EncyclopediaBob (talk | contribs) →WP:BLPTALK: new section |
EvergreenFir (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 268: | Line 268: | ||
You may be interested in [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Application_of_BLP_to_Article_Talk_pages this discussion] regarding WP:BLPTALK [[User:EncyclopediaBob|<span style="color:#779ECB;">—EncyclopediaBob</span>]] [[User_talk:EncyclopediaBob|<span style="color:#B0B0B0;font-weight:normal;">(talk)</span>]] 23:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC) |
You may be interested in [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Application_of_BLP_to_Article_Talk_pages this discussion] regarding WP:BLPTALK [[User:EncyclopediaBob|<span style="color:#779ECB;">—EncyclopediaBob</span>]] [[User_talk:EncyclopediaBob|<span style="color:#B0B0B0;font-weight:normal;">(talk)</span>]] 23:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
==ARBCOM Clarification Request Party Notice== |
|||
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]] may be of use. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice --> [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please {{[[Template:re|re]]}}</small> 02:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:11, 14 February 2015
- /Archive 1 Created May 1. 2006
- /Archive 2 Created August 24, 2006
- /Archive 3 Created September 30, 2006
- /Archive 4 Created November 19, 2006
- /Archive 5 Created 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- /Archive 6 Created 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- /Archive 7 Created 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- /Archive 08 Created 01:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- /Archive 09 Created 05:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- /Archive 10 Created --DHeyward (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- /Archive 11 created --DHeyward (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- /Archive 12 created --DHeyward (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- /Archive 13
- /Archive 14
Please add comments to the bottom
Belle Knox AFD #2
The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)
OR noticeboard
Request for your help
Dear DHeyward, - I've been the principal creator and maintainer of the Mark Satin article , and I very much appreciate that you removed "Michael W. Parker"'s fourth (!) recent attempt to characterize the subject of that article as a coward.
Unfortunately, he is at it yet again, and I do not know how to stop this. You will see from the Satin Revision History page that several Wikipedia editors (including me) have reverted his material, but he keeps on plugging away.
Today he restored the "coward" tag, threatened an "edit war," and referenced "sources" mentioned by Satin. That is misleading. Parker's citation is to Satin's website, where Satin states that several unnamed e-mailers have called him a "coward or worse" (since putting his website up in approx. 2000). Thus Parker's "sources." Surely that does not merit mention in an encyclopedia.
I have read all the book excerpts and articles referencing Satin in the Satin article - nearly all of which are available in the "Mark Satin Papers" at the universities of Michigan and Toronto - and I can testify that no reputable source calls him a "coward," though of course several sources disapprove or record disapproval of his decision to emigrate to Canada. The article as it stands already records that disapproval, including (most poignantly) from his own parents. There is no need to rehash that material in the "Assessments" section.
Do you have the power to stop Mr. Parker from continuing to attempt to degrade the Satin article? Alternately, can you tell me where I should turn? I will watch on this site for your reply. Thanks so much for any help you can provide. - Babel41 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Babel41: You can make a report at the BLP Noticeboard WP:BLPN for the article. You can also report an editor at Noticeboard/Incidents WP:ANI. I don't have any more power than you. --DHeyward (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- One other, I requested page protection increase WP:RFPP to "pending changes" which means the edit has to be accepted. --07:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I only want the truth in the article. With all due respect to the author of the Satin article, a person who I am sure is an ardent advocate of Satin, I still insist that Satin's own admission that he has been called a coward should be a part of this article. Also, I do not see any relevant link between Satin and Benjamin Franklin. That to me is a ridiculous correlation. I have removed Ben's photo which has no business being in this article. To connect Benjamin Franklin to Satin's philosophy is absolutely preposterous.--Michael W. Parker (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) And you seem to be an ardent anti-advocate, Michael W. Parker. Wikipedia isn't for expressing either attitude, it's supposed to be neutral. I have warned you on your page about edit warring. Babel41, a tip for the future: posting such a warning is useful in these cases, and that is something you can do yourself. You can use a template for the purpose: if you type {{uw-ew}}, it expands to a notice like the one I've posted on Michael W. Parker's page. Bishonen | talk 01:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC).
