User talk:CBM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Away[edit]

PeerReviewBot mistake[edit]

Your PeerReviewBot made a mistake, and closed a peer review that I had just opened 30 minutes before. Here's the bot's edit: [link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Thirteen_%28Megadeth_album%29/archive2&oldid=625244061]. I understand mistakes happen, btu thought I should let the bot's master know. Thanks--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but it is not a mistake. The bot checks to see if there is an open FAC (or FLC), if there is, it closes the PR request. Wait until the FAC is closed, then please try again. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Following here from the help desk, it may not be a mistake, but it sure resembles one. Can you please program the bot to leave an informative edit summary that would avoid this issue, like "Archiving peer review; articles cannot be listed for peer review while there is an open FAC (bot task 1))"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
CBM has not edited here since March and has not replied to email in months. I hope he is OK, but I cannot edit the bot. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I came to address comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/The Who/archive2 to find it had been closed yesterday evening. It's been running a while, but issues are still being addressed. If the maintainer is not around, the bot should be blocked until they are, or somebody else can take over. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
First off, Peer review would literally not work without the bot archiving reviews (as no one has the time or interest to do that by hand) If WP:PR gets too big from all the transcluded reviews it literally shuts down and no one can see the reviews listed there, so the old stuff has to be cleared out. That said, the PR bot directions clearly state that it will close reviews after 2 weeks (14 days) of inactivity if they are less than 30 days old, or after 2 days of inactivity if they are over 30 days old. The latter case is what happened to your PR. Archiving the PR can be undone, which is what you did. Where's the harm in that? Even if a PR is archived and stays archived, that just means it is no longer listed at WP:PR, but anyone can still comment on it. Why block a bot that is functioning properly (following the rules set up for it)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note - correction is needed to the NPOV template, which appears to have been added by you in 2008[edit]

Hi CBM, I'm a newbie, please excuse my inexperience in Wikipedia environment. The use of the NPOV Template appears to have resulted in a lot of confusion on the Talk page of the article on MH17. Here is what I posted on that page just now. I checked through the template archive, and it appears that you added the wording which caused issues.

Thanks Volunteer Marek, I see exactly what you mean! The Template says one thing, while the WP:NPOV says another!
The Template does indeed say “The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.”
Unfortunately, the Template isn’t fully consistent with Wikipedia policies, I quote a couple:-
“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” Note the use of phrase "reliable sources", instead of "reliable secondary sources" per Template. The core policy does not exclude the use of reliable primary and tertiary sources.
The core policy is further reinforced on the following excellent link "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources", which goes on to explain the subtleties under various headings:-
  • "Secondary" is not another way to spell "good"
  • "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad"
  • "Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?"
The last section is definitely recommended reading for all editors on this article, because it shows that the many items in the MH17 article are in fact primary sources (either outright or by Wikipedia policy), even when we mistakenly think of them as "secondary".

The Template has been in existence since Dec 2003. The phrase “reliable secondary sources” wording was first introduced on 27 January 2008 by User CBM, who is an Administrator and mainly writes on mathematical logic, per his User page. It is a different world in the arena of academic and scientific articles, where use of primary sources is generally not helpful (quote from Wikipedia docs: " Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.", an educated person would NOT be able to understand a specialist subject, therefore not allowed).
The Template can be corrected quite easily by removing the word “secondary” and perhaps adding an explanation for different arenas, e.g. current events, scientific research, etc. Using proper Wikipedia process, of course!
It could be a simple error, or perhaps the rules have changed but the template was mnot updated. I’ll leave a note on CBM User page. If anyone knows the process for alerting Template editors, or even finding out who they are, please help me here - I'm still a newbie, and alert them to a request for Template update in line with the current Wikipedia policy.

Tennispompom (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)