User talk:Gaijin42

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

Favors, please[edit]

Regarding this edit: [1]. Would you please remove it and take it to my talk page? Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I should very much like it if you quit following me around to badger me.

That is a serious request.

This is just a suggestion: to consider why you felt it necessary to call "inappropriate" my criticism of a crappy source - this source, [2] - in a discussion.[3] In other words, to criticize critical words about a source in an edit summary, but you're fighting so hard - [4], one of your several comments in this discussion - and badgering me in my effort to make edit summaries more civil, which is basically already POLICY and just needs to be clarified and emphasized. Just something to think about.

I am pinging Drmies just in case this problem grows rather than dies. Lightbreather (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It was inappropriate because you took something that was sourced, removed the source, and then said it was unsourced. If you think the source is questionable, there are tags specifically for that purpose, and also talk page discussions. Removing the source takes away the ability for other editors to evaluate the source on their own, and makes the content subject to summary deletion. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Then the appropriate thing for you to do at that time, if you thought that xmag.com was a RS, was to address it at that time on that article's talk page. Not later at RSN in a question about different sources, lukeisback and sexherald.
I noticed it due to the RSN. You made a comment about sourcing, I took a look at your recent contribs to get some context about where and how the sources you asked about were being used. When asking about 2 low quality porn refs, an action you took regarding a 3rd low quality porn ref is perfectly on topic, because similar actions might be undertaken about the other two. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not badgering you. You are making unilateral un-discussed changes to policies, policies that I have had watchlisted and collaborated on for longer than you have been an editor. I probably support 3 of your changes, and the 4th I think you might get support for with tweaks - but I absolutely correctly pointed out to you that changes to policy require a higher level of consensus than normal WP:BRD. I am badgering you so much that I have reverted you ZERO times, and only voiced my opinion when someone else reverted you, and then they started a thread discussing the changes. Changes to policy require consensus. You made a proposal that was opposed 15 to 8, and then went ahead and made the change anyway. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's relevant, but on a technicality, someone else in the above is me, and I did NOT start a new thread, I put my explanation of my revert in the RFC thread, from where Lightbreather transferred it to a new thread, though I don't know whether that matters or not.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem, T. I don't have a major beef with you - just the little thing that I brought up at WT:NPA. This is a Gaijin-and-me thing.Lightbreather (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I beg to differ about the badgering, Gaijin42, and here are a few with diffs.[5][6][7] The first is an uninvited, patronizing lecture with nine "you" or "your" statements. The second was an excuse to repeat your opinion on "censorship" - which was not the topic of the discussion. The third, if the comment was necessary at all, was you badgering me about something you'd brought up - and which I'd answered - before.
As for the changes, I had no problem with your post pointing out WP:CONLIMITED; it was completely civil, almost friendly, and constructive.[8] After that, not.[9][10][11] The last one was especially snarky - 12 occurrences of "you" or "your" - with the last sentence like a cherry on top: "Get consensus for your policy changes, if you can, but if rules like 'dont say anything negatitve about an edit in an edit summary' are what you are hoping for, I sincerely hope you fail." Get consensus for your policy changes, if you can? [If] rules like 'dont say anything negatitve about an edit in an edit summary' are what you are hoping for? I sincerely hope you fail? Lightbreather (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
My proposal is two add these two sentences...
Because they appear in many places and cannot be changed, never post personalized, critical edit summaries. Make critical comments, when necessary, on talk pages or other appropriate forums for content and conduct disputes.
... to the end of the WP:AVOIDYOU policy. Please provide a diff where I added that. Lightbreather (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
[12] substantially implements Q2 from your RFC. I freely admit you did not make the primary change of your RFC though. But you either were making partial/subsidiary changes from an RFC that obviously did not have support, or you were making undiscussed changes to a policy (though you may not have been aware of ConLimited at the time and trying to be WP:BOLD). I also admit my posts got snarkier as that discussion went on - after you were responding to another editor by saying "worse" is incivility, and particularly after you accused me of baiting you. You responded to me (and Tlhslobus as if the policy you desire is the actual policy - which it is not. "The position MAY be legitimate, but it doesn't belong in an edit summary." As for my last comment, yes, I hope an effort to implement a policy like that fails, because I think it would be bad for the wiki. You may hope it succeeds because you think it would be good for the wiki. Shrug. Lets move on, this isn't helpful to the wiki, or healthy for either of us.Gaijin42 (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
None of the changes I made changed policy. However, rather than argue that here, I am going back there. If you re-join the discussion, please WP:AVOIDYOU. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with edit summaries being civil, I am not fine with your definition of "incivility" which is that a legitimate criticism of the EDIT is uncivil. Take a good read through the posts I made in that thread and rate them on a scale of 1-10 on civility, and then take a good look at your post accusing me of baiting you (in an edit summary none-the-less). Which of us has been incivil again?
When you are making waves in multiple policies, arbcom, jimbo's page, noticeboards, and wiki-drama boards, saying "don't follow me" is a way of saying "don't participate in wikipedia". Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Making waves? My work here on WP is all done in good faith. If you have a problem with my action anywhere on WP, take your evidence to the appropriate forum and pursue... whatever it is that you want to pursue. Do NOT make general statements about me here to try to devalue my complaint or arguments. What I said above is don't follow me to badger me. Considering how many thousands of work areas there are here on WP, I'd prefer that you not follow me at all, but if you do follow me, or if we happen to end up in the same discussion - don't badger me. Lightbreather (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I also have had to ask Gaijin to stop stalking me.[13][14]goethean 17:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Commenting on an article that was being discussed at noticeboards is hardly stalking, particularly when my comment agreed with your position. But if we are going to make such accusations, its amazing how you knew to drop in here and comment... I get along fine with Andy, Specifico, and several others from the good old days and we have collaborated on various articles and topics. If you have a problem, then you have a problem, not me. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Then why did you present in an Arbcom case one of my comments at ANI as evidence of supposed misbehavior? — goethean 19:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to see you're getting so much grief here, Gaijin42, seemingly largely as a result of correctly and generously defending me from the accusation by an editor I had reverted that it was "uncivil" of me to say in the edit summary of that edit revert that the reverted edit 'makes things worse' (I added that the details were in Talk). I also said there that it lacked consensus but was not accused of incivility for that. I also got criticized by the same person because the edit summary automatically inserted by the 'undo' software named the person whose edit is being undone. I have pointed out what's wrong with these criticisms but not one of them has this criticism but it has not yet been withdrawn (although you presumably have seen all this yourself - this is more of a brief and incomplete summary in case this row ends up being adjudicated).

