| Revision as of 05:40, 15 January 2022 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,379 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Jayjg/Archive 43) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:08, 6 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,379 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Jayjg/Archive 43) (bot | ||
| (53 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| == Merchandise giveaway nomination == | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| | ] | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| | style="vertical-align:top;" | <div style="text-align: center; font-size: x-large; font-weight: bold; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; color: {{{textcolor|black}}}">A token of thanks</div> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| ---- | |||
| <div style="color:black; text-align:center;">Hi {{safesubst:<noinclude/>BASEPAGENAME}}! I've ''']''' (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> ~~<noinclude/>~<noinclude/>~~</div> | |||
| | ] | |||
| |}<!-- Template:Merchandise giveaway nomination --> ] (]) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | <!-- Message sent by User: |
||
| :Thank you! ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == Menetrez == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| If you are going to reply to an archive, Ill reply here. Menetrez's column is '''not''' an article in CounterPunch. What is cited is in a book published by University of California Press. That is what David . The idea that Menetrez's critique of the situation isnt notable is a, irrelevant (it only matters if it has weight, not if it is notable), and incorrect. Menetrez's analysis itself is covered in other sources, it is itself a reliable source, and being a red linked biography doesnt really change that. I dont really understand how people, including you, are just blithely ignoring that sources that are not deprecated are being tossed aside because of the careless editing, or that there very clearly is edit-warring occurring (and no, nobody claimed a BLP exception). Anywho, hope you enjoyed your holidays, and if youd like to be informed when a case is filed on this as an interested party Id be happy to do so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :{{u|Nableezy}: Yeah, I was writing the response and doing a bunch of other things, and when I finally hit "Publish changes", the section had been closed. Anyway, Menetrez's critique was originally published on CounterPunch; that's what Dershowitz was responding to. If the subsequent publication in the UC Press is ''not'' identical to that original article, then we don't have Dershowitz's response at all, which is one of the arguments being made for keeping the "Dershowitz" CounterPunch article. If the UC Press source ''is'' identical to the CounterPunch article, then we are still faced with what I described as "neither of them being notable", which, in policy terms, translates to them being ]; I should have been more clear in terms of Misplaced Pages terminology. I haven't seen much evidence of "careless editing" so far as regards these removals; most of them were good edits, removing sources that did not add value to the articles in question, which was almost inevitable ''given the nature of the websites publishing them''. These kinds of highly partisan sites provide little of value for Misplaced Pages as an '''encyclopedia''', though I'm sure they provide interesting reading for those whose biases align with them. | |||
| ::In general, highly political articles attract bad article sourcing. By this I mean, rather than looking for the highest quality sources on the topic, instead editors with one POV/bias look for sources that support their POV, then editors with the opposite POV/bias look for sources to counter them, and we end up with a dog's breakfast filled with "he said, she said" political point-scoring. That appears to have happened when this part of the Dershowitz article was written, and efforts to rescue the deprecated source or undo this depreciation miss a very important point: the main purpose of deprecation is so that Wikipedians ''stop'' fighting to include specific unreliable sources. | |||
| ::In this sense deprecation is analogous to banning users. A certain kind of banned editor likes to come back to Misplaced Pages using a sockpuppet to make "good" edits, then fulminate when their "good" edits are reverted. "See", they say, "there was no reason to revert this edit, that was stupid", when they point they're actually trying to make is "See, there was no reason to ban me, those who did so are stupid". Defenders of the individual or the edits then get upset that "good" edits are being removed, while those removing the edits say "but this editor is banned!". ] was made policy to stop people from fighting about this; Misplaced Pages has decided this editor should not be on Misplaced Pages regardless of the quality of their edits, and Wikipedians removing those edits should not have to waste time defending their removals. Deprecated source ≅ banned editor. | |||
| ::As for "edit-warring", let's be honest: it was on both sides - the fact that you were there to back up Nishidani's reverts, or his yours, just means that you were able to divide the edit-warring between the two of you, as opposed to {{u|David Gerard}}, who did is on his own. Nobody came out of those disputes looking good. And to be even more honest, I don't think you would care if David wholesale or "carelessly" removed all citations to ] or ] or most of the other ]; it's only when "your ox was gored" that you became concerned. Your issue is not with David's "careless editing", it's with CounterPunch's deprecation. | |||
| ::Anyway, time to get off the soapbox. I only edit intermittently these days, but will try to keep an eye on this issue as it develops, and I appreciate your offer to keep me informed. Thanks also for your kind wishes; I hope you too enjoyed your holidays, and have a wonderful 2022! ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| No, it was not identical, he expanded the original CP essay in to a much longer one. I still dont understand how somebody can argue that Dershowitz is not entitled to defend himself, and Im honestly a bit stunned at how the turns tabled here with me defending Dershowitz's right to a defense here and you saying toss it. As far as deprecation and policy, I dont actually see what policy was ever approved to support this. And I do think the idea that 4 editors at RSN one time can ban a website from all articles to be absolutely insane (FPM), or 15 for that matter (CP-the Icewhiz and NoCal100 socks). Would I ever cite FPM? No, of course not. But how deprecation has turned RSN into a voting booth is absolutely bonkers to me. But Jayjg, this started, for me at least, over article used in ]. It is astonishing to me that anybody can claim it is not a reliable source. It is cited over and over by other sources, '''all''' of them giving credit to that article for uncovering the FBI surveillance of Said. And it is insane to me that people are removing what is the most authoritative source by the most qualified expert in that article. I have pretty high standards for sources, but here this is the very best source on the topic. And no, my issue is with both. I posted several diffs of David removing sources that are not deprecated. Totally ignored. David wouldnt even look before reverting. Totally ignored. Im still tempted to take this to ArbCom, will see though. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::May I but in here, just to state this. | |||
| :::<blockquote>I don't think you would care if David wholesale or "carelessly" removed all citations to Breitbart News or VDare or most of the other deprecated sources.'</blockquote> | |||
| :::I can understand how it might look like that, but the assumption is editors read everything. They don't. I haven't even examined the deprecated list, but all of the examples given in these CP discussions, -Breitbart, Daily Mail, VDare etc - I've never read them, and have only a name familiarity with the first two. I have read CP desultorily, when, visiting it once or twice a week, I run down the articles listed, and of names I recognize usually click on just one or two, and I have done so for 15 years. While I think the deprecation judgement a farcical kangeroo court/caught result, I can live with it, as long as 'generally' in 'generally unreliable' is respected. I don't even look at David's contributions to see what he is doing re CP. I respond only when one of his edit removals affects an article I have edited and have on my watchlist. I noted the other day one article I had on my watchlist, where he removed a CP source, and, examining the source removed, agreed that the wiki article suffered no damage, and left his edit untouched.] (]) 20:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| == Soros/Shelby == | |||
| </div> | |||
| ⚫ | <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | ||
| == Mink (manga) == | |||
| Hi! I’m curious if you have anymore information on Gregory James Shelby? It only says he is an artist. ] (]) 05:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| I am interested in recreating the article for ]. I am not sure how the original article looked, but I have since found more sources for the article, including and a from '']''. ] (]) 00:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion review for ] == | |||
| An editor has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRV notice --> ] (]) 03:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:08, 6 January 2025
| Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.
If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting. |
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Mink (manga)
I am interested in recreating the article for Mink (manga). I am not sure how the original article looked, but I have since found more sources for the article, including an interview with the author about the creation of the series and a review from Da Vinci. lullabying (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Deletion review for Mink (manga)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mink (manga). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lullabying (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)