Softlavender (talk | contribs) |
My very best wishes (talk | contribs) →Russian roulette: my thoughts |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
::::Just a thought, but why not just go in and rip out ''anything'' without a ref at the end of it? <small>"''It's the only way to be sure''"</small> That way, it can be rebuilt fro the foundations up. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 16:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
::::Just a thought, but why not just go in and rip out ''anything'' without a ref at the end of it? <small>"''It's the only way to be sure''"</small> That way, it can be rebuilt fro the foundations up. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Fortuna<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Imperatrix Mundi</font>]]'''''</sup> 16:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::The problem isn't lack of references, it's lack of editorial judgment--and, on the talk page, lack of collegiality. ''Anything'' can be verified, no doubt; the problem is that frequently that means that everything should be in the article. Putin is president of Russia, Russia--as a nation, though one led in a somewhat specific and metonymical manner--did X or Y, which had consequences Z and Z', so therefore Z and Z' should be in the article--and the commentary of those who disagree that Z' was a consequence of X (or Y). [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies#top|talk]]) 16:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
:::::The problem isn't lack of references, it's lack of editorial judgment--and, on the talk page, lack of collegiality. ''Anything'' can be verified, no doubt; the problem is that frequently that means that everything should be in the article. Putin is president of Russia, Russia--as a nation, though one led in a somewhat specific and metonymical manner--did X or Y, which had consequences Z and Z', so therefore Z and Z' should be in the article--and the commentary of those who disagree that Z' was a consequence of X (or Y). [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies#top|talk]]) 16:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::::*Yes, I agree. People can write any nonsense by selectively quoting sources, and that is what happens on this page. One must know and ''understand'' the subject and use best sources to write something reasonable. That can be said about all pages, from Physics to Biology. That's why I did not edit subjects on US or Chinese politics, even though I read about it in newspapers. I do not really know them. In this example, the <u>first most important question</u> of his political biography is how and why Putin came to power in 1999-2000. This should be prominently described by sourcing to books, and not just to any books (there are way too many of them), but books by experts and ''specifically on this subject''. Will users who are currently active on the page allow this to happen? No, they will not - based on their comments so far. ''That'' is the problem. The <u>second most important question</u> of his biography is what he has been able to accomplish so far - as a politician? Suppression of political freedoms in the country, wide-spread corruption, wars in Georgia and Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. Please add something if I forget. This all was described in books and research publications about him and his regime. Will users who are currently active on the page allow this to be prominently described? I do not think so. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 12:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I once dipped my toe into that maelstrom of a talk page to express the opinion that the article ought to be a biography of a person, instead of a running commentary on everything that has happened in Russia during his time in high office. Of course, no one paid any attention, so I moved on. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 01:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
::::::I once dipped my toe into that maelstrom of a talk page to express the opinion that the article ought to be a biography of a person, instead of a running commentary on everything that has happened in Russia during his time in high office. Of course, no one paid any attention, so I moved on. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 01:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 12:54, 29 March 2016
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Edit waring/ content dispute by a User
Hi dear,
This User has been warned not to remove content from the article which sufficiently sourced. Now she/he has changed her/his username and doing the exact same thing that was asked not to. Here [1] and here [2] and here they left me a message on my talk page "You have to listen to me"! [3] Can you see to it please?---Thanks, and have a nice day (Mona778 (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC))
- You do know how to flatter a girl, don't you. I'll have a look because it feels nice to be appreciated. My former significant other seems to have forgotten all about that. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I see that AlexiusHoratius has protected the page. I don't understand what that user is trying to do: such unexplained removals of what appears to be an acceptable reference is not acceptable and, Blackgold556, you can be blocked for it. Mona, if this happens again, make sure you don't become guilty of edit warring, and report at WP:AIV. Have a lovely evening, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- After the article is no longer protected, maybe you can remove the flags (violation of MOS:FLAG) and the wikilinks around the countries (violation of WP:OVERLINK)? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cruijffiaans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stream of consciousness (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) 09:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
In lieu of RS
Hi Doc. Personal attacks and exclamation marks in edit summaries, in lieu of RS. Where? K-pop BLPs of course. Take care. Dr. K. 11:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
By the way, the same editor is engaged in longterm edit-warring at that article; he reverted my DOB removal back in February 2016 imitating my edit-summary "QC", which stands for "Quality Control". Dr. K. 11:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
What were you on about, dude?
