Dear ODear ODear (talk | contribs) →Horse punching: St. Patrick today, not St. Valentine |
→Arbcom notice: new section |
||
Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
In a world already weird, apparently a comedy clip of MONGO, one of the loathsome antagonists from the movie Blazing Saddles, is now to be construed as a physical threat to a human...weird becomes weirder...imagine that.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
In a world already weird, apparently a comedy clip of MONGO, one of the loathsome antagonists from the movie Blazing Saddles, is now to be construed as a physical threat to a human...weird becomes weirder...imagine that.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
:I should be glad that I was not blocked like {{user|Ceoil}} after somebody reported a fear that he would jump out of the ipad and yank the ear. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Dear ODear ODear|Dear]][[User talk:Dear ODear ODear|0Dear]]</span> 19:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
:I should be glad that I was not blocked like {{user|Ceoil}} after somebody reported a fear that he would jump out of the ipad and yank the ear. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Dear ODear ODear|Dear]][[User talk:Dear ODear ODear|0Dear]]</span> 19:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Arbcom notice == |
|||
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide|guide to arbitration]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitration proceedings|Arbitration Committee's procedures]] may be of use. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:48, 18 March 2015
No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
16 May 2024 |
Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Dear ODear ODear! Thank you for your contributions. I am Jbhunley and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! JBH (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Nice to be called "new".
- Rejuvenation.
- Dear ODear ODear (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- First time back in a couple of years. There is no "Welcome back" template so I figured cookies would be good :) JBH (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC) PS I am not trying to dickishly call you a sock. I just thought a welcome would be nice. JBH (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- [1] Dear ODear ODear (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- First time back in a couple of years. There is no "Welcome back" template so I figured cookies would be good :) JBH (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC) PS I am not trying to dickishly call you a sock. I just thought a welcome would be nice. JBH (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collect, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC) You might have saved time by discussing your
|
Category:Organizations by number of employees
Category:Organizations by number of employees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
PNAC reverts
Please slow down with the reverts and deletions. Some of these are not so controversial, but there are discussions to be had.
- 23:08, 11 March 2015
- 22:57, 11 March 2015
- 20:06, 11 March 2015
- 20:02, 11 March 2015
- 00:44, 11 March 2015
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Let's see.
- Please use high quality reliable sources rather than books about posmodernity and media when writing about an allegedly important letterhead organization. I left the 4+ other sources when removing a redundant and extremely low quality source.23:08, 11 March 2015
- The second removal concerns a source which gives a history that is inconsistent with all the other sources and the primary sources still listed. Wolfowitz & Perle as the founders of PNAC? 22:57, 11 March 2015
- The third removed, besides its stylistic woes, was not even about PNAC. You already acknowledged that my removal also noted that you (finally!, I'll addnow) used an apparently serious source about Kagan and Powell, which would be a useful addition to Kagan or Powell's BLP(s).22:57, 11 March 2015 Are you listing it here to facilitate another of your reports for edit warring, despite your already having acknowledged the justice of removing your first synthetic section?
- FFS this material was already included elsewhere in the section,[2] as I indicated in the edit summary, so it is bizarre that you list it here.
- FFS This again was a fabrication where somebody had changed the meaning of a quoted person's quotation, which is strictly prohibited at Wikipedia.[3]
- Fiddlestyx and JBH disagree with me on most edits, but at least their edits are recognizable as having something to do with writing an encyclopedia based on NPOV and RS, and they are not twisting sources or grabbing the weakest sources available to support a hostile POV.
- LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 16:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not to butt in, but: Hammond's book is a RS: peer reviewed, published by Routledge, reviewed in major journals. Nothing to indicate a "low quality" or unreliable source there. Did you make that leap just because it has the word "postmodern" in the title? Fyddlestix (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- DOD, I try to go with academic sources wherever possible. All of the sources on Wohlstetter sources, for example, were all academic sources, I believe. The article is on a complicated topic that has multiple dimensions, some of which aren't adequately addressed, so the article could probably use a little more fine tuning organization wise even after Fyddlestix impressive work over.
- Cards on the table. Most social-studies books and articles are junk, and the peer review is a joke, as anybody who is familiar with publishing in sciences can tell you. Go ask somebody at Hopkins at SAIS and at biology to share their experiences, if you doubt me.
- Also, there is just so much published that one should only focus on the best stuff.
- Therefore, if one wishes to write a good article on a social studies topic, one should select only the best sources and then follow them.
- Regarding "postmodernity". Berman on modernity was informative and fun---Girls just wanna have fun, etc. Harvey et al on postmodernity---Heaven knows I'm miserable now. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 16:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's your personal opinion, not wikipedia policy, and not a valid reason for removing a source. I'm not a big fan of the Boot source you added, but you don't see me removing it, because I recognize that it's a valid RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- First, Fyddlestix, you asked me "postmodernity", so there is no need to lecture me about policy.
