User talk:Mr swordfish
|Threads older than 31 days may be archived by.|
Please tell me how I could word the request at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Weekly_Standard_redux better. I tried to make clear, more than once, that the question is about the status of TWS as an RS, not a discussion of the opinion piece. I mentioned the opinion piece, carefully called it a "side issue" and emphasized that the goal of this post was to ascertain community opinion on TWS as an RS. I don't want to address it another day, I want to address it today.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- I struck out the side issue, as that may have led to a problem. I urge you to redact your discussion of the side issue, so subsequent readers will concentrate on the main issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the RS notice board only deals with specific instances of source X being used in article Y to establish Z. Without a specific instance, there's no context so it's difficult to make a call. So I don't know that they will make an up or down ruling on the Weekly Standard's status in general. It's not what they do. At least that's my understanding.
- I commented on the case at hand, because that's what I think we're supposed to do there.
- Perhaps you could find an example of an article using a non-opinion piece from the Weekly Standard as a source and file a new request using that as an example. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Many of the discussions in the past have made general conclusions about a source, not just a determination about a specific citation in a specific article. However, the instructions imply what you just said, so I guess all those other conclusion were ignoring the instructions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
A (half) barnstar for you!
|The Half Barnstar|
|For your work with Dirtlawyer1 on loosing the Gordian Knot at the Federalist discussion. LHMask me a question 19:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)|
Your official !no vote show that you crossed out 'oppose' but you've seemed to have argued against inclusion since then (although it's difficult to follow all these discussions). You may wish to clarify your position. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
African American lead straw poll
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Burninthruthesky (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yobot's changes to lift (force)
I checked Yobot's changes too, but didn't see a problem. It seemed to just be removing redundant markup written twice in the article (See WP:REFNAME). Do you see any details missing from the rendered version of Yobot's revision? If so, we should report a bug, otherwise it will make the same changes again. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- I did not look at the changes in depth, I just did a diff and saw that some references had the relevant page numbers or section numbers removed. If this information is repeated elsewhere then I have no objection to its removal. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
To collapse or not to collapse
Hi, I see you undid my collapse of a section at Talk:Lift (force). The reason I collapsed it was not because I thought it was not about editing, it was because the discussion was entirely opinion-based and paid no attention to sourcing. As such, it comprises no more than idle chat, but some might be misled into thinking it was actually relevant. The PoVs expressed in it have been aired for many months now and never adequately sourced despite repeated challenges to an acknowledged expert in the topic. There comes a time when such facts of life have to be recognised. What part of that do you find fault with? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- The section you collapsed was on-topic i.e. it was about how to improve the article, with some specific suggestions and criticisms. That's clearly within wiki policy regarding usage of the Talk page. We reached consensus about a month ago regarding how to treat the quantitative statement about momentum transfer. That will remain in the article until some new consensus is reached, however consensus may change. I do not find mark camp's contributions to the talk page "disruptive". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Then we should agree to differ on the disruption this topic is causing. The more I dig back through the archives, the more I find that this discussion has been going on for literally years, and in all that time even such an acknowledged expert as Doug has been unable to produce adequate sources to back their PoV. Mark too has contributed to that history. Disruption need not be wilful and may well be innocent (as we should assume here) but it is still disruption. My view is firmly that, without new reliable sources to back up the discussion and prove me wrong, it is going nowhere except to reignite a sterile and endless repetition, and is a perfect example of WP:RUNAWAY. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)