IP trolls
As the website has fewer and fewer guardians against the random IP trolls and useless POV pushers one wonders how long it will be before it all collapses upon itself.--MONGO 22:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wonder how many more editors would free up if the parade members of ANI and ARBCOM were given a break. --DHeyward (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly...but the drama boards are the website...the IP clowns are either there or tearing up articles and the talkpages by trying to twist things to conform with their perverted world.--MONGO 03:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hopping IPs makes it much more attractive to edit anonymously. No history and no enforceable blocks. I wish they would make all IP edits subject to "Pending Changes". It used to be that creating an account was more anonymous. Now creating an account is less anonymous than IP edits. Serious editors would create accounts and vandals wouldn't be rewarded with instant gratification. --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I like that idea and believe that that sort of thing is likely inevitable if the few are to be expected to keep the POV pushers at bay.--MONGO 13:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hopping IPs makes it much more attractive to edit anonymously. No history and no enforceable blocks. I wish they would make all IP edits subject to "Pending Changes". It used to be that creating an account was more anonymous. Now creating an account is less anonymous than IP edits. Serious editors would create accounts and vandals wouldn't be rewarded with instant gratification. --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly...but the drama boards are the website...the IP clowns are either there or tearing up articles and the talkpages by trying to twist things to conform with their perverted world.--MONGO 03:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Contested hatting
As you reverted my recent hatting of one of Thargor Orlando's disruptive comments and you didn't take it to Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement, I've done so myself. --TS 20:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Gawker as source, wrong link?
The link you added to Talk:Gamergate controversy seems to be about one Shanley Kane. Did you use the wrong link? I see no obvious connection to Gamergate, or even to Milo (unless he wrote the story at Breitbart on which this gossip piece is based). --TS 04:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- There are two breitbart pieces by Milo. One from December. Gawker is picking up the second and commenting. The first article was redacted by NBSB (presumably for defaming anti-GG Shanley) and hatted. Shanley operates under an anti-GG tag (or so-called SJW from the GG side). I don't know all the direct connections through reddit or 4chan/8chan as I don't follow them. Heck, I missed the Cultural marxism deletion because apparently only offsite followers know these links and just saw it on Jimbo's talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- breitbart Dec [1] and Jan [2]. Shanley Doxxed Milo which started harrassing texts and such and prompted a police report. --DHeyward (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Frankly I don't even know whether Gawker is regarded as a reliable source, but this is pure gossip recycled from Breitbart, and seems to be some kind of interpersonal feud between distasteful people, one of whom is supposed to have doxed the other.
I've been looking for mainstream sources on this, but if the doxing was in December perhaps I didn't look back far enough. Skimming the Breitbart article from December to which you link above, I see no mention of doxing. But I'll reserve judgement pending a reliable source. I'll make any further comments on substance at the article talk page. Thanks for the explanation.--TS 04:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I had a bit of a fright in reflecting on this. Essentially you're making a potentially defamatory statement, and a highly defamatory one at that, about a living person, and we at Wikipedia only have your word for the claim. I've seen nothing about this on Google News (conversely, all the harassment we document in the Gamergate article is prominently reported by reliable sources).
While we wait for the corroboration that you are sure will materialise any day now, I've temporarily hatted your new talk page section. If you would, could we please suspend this discussion until you have that reliable source? I'd greatly appreciate it if you would hat our discussion here or simply redact it, and it can be restored when fully corroborated. --TS 13:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- The doxxing happened yesterday, Apparently I've been blocked for it which is odd. The account of it is twitter followed by gawker. He was doxxed on twitter publicly for his story that ran today on Breitbart. --DHeyward (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's all an extension of this ARS Technica piece [3]. --DHeyward (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Gamergate sanction enforcement
Your actions yesterday/today are being discussed here. Woodroar (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Blocked
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
Reminder to administrators:
Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or seek consensus at a community noticeboard.