Is there anything I can usefully do to help? Tlhslobus (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"I also got criticized by the same person because the edit summary automatically inserted by the 'undo' software named the person whose edit is being undone." This is not true, but I will be returning to that discussion as soon as I'm done responding to Gaijin's remarks here. Lightbreather (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly how it felt at the time. But on re-reading it I now realize that I probably misunderstood what you were saying about it being a 'perfect example", etc. So I withdraw that particular statement and apologize for it.Tlhslobus (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
That is very kind of you. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
And it's very kind of you to say so. Thank you, Lightbreather.Tlhslobus (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
And by the way, in case you didn't notice it,there's a second message from me lost somewhere in the middle of this thread.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I did, and responded up there. No (major) beef with you, but with Gaijin42. As I said, I will return to WT:NPA shortly. Lightbreather (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
As anybody looking at the edit history can see, my previous message (22:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)) was addressed to Gaijin42, not Lightbreather. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't catch that the edit[15] was to G. in particular. Lightbreather (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem, Lightbreather. But a tip for future reference - some of this kind of confusion can often be avoided or at least minimized by proper indentation. In this case, if you had indented your comment of 22:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC) one step further in, it would have been visually much clearer that my comment of 22:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC) was originally connected to my comment of 22:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC). But no need to worry, as no real harm was done. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Tlhslobus, thanks. Actually, I was going to comment about your indentation style yesterday, but I didn't want to appear to be antagonistic. But since the subject is broached, I find your indent style atypical. Maybe we should both review WP:TPG. Lightbreather (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather, thanks for the tip, and my apologies - clearly I shouldn't have indented my comment of 22:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Tlhslobus (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Arctic sea ice decline[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arctic sea ice decline. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jasmine Tridevil[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Jasmine Tridevil has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BLP1E

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Gaijin, look at this [www.wtsp.com/story/news/weird/2014/09/23/tampa-three-breasted-woman-hoax/16103527/]. Most hilarious "outing" ever.--Milowenthasspoken 18:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
MilowentWow, thats hilarious. I agree the hoaxness of it was pretty obvious, but as an article, It might be "viral enough" for me - mainstream coverage from many countries at this point.. do we have Stuff that went viral in 2014 or anything like that that would be a suitable redirect?

Nomination of Jasmine Tridevil for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jasmine Tridevil is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Tridevil until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Flow[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Flow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014[edit]

Re: press section[edit]

The press section is not subject to reliable sourcing, we aren't citing anything there. But the wiki was certainly mentioned.

Are you saying that we can add a permanent link to any source to any Wikipedia talk page, merely because a Wikipedia article was mentioned? I think that opinion is incorrect. There is no reason for us to link to poor sources anywhere. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Any source? No. One that caused ripple effects including multiple meta-mentions by other sources, multiple responses from the Tyson, and a drop-by from Jimbo? Yes. The source may or may not be usable in a BLP, but closing our eyes, sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling "la la la it doesn't even exist" is not helping anything. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Please. This is a manufactured controversy. There are no "ripple effects", these are political operatives linking to each others blogs and getting mentioned by marginal, unreliable source, in turn being noticed in passing by larger sources. This is a non-controversy, controversy, and it deserves no mention on Tyson's page at all. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Boxcar[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Boxcar. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Teti[edit]

The Army Times has weighed in on Teti's claims:

   ″Mary Schantag, who heads both the POW Network and FakeWarriors.org, has investigated some 5,000 contested claims of combat experience and 
   valor medals. She contends that a contractor simply cannot earn the same status that a military member can.
   'I don’t care if you’re a veteran of however many contracting scenarios,' she said. 'It does not make you a combat veteran.'

