tendentious editing. [[2]]. Anmccaff (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and info. Interesting stuff. I had know idea about the use of Google in this way--good find. Evidence has already closed, so it is probably too late to add it now. David Tornheim (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think this is actually all that uncommon, unfortunately. People tend to think that good cites will agree with them, and act accordingly. Back when I was a' servin' o' his Majesty the Cecil on the Straight Dope website, we even had a word for it: an "anti-cite"; an authority proudly trotted out that actually disproved the point being advanced. I'm sure you'll see some examples of it in the GMO dispute, and probably a few of them in your own camp, too. Anmccaff (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 2

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Disappearing gun. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Qwirkle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No multiple reverts, no discussion by filer

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, since the block has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please note that Agressor, in fact, did not discuss his changes, as BRD suggests, instead plastered the talk page with irrelevant, and inaccurate, links to policy, and finally agreed with the existing consensus. Multiple disagreements don't, in themselves, make an edit war.

Also note that Aggressor listed edit warring warnings which were found to be without merit (by the same admin as placed the block, in at least one case), left over from a tag-team revert pastern which has one participant, Jytdog up before Arbcom. This didn't belong in here.

Finally, there was nothing "pointed" about my final revert; I had simply assumed the clock had timed out on a stale request, which I was only notified of at all by Bbs223's courtesy. Anmccaff (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of block reviewers, here is a permanent link to the 3RR report about Disappearing gun. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I'd assumed that this was automated in somehow in the notice process; it isn't?

also, will the review request still be acted on after the block expires? Anmccaff (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Normally there is no further review of expired blocks. You can discuss with User:Bbb23 if you think the block was unfair. Neither party seems to have been actively working for consensus. Options for WP:DR are available to you.There seems to be no lack of sources. You can ask at WT:MILHIST for help with content issues. If there is a question about usability of sources you can ask WP:RSN. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd first like to get an outside view or three; you appear to see the block as reasonable, for instance. Given, however, the unfortunate way that some wikieditors and even a few admins look superficially at ANI and block logs, and base further decisions on that, I might prefer to take this up...wherever one takes this up.

I'd also question that there was no one working for consensus. The article was dripping with he best kind of consensus, where writers all look over each others edits, and nod and mutter that'll do to themselves, consensus through editing.

I do not think there is any problem with expertise, at least among the pre-existing writers.

Thanks. 17:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well you're continuing to edit-war outdated opinion into the Scarsdale diet article, which is problematic (and of a piece with your editing of other named diet articles). Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be tts, for tag team stalker?

And you've reverted again[3]]. Looks like you're keener on mashing the revert key than getting familiar with our WP:PAGs - on which note, BTW, baseless accusations of WP:TAGTEAM are uncivil and could need attention. Editors with a thinner skin than me would be within their rights to kick up a big fuss about such naughtiness. Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit war on Scarsdale diet resuming within hours of release of EW block. Thank you. The Dissident Aggressor 14:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Only half the tag team? Yer slipping.

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to South Beach Diet, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Keep this up and you'll be going to ANI again. Alexbrn (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Does Twinkle treat rollback of vandalism as a minor edit? I do not see why it should, neccesarrily, but there's nothing "deceptive" about that, at least on my part. Restoring an inaccurate summation of a cite without substantive discussion certainly looks a good deal like vandalism. Yes, @Alexbrn:. let's take it to ANI, where you can explain why you are lying about the content of a cite. Anmccaff (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Marking controversial edits as minor is deceptive. Many editors don't watch minor edits so it's used as a way to edit under the radar. Still, you know what you're doing and it's as silly as its futile. Alexbrn (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Then take that up with Twinkle's creator, please. Anmccaff (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

From WP:TWINKLE: "Warning: You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk being blocked from editing." Alexbrn (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

...and? I am taking full responsibility; the page was marked minor in error, and I'll try to avoid that when commenting about your inevitable future vandalism. Anmccaff (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

July 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on South Beach Diet. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Again. Alexbrn (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