- This block is for repeated BLP violations on Talk:GamerGate controversy, for making comments not directed at improving the article, and for repeatedly posting links to sources you knew and were told were unreliable and which contained material that was no suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The block is a general sanction under the GmaerGate community sanctions provisions and may not be reverse without my consent or consensus at a noticeboard. To appeal to a noticeboard, make a statement here and use {{unblock}} or {{adminhelp}} to request that your statement be copied to AN or ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell Can you show me the diff of one? As I said on the page I didn't repost after a request was made. I had an edit conflict on one with NBSB where he removed one a second before. The "alternative view", which is the talk page section I was editing is that ethics at game journos are changing due to gamergate. That is not disruptive. I believe you've misread my statements and edits. In addition there is a story of Milo being doxxed and harassed about anti-GG' people. The Breitbart link was in response to the question about who doxxed Milo. The story has been picked up by Gawker and it's Gamergate related and not covered. Much of the evidence is out of context of flow particularly about Grayson. I removed the BLP information and the item that was flagged of evidence is not a BLP violation. This [4] was highlighting that public statement made by Grayson's boss that Grayson did not write about Quinn's games did not mention gamergate either, but is being used as a source because is obviously connected to GG. Other gaming review journos statements' about ethical changes are likewise GG related. That's not a BLP violation by any stretch. NBSB's characteriztion of PC Gamer is wrong. At PC Gamer, the editor stopped writing about a company when his girlfriend took a job there. He still participated in editorial discussions however. Recently, PC Gamer said that not writing about them was not enough and from now on he will remove himself from all discussions of coverage including previewing coverage and assigning journalists. That is different standard than what Grayson was measured against which was an ex post facto standard.. --DHeyward (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- This Gamergate stuff is to be avoided....it's just a troll haven and in the scheme of things matters zero. @HJ Mitchell:...if DHeyward would agree to forever self topic ban from the Gamergate related articles, would you lift this block?--MONGO 16:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Noting that this is only the second block in DHeyward's history, the first in 2007 was lifted after less than 2 hours. I imagine DHeyward would have respected your wishes HJ Mitchell had you issued him a strong warning about the immediate issue before this block.--MONGO 17:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Here are some thoughts to ponder, without misunderstanding them as condoning your conduct.
On Wikipedia, blocks are the scars that highlight our character, showing the things you have cared about. I've never understood the idea that you shouldn't ever risk a blocking. A life lived without passion is a waste. We learn, we move on.
You should look at my block log when you have lots of spare time to kill. To paraphrase the Oscar Wilde character Gwendolyn Fairfax, I never travel without my block log. One should always have something sensational to read on a train.
In my dotage the most I seem able to muster is a mild chiding from a high school senior. Must try harder. --TS 21:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate that but I also understand the rules. I stopped editing the topic when I was raised at sanctions page as I was not prepared for a complaint. I addressed what I thought were the issues and I didn't repeat anything that was complained about. I understand progressive actions. A 48 hour topic ban addresses the same thing as the block. Even better would have been a personal request for either explanation or asking to stop. I don't know the editor that requested sanctions. I am not aware of any attempt by that editor to resolve a dispute. All I know is that I tried to reframe my point when objections. I obviously didn't think the point was frivolous but nor did I think it violated policy. I take complaints seriously and don't push my point beyond the rules. I respect the rules which is why a personal note or question is much more effective than a out of the blue 48 hour block. Blocks like this don't build consensus, they create walls. I don't want walls. --DHeyward (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@DHeyward: I agree with Mongo. Arguing about Gamergate all day for months on end is a colossal waste of time. You're better off walking away. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Check my history. I don't edit it but on occasion I chime in on the talk page especially when sources about alternative views come up. This was such a case and the talk page topic was "alternative views." I supplied links to discuss alternate views which is what WP:BLPTALK says to do. Not really sure what a 48 hour block accomplishes outside of a 48 hour topic ban. Seems harsh to me. --DHeyward (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Based on what DHeyward has said here, a change to a 48-hour topic ban seems reasonable. Tom Harrison Talk 00:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I promise not to edit GG pages for 48 hours if an admin feels they can log the commutation at AN (not ANI, that's a bloodpath) and follow HJ's request on his talk page about undoing his actions. I think he is overwhelmed with another defense of a 48 hour block at ANI and a quiet helping hand would be better than a full on shark frenzy. He doesn't need another colonoscopy at this point and I don't want to put him through it. As it stands, It's been 24 hours since I edited the GG talk page but there is still 36 hours of block left. He hasn't responded to pings or requests since the block. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: {{unblock|A block was enacted many hours after my last edit. There was no disruption and a 48 hour topic ban would accomplish the same thing. I don't plan on revisiting the topic which is a current event that started with an ARS Technica article involving an anti-GG person [http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/01/toleranux-satirical-linux-fork-mocks-calls-for-open-source-diversity/] and it's fallout in media as well as the doxxing it lead to. For the BLP violations, it was apparently for a link I posted once to Breitbart and once to Gawker since they were covering the doxxing. When the were removed, I didn't replace. I don't believe any statement I made was a BLP violation and my links fell within acceptable talk page link discussions but I understand the complaint and won't repeat it. A 48 hour topic ban would have accomplished the same thing.}}
With your promise not to edit GG pages for 48 hours, I've unblocked you. Tom Harrison Talk 13:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Tom, I question whether the unblock is correct. It is provided in WP:GS/GG that "Sanctions imposed cannot be undone by another administrator without approval of the sanctioning administrator or an appeal at the administrators' noticeboard." Did you obtain either of these? It is my impression that an appeal at AN needs consensus. Certainly that is the case for appealing Arbcom sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe; feel free to restore the block if you think it's warranted. Tom Harrison Talk 13:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how anyone can think that there has been "approval of the sanctioning administrator or an appeal at the administrators' noticeboard", but I have consulted Tom harrison, and he simply maintains that he is right, without any attempt to explain why. I have therefore taken up his invitation to restore the block. However, I shall post a copy of your unblock request to WP:AN, so that it can be duly considered. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, at the top of his user talk page HJ Mitchell does give permission to other administrators to revert any sysop action: Admins: If I have erred in one of my admin actions, or my rationale for the action no longer applies, please don't hesitate to reverse it. I have no objection to my actions being reversed, as long you leave me a polite note explaining what you did and why. Thanks. --TS 15:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus in the WP:AN discussion is clear that the reblock was out of place and that the original block was correct. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see that you've unblocked. Good call. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus in the WP:AN discussion is clear that the reblock was out of place and that the original block was correct. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, at the top of his user talk page HJ Mitchell does give permission to other administrators to revert any sysop action: Admins: If I have erred in one of my admin actions, or my rationale for the action no longer applies, please don't hesitate to reverse it. I have no objection to my actions being reversed, as long you leave me a polite note explaining what you did and why. Thanks. --TS 15:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how anyone can think that there has been "approval of the sanctioning administrator or an appeal at the administrators' noticeboard", but I have consulted Tom harrison, and he simply maintains that he is right, without any attempt to explain why. I have therefore taken up his invitation to restore the block. However, I shall post a copy of your unblock request to WP:AN, so that it can be duly considered. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe; feel free to restore the block if you think it's warranted. Tom Harrison Talk 13:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
An apology
After reading your edit summary removing my templating I found WP:DTR. I wanted to apologize for the templating. Was not my intention to be rude. — Strongjam (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Strongjam No worries. I was trying to reframe my statements to address concerns whenyou templated me. Unfortunately it was used as 2 bullets to get me blocked. That's not your fault but I hope you can appreciate that I was trying to comport a statement for discussion that would not be hatted as I thought it was an important point. Each statement I made addressed the concerns raised prior. --DHeyward (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. DHeyward (talk)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 January 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Gamergate sucks!
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Snakecutt.jpg/600px-Snakecutt.jpg)
- yeah, I know. It's a pit. Heck, sometimes I don't even know an article is gamergate and it sneaks up on me. --DHeyward (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
John Glenn
FYI: John Glenn went into space twice. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Welcome to Milhist!
Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Franklin D. Miller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Purple Hearts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Fixing V Devices for USN Members
You may have noticed earlier that I fixed the V device placements for Kyle's BSM and NAM; you can conveniently and quickly get the markup coding for those placements from the text in the V Device article inside the examples sections for USA/USAF and USN/USMC members accordingly. Just thought I'd point that out FYSA if you ever need it in the future... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- @AzureCitizen: Thanks, I saw the code. How stars and devices are placed is a knowledge gap more than a programming gap. I saw the template and contemplated creating an overload function but that would be risky and it's a well used template. I like the ribbon template but they are also difficult to verify especially non-valor devices. e.g. I can only find one Silver Star citation for Kyle but it's widely reported he has 2 SS and 5 BS with V. Purple heart is also difficult to verify the multiple awards. I have to look up things like whether it's a cluster or a star and how the devices would be arranged. --DHeyward (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Roger that, I can appreciate how tricky it gets. I'm no expert but I have 28+ yrs split between USA/USAR service, and may be able to contribute an opinion from time to time if need be when you're trying to figure out a device arrangement. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- @AzureCitizen: Excellent. Then please have a look at Franklin D. Miller. I compiled his a few days ago. Valor stuff is easy to find. Presidential unit citations and others are difficult. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- The ribbons appear to be in order, nothing out of place, etc. I did switch from the gold colored USN "Combat V" to the bronze colored USA "V Device" for the BSM, and also changed the NDSM and VSM medals to use 3/16" service stars instead of Navy 5/16" award stars. With regard to unit citations, they don't show up on the ribbon rack for Army members (worn instead above opposite jacket pocket), while Navy members wear them inside the rack with their other awards. If you're still trying to find sources for medals themselves, I'll probably not as useful there; my expertise is picking out when a device isn't arranged correctly or something is "off", etc. Let me know if there is some other specific question I can answer. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- @AzureCitizen: Excellent. Then please have a look at Franklin D. Miller. I compiled his a few days ago. Valor stuff is easy to find. Presidential unit citations and others are difficult. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Roger that, I can appreciate how tricky it gets. I'm no expert but I have 28+ yrs split between USA/USAR service, and may be able to contribute an opinion from time to time if need be when you're trying to figure out a device arrangement. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Young_cats.jpg/150px-Young_cats.jpg)
Your comment on Jimbo's page about Gamergate, the ArbCom, and the problems with articles on current controversies was very useful.
Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Notice
Since David A did not bother to inform you, I'm letting you know he mentioned you at AN/I [5]--MONGO 06:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- I was just going to inform him. But I can't do everything at once. David A (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas is not worth responding to...best to not feed him as his sole purpose is to aggravate not alleviate.--MONGO 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
ugh...you should have reminded me to listen to my own advice. What a pest...--MONGO 06:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
My guess is that even though I have not levelled a single personal attack (like calling someone an asshole which is a personal attack) he may have had more luck in his endeavour to see me blocked or banned by stating dispassionately and without ad nauseam repetition the reasons why I am so allegedly a menace to that article's improvement. Golly gee these people end up defeating themselves... its so clumsy.--MONGO 07:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/DoNotFeedTroll.svg/300px-DoNotFeedTroll.svg.png)
February 2015
Please do not edit the comments other make as you did here. --John (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Bad! Naughty DHeyward!--MONGO 07:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Why you have created this userpage? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Look at edits by that account...DHeyward just gave him a page no different than posting on the talkpage of the troll.--MONGO 13:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's a BLP violation to write that a living person has created Nazi or KKK propaganda films. I'll redact BLP violations when I see them. --DHeyward (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I have started a Dispute Resolution discussion for American Sniper
