Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Serial Number 54129 (talk | contribs) at 10:31, 8 April 2019 (Warning: Edit warring on Jacob Wohl. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Informal GA Review

Hi there. I saw you nominated Alan Dershowitz for GA. I don't have the time at the moment to do a full review but I have major concerns over how the article currently handles GA criteria 3 and 4 (and to a lesser extent 6 - just surprised at how few pictures illustrate the article). Specifically, the article seems to be heavily weighted towards events that have occurred during Misplaced Pages's lifetime rather than truly giving WP:DUE weight to his career. For instance there is roughly the same word count given to Claus von Bülow and Virginia Roberts. That seems absurdly weighted towards the latter controversy. This is unsurprising because so many of the sources are current news stories rather than biographical articles/books/etc about Dershowitz. I considered quick failing the review on these grounds but decided that wasn't quite fair to you, however, I do hope you consider this concern about the article. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll get to work on that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 How do you feel about using his books as WP:PRIMARY sources for some of his cases, or at least his account of his involvement? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 It seems appropriate to some extent, but probably more useful for "color" e.g. a memorable quote, than for basic facts. I spent about 10 minutes looking into sourcing and there is definitely academic writing about Derschowitz as a lawyer which seems great. However, I think the key here is to find good 20,000 foot views of him from RS secondary sources and see how they give weight to various aspects of his life. An imperfect version of this that I am familiar with is this article which has a modern focus but takes pains to present not just the present but also the past. For someone who has been notable as long as him there must be other such longform profiles or even books to draw on for sourcing and for perspective. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

In dong a search of EBSCO (thanks to the WikiLibrary) for articles about him before 2003 I find several such articles which use a current news hook (e.g. Helmsly or Simpson) to profile him. These seem helpful and there must be other such articles written during Misplaced Pages's lifespan, rather than just on the controversy of the day, like Politico article above. My previous search of JSTOR also show more formal academic writings about him. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. I'm going to start cleaning up some of the writing a bit further and will begin incorporating these sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:TPO and WP:EW

Kindly stop modifying other's comments, and kindly stop revert-warring to remove it. Thank you. nableezy - 17:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You need to stop irresponsibly restoring obvious trolling and other harmful posts. LGB is the acronym for Laser-Guided-Bomb, so please restructure the LGTBQIA elsewhere than under the section on critique of Israelis as they are a militant country with forced conscription and dangerously armed might be the sort of stuff that intrigues you, but, as I'm sure you also know, it has nothing to do with improving any article and is disruptive. I've already warned the other editor who decided to restore it and hatted one discussion; another editor properly hatted the other. Please don't come to me with this nonsense again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

These IPs are suspected as being part of a long-term abuse pattern. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Doug Weller talk 21:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

move

If you do not reverse your move I will be making a report at ANI. nableezy - 19:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, WP:ANI#Wikieditor1922 move warring. nableezy - 19:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy:Looks like attempting to weaponize WP:ANI wasn't a good move considering that you were the one who unilaterally made the changes in the first place. I'll see you on the move discussion page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

1RR violation

You violated the 1RR at Israeli permit system in the West Bank. Please self-revert. nableezy - 01:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions at Sarah Jeong

You are welcome to ask for the discretionary sanctions applied to the article to be lifted but you cannot just ignore them, as you did in these two edits. Do not do so again. Abecedare (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I have no intention of ignoring the discretionary sanctions, but you should know that both of those changes were reverts to changes that another editor had implemented without consensus—I restored the version of the article as it existed before those changes took place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Proposal:_remove_paraphrased_NYT_statement

• Here, an editor suggested a change. It was objected to by two editors. The editor waited two weeks and implemented it anyway. My first edit was to revert that change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sarah_Jeong#The_Verge_editors'_statement

• The same editor made a suggestion, which was also met with opposition. The editor waited several weeks and proceeded with the changes. The second of my edits was another revert to restore the original status of the article, something which I also addressed on the talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You would be right were it not for these two messages Sangdeboeuf posted on the article talkpage on Feb 1st, after which they waited 50+ days for someone to voice an objection before implementing the changes on March 22nd. Abecedare (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: OK. Is there a policy that allows a proposal to be moved forward upon, after initial objections, if the editor simply waits 50+ days? I'll also note that neither of the changes Sangdeboeuf substantively addressed the concerns that were raised, lest we forget that both of those changes were met with disagreement. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

See WP:SILENCE. Abecedare (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: In both cases, there was not silence. Both of the above suggestions were actively disagreed with on the talk page by several editors. From the policy page: As far as the difference between dissent and silence is concerned, if you voice dissent, failure to make your dissent heated and continuous does not constitute silence and therefore does not constitute consent. The fact that Sangdeboeuf continually repeated the same points until all other editors ceased participating does not constitute consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure continuing this meta-discussion is fruitful. If you wish, you can argue for Sangdeboeuf edits to be undone on the article talkpage and since those edits anyway enjoyed only a weak form of consensus through silence, perhaps other editors will join in and it will become apparent that the pre-March 22nd wording is preferred. Abecedare (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, respectfully, you called me out, and I disagree with your policy analysis. There was no "weak consensus." The changes that Sangdeboeuf made in March were substantively no different from what they had proposed, and what was objected two, a month or two earlier by several editors; WP:SILENCE explicitly notes that an objection does not need to be continued and persistent to constitute non-consent to consensus. If Sangdeboeuf had put forth an entirely new but similar proposal, and it was not met with any objection, and then Sangdebouef proceeded to make the change, that would better match what you're describing, but that's not what occurred.

Anyway, I'd like to see the DS lifted so that we can all (and by "we" I mean the small group of editors still following this page) actually start making bold changes to the article and not get wrapped up in procedural matters. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong

Please see my latest reply on the talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I watch the talk pages I comment on and don't need an immediate notice. Please don't badger me for a response, either. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jacob Wohl; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ——SerialNumber54129 10:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)