As has been the case before, I'd suggest that it is you who are edit-warring, with a little bit of tag-team reversion tossed in for good measure. If you disagree, them open it at AN3. 19:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on South Beach Diet. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You're getting pretty close to a trip to WP:AIN with your POV-pushing here. Alexbrn (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Anmccaff reported by User:Bradv (Result: ). Thank you. Bradv 00:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at South Beach Diet.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Stop it. At least one of your edit summaries has been characterized, accurately I believe, as so blatantly untrue as to make AGF very difficult. Please stop your edit warring and seek consensus before making controversial edits. If you persist in your recent pattern of editing this is not going to end well. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwirkle. You have new messages at Ibadibam's talk page.
Message added 01:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ibadibam (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You have been topic banned

Per the clear consensus in this ANI discussion you have been indefinitely topic banned from any and all articles or talk page discussions relating to diets, broadly construed. While you are free to remove this notice the ban remains in place until such time as you are specifically informed by the community that it has been modified or removed. Failure to adhere to this ban may result in additional sanctions, not excluding an indefinite block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks for letting me know, @Ad Orientem:. Not the outcome I might have preferred, but I suspect some of the proprietorial behaviors displayed -asking someone what business they had editing, for instance, were seen by a new set of eyes, and the worst example of tendentious editing has already been edited away. Anmccaff (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Mine Spew

Re your of reversions and comments on my contributions to section on the Scranton 1877 shooting of striking miners in the "Lists of Workers' Deaths" article

Anmccaff:

You did not address my contribution to the article; I simply said: there are varying viewpoints on what precipitated, that is, what really happened in the shootings in the Scranton riot of 1877: in short, what caused the shooting is disputed--a fact that is easily determined by reading the actual historical record.

There is a word for this; it is "lie."

Here's the diff, wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes&type=revision&diff=704304401&oldid=704011993 ;here is your contribution:

|Great Railroad Strike of 1877: The day after railroad workers conceded and returned to work, angry striking miners clashed with a 50-person posse under the command of William Walker Scranton, general manager of the Lackawanna Iron & Coal Company. It was alleged by the company and their witnesses that a posse member was shot in the knee, the posse responded by killing or fatally wounding four of the strikers. Other witnesses testified that no shots were fired by the miners.

Here's your next diff, [[4]]; here's your contribution:

|Great Railroad Strike of 1877: The day after railroad workers conceded and returned to work, angry striking miners clashed with a 50-person posse under the command of William Walker Scranton, general manager of the Lackawanna Iron & Coal Company. When a posse member was shot in the knee, the posse responded by killing or fatally wounding four of the strikers. The event is disputed; other eyewitnesses said the miners did not fire.

The cites you (mis)used were quite clear that the shooting by rioters or strikers was a real event, yet you claim they said otherwise. You also added a work of fiction as a factual cite. Anmccaff (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You dismissed what I wrote and you did that by discounting and deleting references you have not read, offering personal opinions, and quoting from one source—a source I also quoted from but which you deleted because it apparently did not support your opinion of events. The other references I used you dismissed without having read them, because if you had, you would see that there are indeed other viewpoints from other witnesses and their contemporaries about the shootings—as indicated also in the source you have that quotes from Scranton’s pro-labor paper.

Again, that's a flat out lie. I did, in fact, read the relevant cites provided, which directly contradicted your claim. No one disputed that the group attempting the rescue of an attempted murder victim was fired on first. Anmccaff (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the pro-labor publications of the day had a different take on the tragic events. I quoted you a passage supporting that, that is also from the only book you cite. The quote I gave you illustrates how views of the event published in the labor paper differed considerably from the vigilantes’ viewpoint of events. You are simply taking one view of the event (basically the anti-labor view) and positing it as fact, while not allowing that other documented views of the event exist, and also not allowing that information to appear in the article. You dismissed the pro-labor publication I cited as irrelevant. That’s your opinion, but the fact that a different view of the events exists in the historical record is the point I'm making and it has nothing to do with how worthy the publication cited may or may not be in your opinion.

Umm, no. The cite supported quite well the belief that many, not just on the striker's side, felt that shooting 3 or 4 men dead might not have been called for. That's very different from your claim.

