User talk:GRuban

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

Fredrick Brennan[edit]

Can I just ask why you made a separate page on "Hotwheels"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You can. Have, in fact. :-) Notable person. Extensive coverage from reliable sources: New York Times, Al Jazeera, New York Magazine, Huffington Post, The David Pakman Show. That's what we do around here, write articles on notable topics. May I ask why you wanted to know? As I needed to answer, I must not have done a good job writing the article. What did I miss, and how can I make it better? --GRuban (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Pakman has ever been considered a reliable source because it's an interview which raises issues about it being primary. Do the other sources establish his notability?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Interviews certainly establish notability. Internationally syndicated journalists do not seek out non-notable people to interview. The statements made by Brennan himself are primary, since they are unverified, but the fact that Pakman chose him as notable enough to question is not. Then, of course, there are the others. What is your concern, specifically? --GRuban (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Ouch. See you're blocked. Hope it wasn't anything I said. --GRuban (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the guy has moved unto "your" article Fredrick Brennan and 8chan, good luck haha Loganmac (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Daily Stormer is not a reliable source for Wikipedia by any stretch of our policies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

True. But this is the article subject writing about himself, so works as a self published source. --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess my brilliant logic didn't convince? :-) I'm guessing WP:RSN is the place to go, then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Article_subject_writing_about_self_in_unsavory_source. --GRuban (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
It would have worked as a self-published source if he used his own website rather than a neo-Nazi one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
What's the reasoning for that? Sure, I can accept that Stormer is not a reliable source, so can't verify anything. Fine. But how does that make it actually worse than his own site, where absolutely no one else would be able to verify anything? Are you saying that there is a chance that Stormer has changed what he had written, so he didn't actually write it? Or just that we should never link to Stormer because it's evil? (Which, frankly, I could see an argument for ... I don't think they like people named Ruban very much either.) Or ... what is the substance of your objection, anyway? --GRuban (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Arguably, he could host something on part of the site that he and only he controls as its owner, as he freely did to prove that he owned the account he registered on Wikipedia. WP:RS trumps WP:SPS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
He could, but we shouldn't make the core way we write articles based on asking our article subjects to do stuff for us. Again, what is the substance of your objection? Is it that you are afraid that Stormer might have changed what he actually wrote, or that we shouldn't link to evil, or a combination of both, or something else? --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

American Left[edit]

I noticed you replied to the RS for the American Left article recently. Have you looked at the article? Is there anything that you think merits submission to a notice board? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's too long to skim, if you have a specific issue? I have looked at the talk page discussions you participated in and agree with the view that it should be renamed "left wing" or "far left", or at least these should be given as altertate terms in the lead. Unfortunately No true Scotsman, i.e., defining people you don't agree with as "left" or "not left" is a popular game in the movement, which means we'll never settle that issue to everyone's satisfaction. --GRuban (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Well a Left wing already exists as an article. A merger wouldn't work because this article is supposed to be specifically about USA's left wing politics. The main issue I see is that it deviates from the existing left-wing and left-right politics articles. It defines "The left" in a different way to exclude pretty much everything but socialism, Marxism, and communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dairyfarmer777 (talkcontribs) 05:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
American left wing and American far left, naturally. --GRuban (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anna Patterson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John McCarthy (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) 09:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

GGTF ARCA[edit]

Hi. I realise I mentioned you here without the courtesy ping, hence this message.

The short version of my response is I agree with you, but regrettably the discussion is going nowhere as presently constructed. A referral elsewhere is arguably bureaucratic, for which I apologise. However I'm supporting it as a means of clearing some of the process roadblocks and moving the entire issue towards a viable resolution. As outlined in the close motion, I believe if community DR fails the Committee should take up the matter a second time.

Happy to discuss if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - I appreciate the courtesy! --GRuban (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tampon Run, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Escapist (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) 08:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much[edit]

Thank you, GRuban, for your kind comments at [1] about my quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia to improve articles related to freedom of speech and censorship to higher levels of quality including WP:GA and WP:FA. Please also note that the article includes commentary from secondary sources written by women, including: Carly Milne, Regina Lynn, Annalee Newitz of AlterNet, author Violet Blue, author Audacia Ray, Bonnie Ruberg of The Village Voice, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, Jessica Roy of The New York Observer, author Sarah Schaschek -- indeed, the majority of the secondary-source-commentary in the article itself is cited to female authors. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of Speech[edit]

Brianna Wu[edit]

Brianna Wu approves of that image you made. Given her comment on that I'd give it a strong support for an edit request to replace the current one on her bio. — Strongjam (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hurrah! I treasure this moment. For a brief moment in time, I have done things that both Brianna Wu and Fredrick Brennan liked. --GRuban (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
You are in a very small group of people I'm sure! — Strongjam (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Peanut Butter Conspiracy[edit]

