Misplaced Pages

User talk:Gaijin42: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:38, 21 December 2014 editCwobeel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers29,217 edits →Do you think this is OK?: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 05:42, 21 December 2014 edit undoCwobeel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers29,217 edits →Do you think this is OK?Next edit →
Line 216: Line 216:


I just checked the article after the "cleanup" by CG. See this: , and let me know if you believe that section is an NPOV and accurate representation of the shooting, or if it is an attempt to completely slant the article into a direction that is not representative of the sources. IMO, the work that CG has done over past few days almost alone is a total disgrace and a violation of NPOV. - ] ] 05:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I just checked the article after the "cleanup" by CG. See this: , and let me know if you believe that section is an NPOV and accurate representation of the shooting, or if it is an attempt to completely slant the article into a direction that is not representative of the sources. IMO, the work that CG has done over past few days almost alone is a total disgrace and a violation of NPOV. - ] ] 05:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have my biases, which by now you already know of, and I have committed not to edit the article for a while, with the expectation that there will be a good debate and collaborative editing. But what I see now, is total abdication, unless there will be some editors that care about NPOV and undo the damage. - ] ] 05:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:42, 21 December 2014

Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Ping: User talk:Born2cycle

I thought you might want to know that you have replies at User talk:Born2cycle, if you weren’t watching the page. Cheers. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Administrative standards commission

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Administrative standards commission. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

SOMB

Just letting you know that I have backed away from defending the BRD process against Bdel555 because things were getting out of hand. The issue is in the D phase of BRD with a 3-3 tie, no consensus for the change. I would summarize his position as: "No one has countered my (latest) arguments for inclusion, so I will include". That's contrary to my understanding of how things work. You and others can do with it what you will, but I've had enough. The thread is here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm Myopia123. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from 2014 Ferguson unrest. However, Misplaced Pages is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Misplaced Pages to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Myopia123 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Punjabi language

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Punjabi language. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

neutral RfC notification

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_18#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting thanks. Collect (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Songs for the Deaf

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Songs for the Deaf. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

StG 44

Hey Gaijin, not that I'm trying to skirt the line of our topic ban, but from a historical and terminology standpoint what do you think of this edit. I thought it was a better explanation and certainly had better sentence structure and flow. Happy Belated Thanksgiving! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod general firearms edits unrelated to gun control are not subject to our ban, so I think your edit and this discussion is fine. I could see your edit both ways. "storm rifle" is certainly the direct translation, so I think specifying that in the lede is good. On changing assault to selective fire though, this particular weapon is the origin of the word assault rifle so dropping that seems like a mistake to me. I could see selective fire assault rifle as being a good option though. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Right, I agree with your points, but my intention was to clarify the situation given the special circumstances involved...
Since the term "assault rifle" had not been coined yet, using it to describe the StG 44 is misleading. Granted, it is the firearm that is acknowledged with starting the usage of term and I used that in the sentence that I edited. Hence:

The StG 44 (abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "storm rifle 44") is a German selective fire rifle developed during World War II that was the first of its kind to see major deployment and is considered by many historians to be the first modern assault rifle.

I start with generic terms (selective fire, which is a true statement), but acknowledged future jargon as well. If anything, this ties it the assault weapon article even more. The only thing that I did not include was the phrase "an intermediate-power cartridge" which would be accurate as well. Your thoughts?--Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

Arbitration clarification request closed

Hi Gaijin42, just letting you know that I've archived the clarification request you filed regarding the Gun control case here. The arbitrators who commented were in agreement that you should not make the edits in question as doing so would likely be considered a violation of the ban. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephens City, Virginia

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Stephens City, Virginia. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hands up, don't shoot

Thanks for your edit. I don't think I feel strongly enough to move the section back to the top, but I should share that the reason the pants section was first was because I was trying to keep the article in chronological order. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Another Believer That makes sense, but in this case I don't think chronology is particularly important. My thought was you describe the movement/event first, and then describe the counter-movement/event. Although the two subsections may have happened later, conceptually they are part of the initial action (hands up), and not a re-response to the initial-response (pants up). Also the pants up bit is just plain less notable than those other two instances (as measured by the mainstream media coverage) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You may wish to share on the article's talk page, since I mentioned the order change there, too. Your reasoning makes sense to me. Perhaps I will throw some dates into that section for additional context. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