You are also expressing your personal opinion on another source I cited as a scholarly source, “Mine Seed.” Whatever your opinion may be, it does not that change the fact that it's a scholarly source, i.e. a researched and documented work with appended historical references to primary sources and records of events in Scranton during the 1870s. (BTW, "The History of Lackawanna," the only book you quote, can be viewed as self-published, a vanity publication, since it was published by the "Scranton Times"' associate editor with subscriptions by people who wanted to have their biographies included in it. That doesn't take away from its value as a repository of historical fact and record.) As I said, I think the family genealogical references (also a form self-publishing) should stand in the article because I don't want to see information censored. It's for the reader to decide the truth after reading all relevant historical information. I don't have time for further discussion about this and I've already provided you pertinent historical references; if you chose to follow up on this you will find the accounts and immediate causes of the shootings vary according to who's talking about the shootings, as a I wrote originally--the accounts are disputed. Cheers. ````St. o'hara — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No. "Mine seed" is fiction. It is not an acceptable source of fact. Period. And please don't confuse "lack of time" with other deficiencies. Anmccaff (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring your incivility and attacks, my final response to you is that I referred you to references which you did not read that show, if you read them, that there was considerable dispute at the time about what actually happened regarding the shootings. In fact, they were two distinctly opposing versions of the event. One saying that the miners fired no shots, another saying they did. The sources I referenced illustrate these two versions, showing accounts so divergent that, as eyewitness accounts from the Scranton papers at the time of the shootings record, testimony given by some eyewitnesses resulted in a coroner's jury rendering a verdict of first degree murder against the alleged shooters. Warrants for the arrest of the alleged shooters were issued and they were arraigned and later tried for murder/manslaughter. The record of events surrounding what actually occurred in the shootings is varied depending on which side one believes--and a record of court proceedings shows the same lack of agreement in the eyewitness accounts.````St o'hara — Preceding unsigned comment added by St o'hara (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I know of no greater "incivility" than to lie about another's position, and you seem very, very fond of doing just that. You raised a very specific point which your own cites, excepting one which is openly fiction, did not support. When this was pointed out, you merely repeated the initial lie again and again. The cites, excepting the fiction you seem so enamored of, support the idea that the posse was fired on first. Anmccaff (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Mine Seed

A novel based on historical fact. I agree that we can't pass it off as WP:RS. You were right. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll revert my revert at Scranton, Pennsylvania, but can you find a proper reference for this - it doesn't seem to be a "controversial fact." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice: Please stop

Anmccaff, please stop reverting text and references from my wiki contributions, and no more personal attacks on me. St o'hara (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara

You appear to be a little confused about this. While something may have been your submission, your contribution, it's now Wikipedia's article. Not mine, not yours. The references have to meet wiki's standards, the subjects have to meet wiki's standards. If someone feels that your submission is wrong, they correct it, and then people can discuss it on the article's talk page. Anybody...indeed, just anybody can edit, but that doesn't mean than any edit, or just any edit, has a right to stay there. Anmccaff (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Anmccaff: I am not confused--you are reverting what I wrote, and I am simply replying to your reverts of the text and references that I posted. You have been reverting historical references and other references along with text I contributed according to your opinion of said material. For example, you deleted references from the historical novel "Mine Seed" that explicitly referred to its bibliography containing historically archived documents and material. You also deleted another reference I cited from the "History of Lackawanna County" but kept one from the same book that supported your point of view; I answered you about all of this in good faith. Now you are going after another contribution I made relating to music and jazz history in the New York City , Northeastern PA area because you claim its subject is not notable enough, though Wiki guidelines are clear on what constitutes notability.St o'hara (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)St. O'hara