"Beyond my Ken is right - must be his lucky day. That weren't luck, that was wizdom and a lotta book larnin'. BMK (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Last time I saw you in action you were edit warring to restore superfluous POV adjectives, so yeah. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, if I was for them, then they obviously weren't "superflouous" or "POV", pretty much by definition, as I can do no wrong - just ask my wife and kids. (Don't remember the incident, but I do tend to get caught up in my position, sometimes.)Hope you're all well down there. I'm recovering from having a cataract removed, and am now in the awkward situation that the surgery eye sees better without glasses, while the non-surgery eye (which had its cataract removed years ago) sees better with glasses, so I'm never quite sure which is going to work best, glasses or no glasses, and either way the image isn't quite gelling. Not enough to stop reading or working or doing my thing here, but enough to be intermittently annoying. I think it's making me cranky too. BMK (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Cebr1979
I think Cebr1979 should have been indeffed. He has already been blocked six times before now, showing that he is a repeat offender, and it is very likely we will have to deal with more of the same after the current block, should you choose to keep it at its current length, expire. He has proven to us time and time again that he can't change. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 03:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Russian roulette
Could you drop by Talk:Vladimir Putin and start handing out blocks pretty much at random? VM and the Putinist editors are really getting into it. As you know warnings, gentle hints, etc. have absolutely no effect on these folks. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- With all the shouting it can be hard to tell who's who. I'm familiar with Marek from having seen him around (he has a great sense of humor when he's not being too serious). So he stands out simply because I recognize the name. There may even be a few brave souls from a more-or-less neutral perspective but it's hard to imagine anyone neutral sticking their head into that meat grinder. I wish VM could learn to just let things go sometimes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Me too. But he's an Auburn fan, so what can one expect. I spent the last twenty minutes looking at that talk page and the recent edits, and there is plenty of reason to block three or four, maybe more editors--but I'm waffling, at least for now. There's not really much of a neutral perspective to be found among those editors, though in greatly varying degrees; the next stop, well, there's two: blocks for continuing assholery (a technical and accurate term, here pointing at personal attacks and edit warring) and topic bans for continued POV editing. I wish we had more editors there to actually edit. I know what I'd do with it: I'd have it at 120k in ten minutes. Maybe Sitush still has his hatchet around. Thanks Boris--and happy Easter, unless you're, like, not a Christian, or not a practicing Christian, or an orthodoxically practicing Christian, or whatever. You know what I mean. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the Easter wishes. Same to you as well. And speaking of editing things down, I once suggested to our pastor that her entire sermon could be trimmed to just repeating John 3:16. Her response was something like "yeah, I know, but people expect me to talk for a while." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just a thought, but why not just go in and rip out anything without a ref at the end of it? "It's the only way to be sure" That way, it can be rebuilt fro the foundations up. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The problem isn't lack of references, it's lack of editorial judgment--and, on the talk page, lack of collegiality. Anything can be verified, no doubt; the problem is that frequently that means that everything should be in the article. Putin is president of Russia, Russia--as a nation, though one led in a somewhat specific and metonymical manner--did X or Y, which had consequences Z and Z', so therefore Z and Z' should be in the article--and the commentary of those who disagree that Z' was a consequence of X (or Y). Drmies (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. People can write any nonsense by selectively quoting sources, and that is what happens on this page. One must know and understand the subject and use best sources to write something reasonable. That can be said about all pages, from Physics to Biology. That's why I did not edit subjects on US or Chinese politics, even though I read about it in newspapers. I do not really know them. In this example, the first most important question of his political biography is how and why Putin came to power in 1999-2000. This should be prominently described by sourcing to books, and not just to any books (there are way too many of them), but books by experts and specifically on this subject. Will users who are currently active on the page allow this to happen? No, they will not - based on their comments so far. That is the problem. The second most important question of his biography is what he has been able to accomplish so far - as a politician? Suppression of political freedoms in the country, wide-spread corruption, wars in Georgia and Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. Please add something if I forget. This all was described in books and research publications about him and his regime. Will users who are currently active on the page allow this to be prominently described? I do not think so. My very best wishes (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I once dipped my toe into that maelstrom of a talk page to express the opinion that the article ought to be a biography of a person, instead of a running commentary on everything that has happened in Russia during his time in high office. Of course, no one paid any attention, so I moved on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- The problem isn't lack of references, it's lack of editorial judgment--and, on the talk page, lack of collegiality. Anything can be verified, no doubt; the problem is that frequently that means that everything should be in the article. Putin is president of Russia, Russia--as a nation, though one led in a somewhat specific and metonymical manner--did X or Y, which had consequences Z and Z', so therefore Z and Z' should be in the article--and the commentary of those who disagree that Z' was a consequence of X (or Y). Drmies (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