[1]


The Special Forces Association on September 30, 2014, stripped Joseph Teti of his membership and he is ineligible to rejoin the organization stated SFA President Jack Tobin.

    “He’s an embarrassment to the Regiment, because of the falsehoods, lies and embellishments he’s used in association with his Special Forces 
    qualifications,” says retired Army Sgt. Maj. George Davenport, a “life member” of the organization.
    Among Teti’s lies, says Davenport, are claims that he was a graduate of the Special Forces Combat Diver and Special Forces Sniper courses.
    “I personally checked with the Special Forces schools and he did not go to those courses. There is no record of him attending,” says Davenport, 
    founder of the “Special Forces Poser Patrol” Facebook page, which added Teti to the group’s “Wall of Shame” Sept. 30 in the wake of the SFA’s 
    decision.

[2] Jogershok (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

References

AWB[edit]

Picking up on your recent comment - actually, I'm not sure it occurred to me to use AWB for mass notification. Most Arbcom issues have a small number of parties, some are larger, but I haven't closed any of the large ones yet. I will have to keep that in mind next time. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick The issue is that currently you have to know how to use Regex to parse the page/section for the user links. I just created an AWB feature request to be able to generate the list of users easily. Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Generate_a_list_of_user_pages.2Fuser_talk_pages_based_on_editors_who_have_commented_on_a_particular_page_.28or_better_yet.2C_particular_section_of_a_page.29 Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, if that feature is added, it will help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Participation advice[edit]

I've recently voiced brief opinions in a couple of venues where I haven't ventured before. Since I don't see any others at my level doing that, I'm questioning whether I should be doing it. I feel I have something worthwhile to add, but I can't know the extent of what I don't know, since I don't know it. I don't wish to acquire a reputation for overestimating my competence, nor do I want to distract from important business. Do you think I should refrain for awhile longer? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Mandruss Do you have any particular examples? If you are starting or closing RFCs or processes or other discussions, then I think it is more important to be on firm footing. If you are just dropping in a comment in an existing discussion, I think you can do that safely in general since if you aren't aware of a policy or guideline someone can tell you about it, and there are lots of other voices that will weigh in. Most important is just to be collaborative, don't go in saying "Policy demands that we do X" unless you are really really sure. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Three examples, all related to Lightbreather's RfC attempt yesterday. In the RfC itself, my !vote and a later comment. The comment in particular seems pretty close to "policy demands", or at least very assertive (aggressive?). Then, one comment in this postmortem discussion. It still seems like it was fair idea, and one that no one else had come close to (worthwhile input by definition), but as there was no reaction I'm assuming that no one deemed it worthy of a response, even a negative response. That tends to create self-doubt. I don't need constant validation, but at this stage a little would help. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Update: I've decided to remove ANI and similar pages from my watchlist and confine myself to editing articles. It's really not in my DNA to watch something that dysfunctional and not say something about it on a somewhat regular basis. At the same time I have enough historical perspective here to know that anything I could say has been said hundreds or thousands of times before, to no beneficial effect. Tilting at windmills would be detrimental to my mental health. So I don't need a reply to the above. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2014[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Prem Rawat[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prem Rawat. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

IP edit warrior[edit]

You believe the edit warrior at the Toeppen article to be Toeppen himself? I wondered the same the second time I reverted him. -- Winkelvi 03:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Historicity of Jesus[edit]

Why would 1rr level the field? Is someone currently subject to such a restriction on an individual level?

If we assume for the sake of this argument, that edit warring (EW) is a problem on the historicity of Jesus article, then by enforcing a 1RR on all editors we would address the problem and level the field in terms of editors trying to force one version over the objections of another. Article 1RR restrictions force qualitative improvements over quantitative revisions. This levels the field for all editors, as they no longer have to compete against multiple reverts. The objection of course, is that some editors will tag team their 1RR, but this would lead to protection and sanctions anyway. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Shades of Deep Purple[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shades of Deep Purple. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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) 00:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Origin of the Romanians. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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) 00:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

68.117.88.143[edit]

Hi, I'd already thrown this one to WP:AIV before i saw your WP:AE comment, dont know if its worth waiting to see how that one plays out or to come at them from both angles? Amortias (T)(C) 20:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Amortias I was in the process of filing at AE, but I see he has now been blocked. Ill hold off for now and see if he learns his lesson. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

En passant[edit]

You comment at ArbCom made me read En passant, although you didn't link it. Very interesting, even though it must be 20 years or more since I played (very poor) chess. From such weird associations, happenstances and downright serendipity does my knowledge grow! - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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, 20 October 2014 (UTC)