You certainly appear to be unclear about scholarly standards, and how Wikipedia applies them, or modifies them. To begin with, fictional sources are bad cites of fact; that includes any seemingly or actually non-fiction components. They are there to explain the fiction, and therefore might be biased to a particular POV...generally are, in fact. Next, you seem to think that a give-away newspaper in a small suburb is a strong cite for the prominence of a self-published author. You appear to have difficulty actually reading both the cites you give, other's responses, and, indeed, even in remembering your own position. You claimed that a cite disputed that a member of a posse was shot. It did not, at any point. It did point out that many felt the response to be excessive, a very different thing. Anmccaff (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Anmcaff: I said the shooting was disputed--I did not say a posse member was not shot. If you read the sources I cited (found in Mine Seed's bib.) which are issues of the "The Scranton Republican" from the days surrounding the shootings you can read that testimony was given that the miners did not shoot. This is a matter of historical record. If you can supply a source that cites the name or names of miners who did the shooting I would appreciate it, but no miners were ever charged in the shooting. It is hearsay evidence. At best it's unclear what happened and to say otherwise is not accurate. I said there are two Povs about this this event and both should be represented in any discussion of the 1877 shootings in Scranton. St o'hara (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)St. O'hara

Here's your actual edit; it seems to be a good deal different from what you are claiming now:

(The reader will note, of course, the high-quality self-published fictional source at the end.) Anmccaff (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Great Railroad Strike of 1877: The day after railroad workers conceded and returned to work, angry striking miners clashed with a 50-person posse under the command of William Walker Scranton, general manager of the Lackawanna Iron & Coal Company. It was alleged by the company and their witnesses that a posse member was shot in the knee, the posse responded by killing or fatally wounding four of the strikers. Other witnesses testified that no shots were fired by the miners.

Yes, that sentence should be clarified and thanks for bringing it to my attention. It should have also said "by the miners" and read: "It was alleged by the company and their witnesses that a posse member was shot in the knee by the miners; the posse responded by killing or fatally wounding four of the strikers. Other witnesses testified that no shots were fired by the miners." As already cited, testimony from witnesses with an opposite view of the event was recorded in papers of the time, and in the coroner's inquest and coroner's jury's verdict leading to the arrest of the shooters on charges of murder. St o'hara (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara

Still not right. The distinction wasn't between "miner" and "company" in all cases; Sometimes it was "rioters" and "damn near everyone else." And the sources you've given make it quite clear that the charges against the posse were widely seen as political. Anmccaff (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Deleting references

Anmcaff: Stop deleting references and text on my pages. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. St o'hara (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara

Exactly. It's someone else's encyclopedia, not your page. When someone posts a concern, address it, don't just edit it under the rug. Anmccaff (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right, they're not my "pages"-- I meant contributions. RE: the references you deleted on the Mine Seed article-- "Counterpunch" is a print and online journal founded and edited by the late author and respected journalist Alexander Cockburn--also a regular contributor to the "Nation" magazine. "Voices in the Wilderness" is a magazine edited by peace activist Kathy Kelly, (a Nobel peace prize nominee)and others. These are not self-publishing sites and the fact that articles are online does not mean they are self-published or "letters to the editor." Some of these articles may also have appeared in print but are also available online. St o'hara (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)St. o'hara

Regarding Counterpunch, the print section and the online section are separate. One is a published journal; the other closer to self-publishing. Anyone can submit something. Nobody gets paid for it. The website deals with any questions with a straightforward disavowal. That's no more being a "journalist" than writing a letter to your local paper is; in fact, the process is almost exactly identical. Ms. Dailey is not in the print edition; the other does not count, and you can not borrow notability from the late Mr. Cockburn for her.

Actual Nobel Prize nominees are announced well after the fact, generally; the committee is letting the ones from '64 or so out now, IMS. Just as with the Oscars, or the Pulitzers, "nomination" is a finalist category; the fact that someone has been suggested by some outside group means nothing. From the Nobel people:

The statutes of the Nobel Foundation restrict disclosure of information about the nominations, whether publicly or privately, for 50 years. The restriction concerns the nominees and nominators, as well as investigations and opinions related to the award of a prize.