Please see here David A (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Even if you find the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's statement dubious, it has been reported by a variety of news outlets. It would be appropriate to report and attribute the statement per WP:SUBSTANTIATE and per WP:DUE, based on the coverage. WP:DUE says, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Erik:The other news outlets such as Huff Post link to the bloggish reports to substantiate their claims. So not sure if its that news worthy. If someone is assaulted or attacked like the few incidents against Muslims or those some thought were Muslims after the 9/11 attacks then it's worth reporting. My impression is that what goes on in the blogosphere is pretty much not noteworthy. But this is a content discussion so best off on the article talk page.--MONGO 18:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am seeing the statement reported by BBC News, The Guardian, Detroit Free Press, and Reuters. This viewpoint is prevalent in reliable sources. I really do not see a case to exclude the statement entirely. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- So if its in the news, it's worth reporting? Any actual instances of hate crimes though? I see none right?--MONGO 19:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the statement is worth reporting because per policy, it has been prevalent in reliable sources. If there is a response to the statement also prevalent in reliable sources, that can be included too. The sources I mentioned highlight the Committee saying there have been "violent threats" on social media, not any actual crimes taking place. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- No reliable source have said there have been "violent threats" on social media. Companies have press releases all the time. They are republished by reliable sources. That does not mean that reliable sources have repeated the claims in a press release. Go read a stock ticker symbol when they issue press releases. It's a self published source that is repeated, not a claim being made by reliable sources. --DHeyward (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- It is not about whether or not the specific claims are true. It is about reliable sources reporting on the statement, thus rendering this viewpoint of concern prevalent, and thus appropriate to include per WP:DUE. If it was a press release that went unreported or minimally reported, then the press release's viewpoint does not warrant attention for coverage. Responses to the statement, also reported by reliable sources, are also appropriate. In the draft, for example, I mentioned that conservative news outlets criticized the concern and that Breitbart considered the claim a hoax. It is that kind of reporting that is appropriate per WP:STRUCTURE. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- No reliable source have said there have been "violent threats" on social media. Companies have press releases all the time. They are republished by reliable sources. That does not mean that reliable sources have repeated the claims in a press release. Go read a stock ticker symbol when they issue press releases. It's a self published source that is repeated, not a claim being made by reliable sources. --DHeyward (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the statement is worth reporting because per policy, it has been prevalent in reliable sources. If there is a response to the statement also prevalent in reliable sources, that can be included too. The sources I mentioned highlight the Committee saying there have been "violent threats" on social media, not any actual crimes taking place. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- So if its in the news, it's worth reporting? Any actual instances of hate crimes though? I see none right?--MONGO 19:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am seeing the statement reported by BBC News, The Guardian, Detroit Free Press, and Reuters. This viewpoint is prevalent in reliable sources. I really do not see a case to exclude the statement entirely. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee may be a notable organization. In terms of it's coverage in an article about a movie, is simply an UNDUE weight issue as ADC isn't any different than any other non-film critic. Put it in the ADC article if its notable. Without anything specifically attached to the movie, its not relevant. Note that every reliable source talks about ADC statements, not the film or anything attributed to the film - e.g. there are no threats that were documented separately being covered by reliable sources. We cannot in WP's voice or any RSs voice state that threats have increased. It's only a press release from a political organization. If we start including all press releases, we will have a gigantic article. These so-called threats, without any documentation, don't belong as a criticism. I'd also note that this organization cited the ground zero mosque as the pinnacle of threats. That group is not mentioned in that article nor are any threats mentioned in that article. Also the ground zero mosque isn't in the ADC article. If it's not notable in those cases, its extremely difficult to make the case that it's notable in an article about a movie. They have their views, they are just no notable enough to create controversy. The Charlie Hebdo attacks and ISIL beheadings created a lot more threats and this group is still not notable enough to cite their opinion, though I doubt they would issue a press release complaining about the increase in threats after the terrorist incidents (whence why they are not a reliable source for complaints in general). --DHeyward (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- It is definitely not undue weight. WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." If it was a press release that did not get reported anywhere, I would agree with you that it would not warrant inclusion. However, the material has been reported in multiple reliable sources, so there is due weight to include it. Please see the draft page in development on the talk page. I've included the high-level assessments that touch on the committee's statement and the related responses. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Lot's of fringe viewpoints get RS coverage. We don't need to cover all of them. If we weigh the relative coverage of positive and negative, we would need a thousand pages of positive reviews to the one press release by ADC. It's not notable enough or have enough weight to carry in the American Sniper film article just as it was enough weight to include it in the ground zero mosque article. You are giving them way to much credit as the RS covered the press release but did not endorse or validate its content. You want to include the content which was not backed by reliable sources at all. ADC is a notable organization but they are not a reliable source. --DHeyward (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- WP:DUE states that a viewpoint's prevalence is based on reliable sources. If sources like The Guardian and The Washington Post report about the statement and related details, that means it has prevalence worth covering, even in passing. Is there an aspect of WP:NPOV that warrants excluding anything about the statement and related details? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- BS. Press releases get re-published all the time by notable organizations. The key is that the content is not widely covered. They summarized what ADC said with no fact checking or corroboration. Go read the press release that follows every notable companies earnings release. It's presented without comment. After that is when reliable sources analyze and report what is true and what is BS in the voice of the reliable source. Or they don't report anything else if its just fluff. Either way, a press release is only valid as source for the company that releases it. Even if AP carries the release, it's not attributable to AP, just as none of the ADC claims are attributable to a reliable source. Here's an example of a press release[6]. Does it matter how many sources carry it? The reliable sources make no claims about it whatsoever. NPOV isn't the issue as there is legitimate criticism, just not "threats against arabs" coming from the film. That's a WP:FRINGE theory that is swamped by other coverage. --DHeyward (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- There are two ways press releases are reported. One way is the Yahoo! Finance link you provided. That is essentially a re-published press release. However, the coverage here is about the press release. The reliable sources are quoting from it but also put it in context. For example, The Washington Post, in covering the statement, also reported that other news outlets reported instances of hate speech. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources that are reliable and independent. The sources in question here are contextualizing the statement, which is appropriate per WP:ANALYSIS. As for your referencing of WP:FRINGE, it says, "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence." Like I have said, the statement is prominent because it has been reported and contextualized by reliable sources. Again, WP:DUE says, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." WP:SOURCE says mainstream publications are appropriate reliable sources to determine a viewpoint's prevalence, regardless of our own personal analysis of it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- It got coverage in the "Style Blog" of the Washington Post. In terms of proportion to their prominence, they might get a letter. Not a word or paragraph. The fil as a source of anti-arab violence has virtually no prominence in the reliable sources. Zippo. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Its not like the movie Taxi Driver which supposedly inspired Hinckley to shoot Reagan so he could impress Jodie Foster. Even that, the attempted assassination of a U.S. President (!) gets but two sentences! These "threats" are just stupid blogosphere comments.--MONGO 22:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- It was also a one day wonder. No follow-up. Two weeks after charlie Hebdo they say a spike in threats is due to a movie? No press outlet explored this. The dutifully reported the press release and then it died. Today, ADC released a statement about a shooting in NC which it blamed on coverage of Charlie Hebdo and American Sniper. The police blame it on a neighbor dispute over parking. ADC is all fringe conspiracy nonsense that got a press release covered in one newscycle with no followup. --DHeyward (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- The Washington Post and The Guardian are just two of numerous reliable sources that are reporting on the statement and responses to the statement. I don't think it is necessary to reference all of them, but this should not mean that there are just two sources in news reporting that covered the statement. Also, the studio releasing its own statement condemning such rhetoric did not happen in a vacuum. In any case, I will continue developing the draft and solicit feedback from uninvolved editors. Please share any comments on the related thread on the talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- In other words, our opinions don't matter and you will do whatever you want.--MONGO 00:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- What responses? Nobody responded to them. Their press release was read. It went away without a response or violence. Joe Arpaio stated that Obama's BC was forged. That press release got lots of reading over one day. Doesn't mean we report a forgery in the Obama article. It's overwhelmed by coverage actually about Obama, not made up stuff, and doesn't deserve mention. This is no different. Nobody has established this as a noteworthy controversy. Certainly the one day press coverage ocer their press release with no follow-up does not support it. There's no "there" there. --DHeyward (talk) 03