- The Boot source is in a leading social-studies/journalism journal, it has been cited a lot (by relevant rses), and it intelligently discusses PNAC and related persons. Those features matter when selecting sources for a responsible article. Some other sources lack those merits.
- Well, I was not at SAIS but I was educated at Hopkins in IR and no no one there thought peer review was crap. Oh, and please... it's Social Sciences, Social Studies is what you learn in high school. :) Jbh (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- What in IR could be plausibly called "science" rather than highbrow and data-analytic journalism for those with attention-surplus disorder? LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 17:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 19:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- In many cases I would have to say "not much" :) Proper application of the various theoretical frameworks is as much art as science. Mechanistic application of theory, as if it were a hard science, leads to massive errors in judgement like "democratization of the Middle East" or the shattering of regional stability by removing "strong men" for what are essentially "moral reasons". Reasonable application, or even knowledge of, basic social anthropology, psychology and history - all disciplines a competent IR practitioner should be familiar with - would prevent such ideological missteps. In my opinion, the reason IR is closer to a science than " highbrow and data-analytic journalism for those with attention-surplus disorder" I do love that phrase. is that, like the hard sciences, the beliefs of the practitioner are irrelevant to the subject of study ie Ukraine cares less about democracy than that their country is a big flat highway for tanks all the way to the Dnieper. What makes it an art is the people, either individual actors or the social groups which make up states. Properly done IR is the disciplined application of nuance not the ham-fisted application of ideology we tend to see from the political class in general. Without approaching IR as a science you loose the discipline and objectivity needed to analyze the subject's point of view rather than your own. Jbh (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- What in IR could be plausibly called "science" rather than highbrow and data-analytic journalism for those with attention-surplus disorder? LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 17:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 19:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's your personal opinion, not wikipedia policy, and not a valid reason for removing a source. I'm not a big fan of the Boot source you added, but you don't see me removing it, because I recognize that it's a valid RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't intend to report you for edit warring here, because I don't see it quite in that light, and there were even other reverts that could have been added otherwise. I would just like to see a little more discussion in response to some of the high-quality material.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. We can disagree about quality. Why not try Boot (who is rather sympathetic to PNAC) and High (rather unsympathetic) as sources, and try to follow them. They are at least cited. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 16:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)As far as the source characterizing "Wolfowitz & Perle as the founders of PNAC", that's probably being unfair to the source, as they were signatories to the principles, right? And the sources says "would create a lobby group" "along with other former proteges", etc in depicting a common intellectual background among the original members. That could be paraphrased, but the connection being drawn is clear.
- OK, I don't have time to look at all sources, but will try to get around to them. I've been more focused on filling in gaps.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Concur with request that ODear make use of the article talk page rather than
the revert buttonblanking, replacing or re-replacing large portions of text with out discussion or as with the 'five employee' claim re-introducing material withour consensus. Jbh (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)- Please note any edits that were made by using "the revert button", as you allege, or strike the unsupported accusation.
- Can you name any concerns to which I failed to respond in a timely fashion on the talk page? LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 17:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- The issue is that you are making so many changes, additions, reversions, deletions etc rather than discussing the material and finding consensus. Examples include the 'five employees', renaming repeatedly the section now titled "Excessive focus on military strategies, neglect of diplomatic strategies" to "Lack of military service". Your earlier attempts to over rely on the Boot source to change material thereby skewing that article to the POV in Boot. I could be more detailed but I am simply trying to communicate to you a problem I see you contributing to at the article not write an indictment. I am asking you to slow down and work with the other editors. You have many good observations and valid concerns to address but the way you are currently going about it is not conducive to a healthy editing environment. Jbh (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- You did
notstrike your allegation, from which you seem to have back pedaled.Please do so, forThanks for contributing to a healthy editing environment.19:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC) - Writing that PNAC had 5 employees, citing both Boot and the Brit historian, hardly skewed the article. When it was removed, I responded on the talk page and said that I could expand the discussion of the size and nature of PNAC using those sources.
- This concerns you about the balance of the article---not using Pilger or sources calling the PNAC's publication "Mein Kampf", etc. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 18:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ummm.... the little line through "
the revert button" is what I understand as a struck comment. Do you have some other understanding? No, I am not backing off from my request that you slow down and use the talk page to get consensus for your edits, something everyone needs to be doing. You asked for specificity so I gave you some examples. My initial request was phrased to avoid specificity to avoid starting a discussion like you didbelowabove. If you want to talk about your edits do it on the talk page Thank you. Jbh (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)- Thank you very much for taking your recent changes to the talk page. Jbh (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- ? A look at the talk page shows that I have in the last weeks been as talkative as any. I look forward to your and Fiddlestyx trying to reign in all speedsters.
LLAP,
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 14:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- ? A look at the talk page shows that I have in the last weeks been as talkative as any. I look forward to your and Fiddlestyx trying to reign in all speedsters.