Thanks for pointing this out; I'll clean up her article, too. Anmccaff (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Annmcaff: Many prominent people write for Counterpunch--and pay has nothing to do with good writing for that matter. Kathy Kelly is a respected peace activist. I can't find the ref but it was that she was nominated for the Peace Prize. But anyone can be nominated so-- either way, she is a highly regarded activist for peace who also edited the ref you deleted. And please stop deleting references. Other people may be interested in reading things you don't approve of. It is of no service to Wikikpedia to delete references.St o'hara (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)St. O'hara

...but not on the website side they don't. Nope, there, it's any Tom, Dick, and Harriet. And, yes, pay is suggestive; it means someone valued the submission enough to reward it. Sometimes with free, you get exactly what you paid for; a lot of wikiediting looks like this, come to think about it.

Nobel nominations are not officially released for 50 years after the fact. Some group or person may have claimed to have nominated someone, but we have no way to know if they actually did. We also have no way of knowing what the Nobel committee's thoughts are about nominators who flout the rules about confidentiality. Even if there are no fixed, automatic consequences, it may be a blackball to the nominee.

If you don't want the references you post challenged, then get good references. Not little hometown give-away papers, unless the subject is little and hometown-y. Not people who are self-published, unless they've built a reputation elsewhere. Not references you half-read, and don't support the point you raise. If you post crap, expect it to be flushed. Anmccaff (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 or Ponyo ; Bbb23/Ponyo or, "Sockie does COI"

are they really the same person? I thought Bbb23/Tenebrae were being protected by Ponyo, but what you said also could make sense. Butchering the Antonin Scalia , John B. Poindexter bit 63.143.207.26 (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

(In Foghorn Leghorn voice) "Ah say, Ah say, that's a joke, son!" That was humor. Bbb23 and Tenebrae are separate people. Bbb23 is a decent fellow. Don't know that I've interacted with Tenebrae so much, but I suspect they are OK, too. If you are having a problem with them both, say, reverting something you wrote, it is far more likely than not that this is because they each separately think you are wrong, rather than it is some form of puppetry.

Now, you can do two things with the above information. You can re-look at whatever was going on between you and them...plural, that's three different people, if you include the redoubtable Ponyo (also a decent sort, BTW), or you can find another admin and accuse me of being yet another sock. Your call. Anmccaff (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Never accused Ponyo of "being" Bbb23 as much as "backing up" Bbb23/Tenebrae. Tenebrae is the sort who feels a Presidential Unit Citation for a unit led by Poindexter in Vietnam offers no distinction from 10s of thousands, when not nearly that number even hit the rank of Captain. Bbb23 flat ignores the same question placed in front of him as to his rationale for removing John B. Poindexter, the man who discovered Antonin Scalia's dead body, from the section of Antonin Scalia's article pertaining to the Supreme Court of the United States Justice's death.. 209.140.33.205 (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"No distinction" or doesn't, of itself, justify inclusion in a wiki article, or an article of his own? Big difference.

Next,how would that be relevant to finding a corpse, exactly?

Reading the talk page, I see Tenebrae's point; I don't think you have made yours clear. Perhaps if you express yourself better over there, not here you might change somebody's mind. Anmccaff (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

you find Presidential Unit Citations not notable? You believe a section about the death should not mention the man who found the body? 50.29.115.162 (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What part of 'over there, not here" do you have trouble understanding?

I see Ponyo engaged with accusing User:Optim.usprime (talk) (ip User:74.88.32.47-talk) of also using other ips, but that joke is blocking user Optim.usprime.. 209.140.33.205 (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This section you wrote above isn't even English. Anmccaff (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

lol? Why's User:Optim.usprime blocked? 50.29.115.162 (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Lol somewhere else, Sockie. Anmccaff (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