VM is making the discussion personal again. Just how am I supposed to react to this? If you look at past discussions, VM is always the first to personalize the discussion, and it's downhill from there. And because he keeps getting away with it, he keeps doing it. Athenean (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
A "tasteless remark" (which is what you called it) is not a personal insult as such, and the remark did not contain an insult directed at an individual - it was about what I see as an instinctive ongoing behavior amongst ALL administrators. I have already said on quite a few occasions (such as on the recent tag teaming allegation case that concerned VM) that administrators cannot address problems relating to edits concerning VM because it would open up a can of worms dating back to the EEML case. On none of those past occasions were those assertions considered personal attacks. Now, if you wanted to rewrite the rules and make criticism of certain Wikipedia procedures and decisions into a definition of a personal attack, it is up to you to consider if your sense of reasonableness will allow it. But it would be far better to do something to disprove my assertions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
DYK
Hi. Taking your advice, I did a DYK nom for Karmasin and 4 related articles, at Template:Did you know nominations/Franz Karmasin. --Soman (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oh Soman that's a pretty fine looking hook. Well done! And thanks for sticking me in there. Are you feeling the Bern yet? Drmies (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Did you know that … ?
… meanness is a personal quality whose classical form, discussed by many from Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas, characterizes it as a a vice of "lowness", but whose modern form deals more with cruelty. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- No doubt I am missing the context of this conversation, but: Not necessarily (or just) a "vice". "Mean" = low or lowborn. "Why lies He in such mean estate / Where ox and ass are feeding?" goes the Christmas hymn "What Child Is This?", written in 1865. Softlavender (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I hear tell that he was a barrister, Senior Moderator at Dublin University, and author of War on Modernism, The Tree of Knowledge: An Exposure of our Erroneous Education and Satanic Science, Salvation by science? or, Devilization in war and in peace, The Last Enemy, and a number of others. I also hear that the reaction to The Last Enemy triggered his resignation from All Nations Bible College, London in 1936. But this could all be rumour. Uncle G (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I.P Ignoring WP:INFOBOXFLAG
- User 98.167.180.218 talk) is repeatedly putting flags in infoboxes, despite being reverted and messages left on I.P T/P. I wonder if you could have a quick word with them via a message? Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
RfC closing request
An RfC at Talk:English Democrats was closed by Fountains-of-Paris who appears to be a "new user" with some apparent editing problems per your note to him. His close seems not to weigh policy at all, and to treat the RfC as a simple vote. My base count is 5 or 6 (depending on your reading) for "far right" and 4 for "right wing." in addition sources were given which specifically state that the group is not "far right and the sources originally used for "far right" did not support use of the term. As a disinterested observer, might you please examine the policy requirements for labelling a group "far right" as opposed to "right wing" as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice? Collect (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Fountains-of-Paris should not be closing RfCs period. He is a novice editor with extremely little clue and with many many problems in terms of his continued disruptiveness. I don't know how he insinuated himself into closing RfCs but I imagine it is an offshoot of his having opened three RfCs on the exact same subject within 80 days (see Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach). Someone needs to tell him to stand down from closing any RfCs. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
K-pop edit warring
User:RockstarJ079306 has been reverting almost every edit I make on IMFACT (band) and IMFACT discography, completely ignoring the MOS and template documentation. For example, I had merged the two pages and moved the band page to Imfact. I explained my edits in edit summaries etc, but it didn't make a difference. I have a feeling they will continue to edit war if I revert again, so maybe you can do something? (The band may not even be notable, and there are no reliable sources posted.) Random86 (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Random86: If a page-blanking and redirect is reverted, technically speaking your only recourse is an official WP:MERGEPROP or WP:AfD, because the revert counts as contesting an undiscussed deletion/merge. Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)