Thanks for you weigh-in on the link, a respectable user's opinion is always appreciated. Not sure what the other user meant by some ranting conspiracy theory, but ok. I had been discussing it with another user, and he thought it was acceptable because the manager of the website is a band member of the group. It isn't biased toward them either, but I will just replace the source if there is any issues. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion[edit]

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request[edit]

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Overkill request for closure[edit]

I agree that a formal request for closure for this felt like overkill. In the future, how do you suggest closing discussions like that, especially as an involved party? Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh. Well, I would have tried something like - "Wellp, it's been 2 weeks without anyone but the four of us commenting, and three of us mostly agree, though one doesn't, so I think it's pretty settled. Also it's only one sentence in each dispute, and hardly the most important one in the article. Given all that, I think we don't need to call in an experienced closer, so I'm going to behave as if it has been decided; if you really disagree, you can call in a such a pro from Dover to judge consensus, but it seems pretty clear." --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I try to behave as if most people, even people I disagree with, are reasonably simple, usually nice, mostly sane individuals, that in the end are all on the same side, that of writing the best possible encyclopedia article. Sometimes it even works. :-) I don't think I've ever filed a sock puppet investigation, or tried to get a long term editor banned (or been on the receiving end of either); though I recognize in the abstract the possibility of the occasional necessity of such things, I've been fortunate enough to be able to avoid it. I like the principle of the Wikipedia:Trifecta: 1) Remain neutral; 2) Don't be a jerk; 3) Ignore all rules. Anything much beyond that is bureaucracy, and should be minimized as much as possible. --GRuban (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll keep that advice in mind. Some articles are definitely more exhausting than others. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Shooting of Walter Scott closure[edit]

Link. I'm seeing the summaries as:

Support for option 3: Myopia123, Nein, Cwobeel, Bus stop, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, Gaijin42, Red Slash
Support for option 4: Mandrus, Cwobeel, Nøkkenbuer, Scalhotrod, starship.paint, Gaijin42, Banedon

In other words it's seven against seven. Michael Procton's vote is for 1, but he mentioned he'd take option 4 over option 3, which actually makes it seem to me that option 4 has more support over option 3. You sure option 3 has the most support? Banedon (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It did when I counted. :-)
4: Mandruss, Cwobeel, Nokkenbuer, starship.paint, Banedon: 5
3: Myopia123, NeilN, Cwobeel, Bus stop, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, Gaijin42, Red Slash: 7
You are counting the second choices of Scalhotrod and Gaijin42 (for 4 after 1, and 4 after 3, respectively), but are not counting the similar second choice of starship.paint (for 3 after 4). Counting second choices, by the way, is broken. There is a whole field of study called Ranked voting systems, and an important theorem in it (Arrow's impossibility theorem) proves that they're all broken; to (over)simplify, any vote where voters have more than two choices and get to rank their choices is going to give undesirable results. That said, fortunately, Wikipedia decisions are not just, or even mainly, a count of hands; even more important is a reading of arguments, and a reading of policy. Several people wrote, NeilN, for example: "Wikipedia editors do not get to pick and choose what is added to articles based on their personal theories on what is relevant or important or what reliable sources should have reported." Bus stop and Myopia123 wrote much the same thing. The sources say "A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting and killing an apparently unarmed black man in the back while he ran away." That one is New York Times; but other sources wrote much the same thing. The sources did not say "The case has gained attention as an incident in which a white police officer fatally shot a black man." - at least the first five or so of the ones I looked at did not. For us to say so is editorializing; we're guessing why it gained attention, what is relevant or important. Granted, it's a pretty good guess (I personally would agree with it) but it's still a guess. Now all that said, the difference between 3 and 4 is slight, not just in supporters but in substance. Both mention both races. The main differences in the argument seem to have been between 1/2 and 3/4. But in so far as there is a difference between 3 and 4, it is in favor of 3, rather than 4. --GRuban (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Well starship.paint said "4 if not then 3", which is saying that if 4 is not accepted then he would prefer 3 - a clear indication of preference of 4 over 3. That is actually my preference as well; if not 4 then 3. My interpretation of Gaijin42's vote is that he doesn't mind either 3 or 4 (i.e. same position as Cwobeel), while Scalhotrod has a similar position to starship.paint. Since 1 is clearly not consensus, then he'd go for 4. Also, the RfC actually seems to be between options 3 and 4: based off the discussion in the "discussion 2" section, I get the feeling that Mandruss and Nokkenbuer, the people who initiated the RfC, were inherently arguing for option 4; they just weren't able to articulate what is wrong with the status quo.
That said I suppose that's why RfCs are generally closed by uninvolved editors. I'm involved, hence I'm definitely biased, like it or not. Thanks! Banedon (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)