why editfests are a bad idea, parts one and two

Enough is enough

Anmccaff, you keep adding dubious tags to the Elizabeth Alexander article, without any discussion on the talk page. I have not seen any editors agreeing with your tags, yet I count 4 editors who disagree with them. Either start a discussion regarding your issues with the article on the talk page, or I will be removing the tags. Worm^TT(talk) 16:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned:,I add the tags, and you (plural) revert them, without addressing the underlying issues. That's the essence of edit-warring, on your (plural) part. As for "other editors," that would seem to be two, one of which has obvious competency issues, and objective view of one of which is is probably clouded by your personal connection. Address the damned article instead of gaming, please. Anmccaff (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There isn't an issue with the article just because you decide there is one. Wikipedia is a collaboration, and no individual is more important than the rest of the community. There is no cabal, we're not working as a group against you, but unfortunately in this case you are simply wrong. Making personal attacks (re: competence), borderline legal threats (re: libel), or complaining about personal connection (I am far and away the top contributor to the article, had you looked) only serves to make you appear as someone who is desperate to change the matter from a content dispute to a personal dispute. If there is anyone gaming the system, it's quite clear that it's you. As for "just two editors", I count 3 editors on the talk page disagreeing with you, plus me (who's stayed largely silent), plus the good article reviewer, before you even take into account the silent majority of ~3,600 editors who have read the article in the past 2 months and had no problems. . As I said, if you have issues with the article, discuss them on the talk page, per Wikipedia dispute resolution processes or your opinions will be roundly ignored. Worm^TT(talk) 17:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. I've raised specific issues, which were "dealt with" by reversion, or threat of slow-motion edit war.

Let's run through the "personal attacks" here. We have "lazy rubbish sources," starting out the cavalcade of personalization. I didn't write that. Nor did I question what keeps anybody up at night. Nor did I revert, unaddressed, anyone's edit with "remove nonsense/troll tag". If you want to bring up personalization, then I suggest you open it at ANI.

Again, where did I make any borderline legal threats? I pointed out, again unanswered, that Headbomb had made assertions about one of the cited authors that, in another context, might be actionable. Do you disagree with that? Did you read the diff? Anmccaff (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Of all the things you raised, your valid points were addressed, the others dismissed. You correctly pointed out that some source wasn't published by the US Goverment Printing Office, I fixed that. You pointed out that a sentence could be read in one way, while another meaning was intended, I fixed that.

Save for those two things, your edits on the Elizabeth Alexander article have been unproductive and you've needlessly been looking for a fight. Your repeated re-addition [5] [6] [7] of the tag after that is textbook WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT / WP:POINT. Likewise for contesting basic facts [8] using pointlessly convoluted and tortuous arguments, like she's not commonly known as Elizabeth Alexander because she published under FES Alexander, in light of pretty much all sources referring to her as Elizabeth Alexander. Richard Feynman is known as Richard Feynman even thought he's published under RP Feynman. Or adding equally silly / bad faith / pure trolling tags like [9], when it's painfully clear that she's known in astronomy circles, supported by plenty of sources WHICH YOU YOURSELF HAVE READ. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No. A scientist should be noted under their name, their common name, and their publication name. Period.

Otherwise all you can find is "rubbish sources," as someone put it. The reason why this article is so bad is because it's based, in effect, on a single source -Orchiston, and the internet spin-offs from that. Now , Orchiston isn't a bad source, despite your demi-libels, but he's narrowly focused on 6 months of a 30 year career, and sometimes a little weak on minor details. He's easy to find, though, especially if you are looking under the wrong name, and wholly online.

Patna Science College did not exist until Miss Caldwell was 20. She had left India an entire decade before. You managed to change one wrong set of facts for a different wrong set of facts. That isn't progress.

Most of her work with radios -which was extensive- dealt with long-range propagation; with direction-finding, i.e., radar; and with radiometeorology. She was one of a handfull of people who laid the groundwork for weather radar.

Her work on practical geology in Singapore was still the standard for about 20 years after her death, and is still commonly referenced. I believe -but am not sure- her geological/agronomic work in Nigeria lasted even longer.