Hey, I was having a hard time following what was going on at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell, until I realized that you had made two separate posts of Lightbreath's evidence, one completely replacing the other. There was no notation that this was the case and I was never notified. (I though I was going mad, my evidence first habbed and then disappearing from her talk page without any notification to me of all the changes, then the "evidence" unaccountably changing in the sockpuppet investigation.) Thank god someone notified me that things were going on and I should keep my eyes open. Just now I looked in the page history and saw you posted two different versions, one completely replacing the other So when Drmies edited you posting of it, I thought I would too, to make it clear that there were two posts by you, one completely replacing the other, with no notation that was the case. I really believe that this type of thing should be transparent and open. I thought that was kind of a wikipedia rule, right? EChastain (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Terrorism

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Terrorism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For being a great example of an editor that can work with others despite differences, and for your always polite and constructive online demeanor. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Censorship of research published in important and respected mainstream international peer reviewed journals

Dear Gaijin42,

Can you kindly clarify why do you insist to delete my additional approach to the solution of the black hole information paradox concerning the time dependent Schrödinger equation? That approach has been indeed published in an important and respected mainstream international peer reviewed journal, i.e. Annals of Physics (Impact Factor of order 3, last Editor in Chief, the Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczeck!) and represents the time evolution of a black hole model which has published in another important and respected mainstream international peer reviewed journal, i.e. European Physics Journal C (Impact Factor 5.4, higher than Physical Review D!). You make an unacceptable censorship.

Sincerely, Darth Sidious 69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Sidious 69 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Darth Sidious 69 Most of it boils down to Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)#Respect_primary_sources Where it says things like
  • In general, scientific information in Misplaced Pages articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources, or on widely cited tertiary and primary sources.
  • In all cases, the reliability and relevance of a work is determined by other researchers in the relevant field.
Your research is new, and has therefore not been covered in secondary sources, nor cited by other researchers. Since you the author are the one to try to add it into wikipedia your WP:COI is involved, and is itself a further indication that your research has not yet become notable enough for inclusion (if it was already seen as important and notable, someone else would be stepping up to add it)
We on wikipedia are not experts, not physicists. We cannot evaluate the research to determine which ones are important and notable and "real" vs which ones are crackpots, or pet theories that will not gain any traction. I do not say this to insult you, just so you understand the process that wikipedia goes through. That your paper was published by a reliable journal is a good sign, but many things get published that are not covered in wikipedia - in general we much much prefer to rely on secondary and tertiary sources. See Misplaced Pages:Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_earth_is_not_flat (PLEASE Note, I am NOT comparing your research to a flat earth claim, just showing that we do not have the capacity here to tell the difference, and so we rely on the secondaries.)
This topic (firewalls, black holes, etc) receives extra scrutiny on wikipedia due to problems caused by Friedwardt Winterberg Who has repeatedly edit warred and WP:SOCKPUPPETed to claim that he discovered the concept of firewalls (based on a one-line footnote mentioning him in the AMPS paper). He repeatedly edit warred to put his claims into the article, and rightly or not, you are being lumped in with him.
In any case, edit warring is not going to be a successful tactic for you. You have now been reverted by multiple editors. If you persist in edit warring, it will result in your being blocked, the article being locked down again, and editors becoming more entrenched in their opinions that you are being disruptive and that your research should not be included.
If you think your research is sufficiently notable and cited to be included, the place to make your case is on the talk page of the article. succinctly make your case, and build WP:CONSENSUS for the change, perhaps through use of a WP:RFC. But be careful that you don't fall into WP:POLEMICs and just fighting with those who disagrees with your position.
Drmies could you weigh in please? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Dear Gaijin42,

Actually,I am not the author of that research, but his attorney at law instead. In fact, when I wrote "my additional approach" I was meaning that I was the person which was adding that approach to Misplaced Pages. As you correctly emphasize that "In all cases, the reliability and relevance of a work is determined by other researchers in the relevant field", this means that a research paper which overtakes the peer review process in a traditional, important and respected mainstream international peer reviewed journal, having a good Impact Factor of order 3 and a Nobel Laureate as last Editor in Chief, as been positively evaluated by, at least, two or three other researchers in the relevant field (referees, Editor and Editor in Chief). Therefore, the criterion that "the reliability and relevance of a work is determined by other researchers in the relevant field" is surely satisfied. Concerning published, reliable secondary sources, give a look to this link: http://www.unisrita.it/annals-of-physics.html. Thus, I kindly ask you to stop the censorship of this important scientific paper.