- Thank you very much for taking your recent changes to the talk page. Jbh (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ummm.... the little line through "
- You did
- The issue is that you are making so many changes, additions, reversions, deletions etc rather than discussing the material and finding consensus. Examples include the 'five employees', renaming repeatedly the section now titled "Excessive focus on military strategies, neglect of diplomatic strategies" to "Lack of military service". Your earlier attempts to over rely on the Boot source to change material thereby skewing that article to the POV in Boot. I could be more detailed but I am simply trying to communicate to you a problem I see you contributing to at the article not write an indictment. I am asking you to slow down and work with the other editors. You have many good observations and valid concerns to address but the way you are currently going about it is not conducive to a healthy editing environment. Jbh (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Note on new sig
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
While nice, your new signature takes up three lines for every new comment you make. This will, in short order, take up a huge amount of space on discussion pages. Out of consideration for other editors would you please reconsider your formatting? Thank you Jbh (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Notice of BLPN discussion
An issue you may be involved in is being discussed at BLPN. Jbh (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Failing to do so is considered harassment, which is also disruptive behavior against editors. Please don't post comments like this again. - MrX 15:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- You misread my comment.
- Labeling more BLPs as PNAC "members" would increase the vandalism to those editors, particularly labeling them as Jews---which happens a lot to Robert Kagan already. I said nothing about editors who have been proposing such a list, only about the effects of the list.
- Try practicing the AGF policy, yourself, as you read with more care.
LLAP,
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 15:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC) - Also, stop removing talk page comments. This is not your first day editing.
LLAP,
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 15:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)- False. What you said (linked above) was: "It would suggest targets for more Jew-tagging and accusations of dual loyalty, which would boost the traffic for the WMF quarterly reports." That's trolling. Please stop.- MrX 15:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's not trolling. In particular the final aside expresses frustration about quality versus Wikipedia practice, particularly about the lack of concern about BLP violations, while WMF scams money off of our labor.
- Also WP:MOS prohibits emboldening as you did, particularly for a quotation. I downgraded it to italics.
LLAP,
Dear ODear ODear
trigger warnings 15:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)- However you choose to label comments like the one in question, please don't make any more of them. Random, unsubstantiated accusations of that sort are unconstructive. MastCell Talk 17:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are misusing "random", "unsubstantiated", and "accusation". My concern is that the table facilitate the BLP-violations that have plagued the Kagan and Nuland articles since 2008 (or before)---articles that I linked. DearODear 18:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are obviously capable of making that point in a constructive and non-inflammatory way. In fact, you just did. Can you do more of that, and less of the other stuff, please? MastCell Talk 18:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Rhetorical questions rarely arouse my enthusiasm, particularly when they follow a sentence containing the answer. :)
- The failure to read carefully what I wrote and the cascading expressions of outrage are striking, in contrast to the community's inaction to 7 years of abuse to the BlPs of Kagan and Nuland, and particularly the community's failure to stop harassment the last week, during which I and TheRedPenofDoom (talk · contribs) have had our hands full. DearODear 18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- @MastCell:, at WP:BLPN your questions about antisemitism and PNAC on the talk page seem a little naive, and I suggest you look at
a Google search to see the popular paranoid right/left websitesthe Wikipedia article, which recently has had quotes from a member of parliament blaming rightwing think-tanks for pushing the world to oust Hussein from Iraq, when they could finally use 9/11 to spring their blueprint for American world domination. - I also suggest that you treat Collect with the respect he deserves. He is burnt out after I, Rjensen (talk · contribs), and others have essentially given up trying to contain damage.
- I asked upon removing the UK-Labourite quote whether our medical articles had to contain quotes from Patrick Leahy and Dennis Kucinich about the wonders of non-traditional health care---no doubt reliable sources had quoted them, and they are notable as congressmen....
- DearODear 19:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are obviously capable of making that point in a constructive and non-inflammatory way. In fact, you just did. Can you do more of that, and less of the other stuff, please? MastCell Talk 18:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are misusing "random", "unsubstantiated", and "accusation". My concern is that the table facilitate the BLP-violations that have plagued the Kagan and Nuland articles since 2008 (or before)---articles that I linked. DearODear 18:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- However you choose to label comments like the one in question, please don't make any more of them. Random, unsubstantiated accusations of that sort are unconstructive. MastCell Talk 17:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- False. What you said (linked above) was: "It would suggest targets for more Jew-tagging and accusations of dual loyalty, which would boost the traffic for the WMF quarterly reports." That's trolling. Please stop.- MrX 15:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Horse punching
In a world already weird, apparently a comedy clip of MONGO, one of the loathsome antagonists from the movie Blazing Saddles, is now to be construed as a physical threat to a human...weird becomes weirder...imagine that.--MONGO 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I should be glad that I was not blocked like Ceoil (talk · contribs) after somebody reported a fear that he would jump out of the ipad and yank the ear. Dear0Dear 19:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Arbcom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.