But she wasn't the "First Radio-astronomer!!!" or the First Woman Radioastronomer!!!!!" or any of that crap; by the time she published,, the cat was long out of the bag. Anmccaff (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to reply in full at the moment, but Anmcaff, I'm serious, stop using legally charged language that will lead to a chilling effect. You said to me that something is possibly "actionable" and are again using terms like "demi-libel". That will get you blocked, just stop. Worm^TT(talk) 21:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I brought this here because discussion wasn't happening, but the discussion regarding the article really should be happening on the article talk page, so that other interested parties could comment. If neither of you object, I'll last few comments over to the talk page this evening. Worm^TT(talk) 15:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You can -copy- it to the article talk page, sure. It stays here also, though. Anmccaff (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I had every intention of copying the text across last night, but an impromptu trip has rather taken away from my time, I'll be unavailable for the next couple of days. I also see that there's been some progress on the article, and that you've spent a bit of time actually changing the article rather than trying to explain why you thought it was wrong. I do think your edits were an improvement and that you should spend more time doing that, Wikipedia is meant to be collaborative and the intent is to get the best quality articles - so if you can ever see a way to fix a problem rather than leave a tag, then please do the former! I've removed two of the tags you left on the article (expanding the info on one, and explaining why I think the other is mistaken), and left a query on the talk page re the other 2 - if you don't mind having a look, I'd appreciate it. I should be back by the weekend. Worm^TT(talk) 08:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I think this situation needs outside eyes. Worm^TT(talk) 19:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Olga Tufnell

Can you explain to me how you just happened to stumble on another one of User:Worm That Turned's peer-reviewed articles? It certainly casts a shadow of doubt on your intentions, here. I'd look poorly upon your appearance at a third article.--v/r - TP 17:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@TParis:,a simple check of interactions on the articles will show this is all an outgrowth of the whole flap surrounding user:Keilana's Signpost piece "Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month". If you believe that someone can showcase work, and then claim that those looking at it and responding are "hounding" them, then please do take it to ANI. Anmccaff (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: @TParis:, peer reviewed? In real life, that means an expert's work reviewed by other experts. How can you write this with a straight face...or, perhaps you didn't: this a sort of performance art, like street-miming? See what's the most ridiculous piece of newspeak wikiblather you can use, that sorta thing? Anmccaff (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

So, you're targetting the works simply because they appeared on a Gender Gap signpost series? I see. That certainly makes your actions a lot clearer. I'll leave you with a link to "do not disrupt the encyclopedia to make a point". You have been told you are wrong on a large number of points by a significant number of people. It will not be long before you cross the line to trolling, something I will not stand for. Worm^TT(talk) 21:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

"Targeting?" Now, there's a nice, neutral way of putting it, isn't it? No sign of ownership there, nope.

I made fairly clear why I think that edit-fests, regardless of subject, are a two-edged sword, they often seem to get a lot done, but at a cost of accuracy and impartiality, especially when tied to a cause. This was a pretty good example of this in action. Of the first four articles I looked at in depth, two were...well, let's just say they needed an awful lot of work. The early pass on Alexander was an atrocity.

Who are these "significant number of people" you see, BTW, and are you comfortable standing with them, @Worm That Turned:? Anmccaff (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments on the talk page about diabetes mellitus. I had heard that metformin is going to be used into research to see whether it can reduce risk of diabetes, but I thought that this was Type One diabetes. Vorbee (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vorbee:, yes, exactly. They are looking at doing with potential type one cases the sort of early intervention that most people associate with early type two. That is, they are looking at catching the onset before it is full blown diabetes. Anmccaff (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Scrantonism

Scranton General Strike

May be a good time to take this to WP:AfD given the author's opinion that it be merged. TimothyJosephWood 00:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: I'm sorry you received this bad advice. This content dispute at Scranton General Strike should have been resolved through discussion on the talk page and an RfC, not this poorly-thought AfD. Your recent move of the article is also a un-advisable idea while the matter is still under discussion. You seem to have a misplaced belief that you can unilaterally force your way. You cannot. Back off and let the discussion happen. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: This naming is plainly and simply OR; no one so far has disputed it, aside from the original promulgator. Do you disagree? Now, whether the article should be fixed, merged, or quietly throttled out behind the barn, that's another question. There are no secondary, primary, or tertiary sources calling this "the Scranton General Strike," though. Anmccaff (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. A quick Google search for Scranton General Strike produces:

• "A GENERAL STRIKE AT SCRANTON ..." - NY Times July 25, 1877
• "OLD SCRANTON, as shown in an engraving from about 1875 ... Three years later it had its first general strike" - LIFE magazine 29 Apr 1957
• "Here a general strike in 1877 has halted operations on the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad in Scranton" - Scranton Railroads 2009 ISBN 0738565180