- 44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- The Washington Post and The Guardian are just two of numerous reliable sources that are reporting on the statement and responses to the statement. I don't think it is necessary to reference all of them, but this should not mean that there are just two sources in news reporting that covered the statement. Also, the studio releasing its own statement condemning such rhetoric did not happen in a vacuum. In any case, I will continue developing the draft and solicit feedback from uninvolved editors. Please share any comments on the related thread on the talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- It was also a one day wonder. No follow-up. Two weeks after charlie Hebdo they say a spike in threats is due to a movie? No press outlet explored this. The dutifully reported the press release and then it died. Today, ADC released a statement about a shooting in NC which it blamed on coverage of Charlie Hebdo and American Sniper. The police blame it on a neighbor dispute over parking. ADC is all fringe conspiracy nonsense that got a press release covered in one newscycle with no followup. --DHeyward (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Its not like the movie Taxi Driver which supposedly inspired Hinckley to shoot Reagan so he could impress Jodie Foster. Even that, the attempted assassination of a U.S. President (!) gets but two sentences! These "threats" are just stupid blogosphere comments.--MONGO 22:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- It got coverage in the "Style Blog" of the Washington Post. In terms of proportion to their prominence, they might get a letter. Not a word or paragraph. The fil as a source of anti-arab violence has virtually no prominence in the reliable sources. Zippo. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- There are two ways press releases are reported. One way is the Yahoo! Finance link you provided. That is essentially a re-published press release. However, the coverage here is about the press release. The reliable sources are quoting from it but also put it in context. For example, The Washington Post, in covering the statement, also reported that other news outlets reported instances of hate speech. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources that are reliable and independent. The sources in question here are contextualizing the statement, which is appropriate per WP:ANALYSIS. As for your referencing of WP:FRINGE, it says, "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence." Like I have said, the statement is prominent because it has been reported and contextualized by reliable sources. Again, WP:DUE says, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." WP:SOURCE says mainstream publications are appropriate reliable sources to determine a viewpoint's prevalence, regardless of our own personal analysis of it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- BS. Press releases get re-published all the time by notable organizations. The key is that the content is not widely covered. They summarized what ADC said with no fact checking or corroboration. Go read the press release that follows every notable companies earnings release. It's presented without comment. After that is when reliable sources analyze and report what is true and what is BS in the voice of the reliable source. Or they don't report anything else if its just fluff. Either way, a press release is only valid as source for the company that releases it. Even if AP carries the release, it's not attributable to AP, just as none of the ADC claims are attributable to a reliable source. Here's an example of a press release[6]. Does it matter how many sources carry it? The reliable sources make no claims about it whatsoever. NPOV isn't the issue as there is legitimate criticism, just not "threats against arabs" coming from the film. That's a WP:FRINGE theory that is swamped by other coverage. --DHeyward (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- WP:DUE states that a viewpoint's prevalence is based on reliable sources. If sources like The Guardian and The Washington Post report about the statement and related details, that means it has prevalence worth covering, even in passing. Is there an aspect of WP:NPOV that warrants excluding anything about the statement and related details? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Lot's of fringe viewpoints get RS coverage. We don't need to cover all of them. If we weigh the relative coverage of positive and negative, we would need a thousand pages of positive reviews to the one press release by ADC. It's not notable enough or have enough weight to carry in the American Sniper film article just as it was enough weight to include it in the ground zero mosque article. You are giving them way to much credit as the RS covered the press release but did not endorse or validate its content. You want to include the content which was not backed by reliable sources at all. ADC is a notable organization but they are not a reliable source. --DHeyward (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- It is definitely not undue weight. WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." If it was a press release that did not get reported anywhere, I would agree with you that it would not warrant inclusion. However, the material has been reported in multiple reliable sources, so there is due weight to include it. Please see the draft page in development on the talk page. I've included the high-level assessments that touch on the committee's statement and the related responses. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLPTALK
You may be interested in this discussion regarding WP:BLPTALK —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
ARBCOM Clarification Request Party Notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)