Sincerely, Darth Sidious 69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Sidious 69 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Gaijin42, you should probably find a physicist to have a look at the claims made in that edit, and I'll ping Randykitty for a comment on the journal, which seems legit enough for now--but I'm no expert. How odd--an attorney writing Misplaced Pages content for a published author: there's a first time for everything, if that's indeed what's happening. But the content is really a matter for the talk page. Darth Sidious, there is no censorship going on, just a disagreement on what's appropriate and what is not. You're picking on Gaijin here but this addition was reverted already by two other editors, Waleswatcher and Rolf h nelson. That suggests you are in fact edit warring and I would seek consensus for the addition on the talk page. Insert it again, without consensus, and you will likely end up being blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The journals are indeed legit (although Watson's antics over the last few weeks show the reliability of the "Nobel brand"). I did not look into the cited articles themselves and whether they are primary or secondary. Primary sources can be used up to a point, but secondary ones are preferred. Note that we have the WP guidelines for a reason... --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

All papers published in peer reviewed journals have been reviewed by other scientists. That is the absolute bare minimum of review. The WP:WEIGHT we are talking about is how much traction that work has subsequently gotten, in particular, how much coverage it has gotten relative to the other theories in the field. Since you did not just list off all of the places where the work has been cited or commented on, one can only assume that it has not (yet) been. How many papers are published about the information paradox? How are we to decide which ones to cover, and how much coverage each one should get? Also, since you brought up that you are an attorney, I should inform you about Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


Missing photo

Hi, I was picked at random by a bot to participate in a RFC it looks like you started on an image. But there is no image. AlbinoFerret 02:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

AE

You may want to weigh in at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Factchecker_atyourservice - Cwobeel (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Just checked the article, and after less than a day in which I stopped participating, and all I can say is wow. The article is being decimated and work of months gone while discussions are still ongoing. Entire sections deleted, leaving the article now upside down now and UNDUE, with no consideration for balance. Amazing. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel Are you talking about my recent changes (merging most of the media witness accounts) or the stuff that CG is doing? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The merge is fine, and was long overdue. I was referring to the glossing over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data executed by CG. Soon the article will read that there was no controversy whatsoever, that the Prosecutor did an admirable job and deserves only praise. :) - Cwobeel (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Mm. it is an issue that WP:WELLKNOWN allegations in WP:RS are not WP:BLP violations. But some of his complaints are also not meritless. I think moving to the summary view will help , because it is undeniable that the POV exists and is notable, and at the summary view issues with the way a particular source worded things is not an issue, because you are taking the aggregate opinion. However, even where he does have merit, if he continues in the combative way it is likely to end poorly for him (And CG sorry for talking about you while you are in the room, but this isn't anything I don't think I haven't said directly in any case) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The point of presenting "Opinion as fact" was the issue with most of it, but I think that has been largely resolved. When we use "said" and give an accusation as fact, it is concluding that Accusation is proven by Claim. When Claim is wrong, Accusation is clearly wrong when it is based on Claim. The presentation is the issue:
  • "X says Accusation is proven by Claim"
  • "X says Claim is evidence of Accusation."
The impact and implication of the arguments change by their ordering. Professional writers do this because it frames and defends arguments by using the mind works and processes information. You process the Accusation and then get a Claim which you can reject or agree with. However, a rejection does not lead to a rejection of the Accusation upon which it is supported or advanced by. instead, you are more likely to reject an argument based which presents a fallacy before its conclusion - that is the key to its success. If we are actually and deliberately include logical fallacies because they are opinions - at least give them a less deceptive ordering.... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I will stick to my commitment not to edit the article for a few weeks, and see where the article ends up. It may be a better article at the end, or not. That would depend on what active editors do there to counteract CG's super-narrow interpretation of BLP, NPOV and V. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Like old times

It is good to work with you again! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Amy Pascal

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Amy Pascal. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you think this is OK?

I just checked the article after the "cleanup" by CG. See this: , and let me know if you believe that section is an NPOV and accurate representation of the shooting, or if it is an attempt to completely slant the article into a direction that is not representative of the sources. IMO, the work that CG has done over past few days almost alone is a total disgrace and a violation of NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have my biases, which by now you already know of, and I have committed not to edit the article for a while, with the expectation that there will be a good debate and collaborative editing. But what I see now, is total abdication, unless there will be some editors that care about NPOV and undo the damage. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)