... and so on. Only a pedant could possibly insist that these reliable sources were referring to an event that is not well-described as "Scranton General Strike". --RexxS (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope, that's a descriptive, not a proper name, in each case listed. There's plenty of secondary scholarship on this, and plenty of local descriptions. Nobody calls it, as a name, "the Scranton General Strike." Even if they did, the more controversial aspects happened after the rail workers threw in the towel, and the strike was no longer general. Find a decent secondary cite naming the event, not just some bottom-feeding off google. Anmccaff (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't need much effort as I demonstrated to find reliable sources that describe the event in Scranton as a General Strike and no amount of hand-waving on your part can make them go away. Encyclopedia articles are titled in such a way as to describe their topic in the most natural way, and your OR in trying to pretend that the events were only the demonstration, not the strike is not convincing anybody. Those three sources I gave are both decent and reliable. If you think that "GENERAL STRIKE AT SCRANTON" isn't perfectly well rendered as "Scranton General Stike", you need to get a grip on reality. Where are your sources that name the event as "Scranton Strikes of 1877"? That doesn't even fit our manual of style for capitalisation. --RexxS (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

. hand-waving...need to get a grip on reality Hmm. I'll let that talk for itself. Anmccaff (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The general strike at Scranton was over before the violent mob action, and the shooting in response to it. It was done. There were a series of strikes which went general, several groups, on both sides, threw in the towel before the rioting. Anmccaff (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy thoughts

Your tone in places is starting to leave...a little civility to be desired. I'm not sure what your connection with "St o'hara", is, but the user doesn't seem to have a block log so I'm not sure why it's relevant. Also, socking isn't really an issue unless your using it as a way to break the rules. At any rate, it's probably best to have more article-talk and less generally unproductive people-talk. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

User:St o'hara was a person with a strong Scranton and organized labor connection, who editing from a distinct POV, using fiction as cites of fact, along with some other competence questions. User:Verita.miner has exactly occupied his(her?) user niche; damn right it's worth asking if there is socking. Anmccaff (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That said, as you say, it's not an overwhelming concern if only one persona is actively editing, and the folk who look at such things have said their isn't an overlap between the accounts. Might just be coincicdence, or might be a low-grade sort of meat puppet. Anmccaff (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Civility

This is, I believe, the third time I have had to address civility with you. I remind you again, WP:CIVIL is Wikipedia policy; it is not a suggestion. I appreciate that you've spotted some errors I've made today. But there is nothing going on on that article that is a matter of life or death, and nothing worth getting in a huff and cursing about. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Then take it to ANI if you feel it merits it. Me, I think that sloppy scholarship sucks, and I'm going to point out utter Bullshit in pretty much those terms when I see it. There's an easy way to avoid that, as I see it, but YMMV. Anmccaff (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As a general rule, if your argument begins with "I reserve the right to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines because..." then it is probably a poor argument. TimothyJosephWood 23:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That's your straw man, not my position. Incivility, brightline incivility, doesn't look like what's on those pages. If you honestly think there was anything loose on that page that's in the simple, no-bones-about-it, straightforward violation, then take it ANI. Me, I find some of -your- tone there supercilious and schoolmarmly, but maybe that's just me. Or, maybe it isn't. Anmccaff (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Excessive tagging

I have no problem removing the many many inline templates you are adding to Scranton after I am done with the article. If you would like problems resolved, I would suggest that you work to solve them, rather than sprinkling in-lines in the article and doing nothing about it. TimothyJosephWood 15:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

...and I would suggest that you address the problem mentioned, instead of constantly sweeping it under the rug with tendentious edit-warring. Anmccaff (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem. You haven't presented any sources to justify your tag. TimothyJosephWood 15:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to explicitly state that; you've made you willingness to vandalize the article to make a point very clear by actions. Anmccaff (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Umm...

Are you by chance looking for Wikipedia:Changing username? GMG^talk 22:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Nahh, setting up vanishing. Mighta got some of the order wrong... Anmccaff (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)