User talk:R00b07/Archive 1

R00b07, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi R00b07! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

General sanction notification

Since you're new, I'm alerting you to this as a courtesy.

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to ISIL.
The details of these sanctions are described at WP:GS/ISIL.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

To add, for clarity, WP:1RR is not currently being enforced on List of Islamist terrorist attacks‎. However, if you wish to continue editing on similar articles, you should be aware of these general sanctions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Can you better explain this sanction thing (I have been lurking for a while, but I am new to Wikipedia Jargon terms), and could you explain what rules I am breaking/bending on that article so I don't mess up in the future? I'm really confused, Thanks.

Edit - So wait, if admins can place restrictions if I make a disruptive edit, the I have nothing to worry about. I never edit without clear, definitive sourcing that agrees with the consensus on the talk page. Infact, most of my time is spent on the talk page, discussing how to better edit the articles, instead of just making an edit without permission. R00b07 (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC).

SNOW clause and consensus, explaining Mandruss' comments

I thought it best to try to outline what Mandruss is trying to say. You've outlined correctly how consensus is formed, cogent accurate and sourced arguments is how consensus is decided. The SNOW clause is applied only where one side is capable of delivering that argument, in cases where argument A holds so strongly over argument B that waiting for further discussion is pointless a person may call for a SNOW close. The call for a close now, and specifically the invoked SNOW clause by the inciting closer, suggests that only one side has delivered a cogent argument. To an extent this is the case, however, with so many people having voted, separating the good arguments from the bad and not defaulting to a number count is rather difficult. What generally happens in this circumstance, if SNOW is called, is that a tally is made and that decides the victor, why? because it's safely assumed that one side of the argument has both a clear majority and a clear argument victory.

There is a little bit more that needs to be said. What is happening with the call for close, and the support oppose voting of said close, causes its own problem. In the first request for SNOW close I mentioned that we can't do a RfC within an RfC. There is a reason for this. If the RfC within the RfC, closes with a support, then by default what must (or will) happen is that the RfC closes in favour of the majority vote. Again, think about SNOW itself, one argument has both a majority and argumentative victory, so why slog through the entire RfC trying to pin the victorious argument when the sub RfC closed in favour of the main RfC.

Try picturing it like this, there's a ten to one dispute about whether 2 + 2 = 4, one person says no, the others say yes. Those voters then go on to argue in separate sub sections for a little while before somebody calls for consensus on a SNOW close. Imagine that the second RfC passes, clearly the single person arguing against the motion is no longer interested or no longer certain of their argument. Invoke the SNOW close and close the thread as a pass. This is rather obvious case, since 2 + 2 does = 4, but, here, it's not quite the same. The closer ought to consider both arguments equally, he'll pick one to pass, and most are going to accept that the support argument has won, however, by also considering the oppose argument, provisions can be made. For example, the closer could not that a footnote should be included to identify other causes that impacted upon the event. The idea is that the oppose argument had some merit, and, in to a certain extent it did.

Basically, what needs to happen, is a proper close, early close is fine, but a proper one. SNOW close doesn't require any significant attention, note the obvious victor and ignore the other argument. That's why Mandruss opposes a SNOW close, both arguments deserve some consideration, perhaps a compromise, such as the one I suggested. Include Orlando in the article, and put a footnote to address the concerns of the opposite party. That's about it I think. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I read your whole comment and thoroughly appreciate it. My new understanding is that while an early close is fine, it cannot be on the principle of SNOW because the RfC would close in favor of the Majority (by # of people) Vote, That's why Mandruss brought up the Majority Vote thing, and then I mistook it for something else, Is that correct? Once again, thanks for your comment, R00b07 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit - Could you give me an example on what the footnote that adresses the concerns of the No people would look like? I can't begin to even imagine how out of place it would look. R00b07 (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, invoking the SNOW close would close in the favour of majority, almost always, only where the votes are very poor and numerous would there be any chance for a SNOW close to go to the minority. A short example is 1 paragraph long articulated and sourced vote versus 10 one sentence unsourced vote. That literally never happens. As for the footnote, well, I'll make one and append it to this sentence. Obviously that footnote is merely an example, I would imagine that if you actually looked at the footnote it'd be longer then the actual entry in the article, which, sort of defeats the purpose but such is life. The good news, is that the point of the footnote is to move it into the references so that anybody interested could click or hover over it and read it. The idea is to save space in the main article by moving it out of the way. Note the footnote below. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I really hope that the gay part won't be added since the FBI debunked it, but I guess I will have to wait and see. Mental health might be a good candidate for the footnote. Time will tell though, since any false info can be reverted. R00b07 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

List

Yay! Tables! Thanks! Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 17:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No Problem, it was a good exercise in learning editing around Wikipedia. R00b07 (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Regarding this edit: the page is closed to IP editing, so the IP user made an edit request. It doesn't seem like anyone would "accidentally" tag their own post as an edit request, and I don't really see why this wouldn't fit under that heading. Your reformat is especially confusing because we have an "answer" to the request but now we don't have a record of the request itself. Unless there's something I have missed, it seems like a self-revert would be in order. Nblund (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Roger that. R00b07 (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Nblund (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)