I advise you not to go there. This is an article deleted two years ago, righteously. The link you just added to MH's talk page is an absolutely classic red flag for a group of quacks. The problem with "ancestral health" is that it is a walled garden of self-reinforcing True Believers, a bunch of people out looking for evidence to support what they believe to be true, not seeking to test and falsify their beliefs. This is known as [[pathological science]] or (less formally) as policy-based evidence making. The fact that MH appears unable to get over the deletion of one article, even two years later, is really his problem, not anyone else's, and I really do urge you not to get involved. It is difficult for an outsider to spot the difference between legitimate medical inquiry and quackery, and you've had trouble with this in the past. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 07:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I advise you not to go there. This is an article deleted two years ago, righteously. The link you just added to MH's talk page is an absolutely classic red flag for a group of quacks. The problem with "ancestral health" is that it is a walled garden of self-reinforcing True Believers, a bunch of people out looking for evidence to support what they believe to be true, not seeking to test and falsify their beliefs. This is known as [[pathological science]] or (less formally) as policy-based evidence making. The fact that MH appears unable to get over the deletion of one article, even two years later, is really his problem, not anyone else's, and I really do urge you not to get involved. It is difficult for an outsider to spot the difference between legitimate medical inquiry and quackery, and you've had trouble with this in the past. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 07:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
:Ok - I was just trying to help a fellow editor - but now that you're here, can we please clear something up once and for all regarding the unjustified hot brand that was affixed to my....uhm, reputation? Read the section at the top of my TP titled "To include it in a BLP, or not??" because that exchange sums up what my position was in the past, what it has always been throughout my longtime career, and what it is today. Make no mistake, I am a pragmatic writer, not an advocate. Your recollection, ''"you've had trouble with this in the past"'', is correct but misleading. I was not the one creating the problems; rather, I was the one trying to fix them but I suppose that depends on one's perspective. What I do know is that in exchange for my good faith efforts, I was "punished", beginning with an attack by 3 disruptive editors on the very first essay, [[WP:AVDUCK]], I created and co-authored. My reward for filing that case at ANI was an unwarranted boomerang and a pile-on by what felt like a merciless mobocracy - keeping in mind that not one diff was presented to support any of the aspersions - but I'm not going to re-litigate that nightmare or the COINoscopy that occurred at the same time - I just want it all to go away. I can say with certainty that 2015 taught me some valuable lessons about the WP community, the skeptic movement and what topic areas and editors to avoid. Nevertheless, all the misconceptions and aspersions that were cast against me have not been put to rest, and I want it to stop. My block log was wrongfully tarnished as was my reputation, and while I am unable to clear my block log (but remain [[User:Atsme/Blocking_policy_proposal | cautiously optimistic]]), I can provide the necessary diffs that will substantiate my claims. I find it rather hypocritical that editors are expected to move-on, just forgive and forget, while their block log serves as a constant reminder. Back on point - regarding the trouble you referred to above - my position is quite evident in my final attempts to change that particular BLP from a [[Wikipedia:Coatrack articles|WP:POV coatrack]] to an encyclopedic article as demonstrated in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G._Edward_Griffin&oldid=646405253&diff=prev this Feb 9 2015 diff]. The section I asked you to read at the top of my TP further supports that position. I will also add that I'm hard-pressed to disagree with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=857809429&oldid=857809148 MH's comment] about our broken system. <sup>[[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme</span>]][[User talk:Atsme |📞]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]]</sup> 17:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
If you're here to alert me to the post-1932 American Politics DS sanctions, the BLP DS sanctions or the pseudoscience DS sanctions, please rest assured, I'm aware. However, notice of specific DS restrictions applicable only to a particular article should already be included in the edit view of that article, so it's safe to assume I'm aware of them as well.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
To say it in WikiVoice, or not??
While this list of sources is really good and does establish "commonly used by reliable sources" I think we should additionally ask ourselves - what added benefit is there to Wikipedia saying it "in our own voice" as against simply reporting in a neutral manner that it is common for his comments to be described as racist.
As of this moment, we are engaging in what I think is admirable short-term restraint. We say in the lede "He has a history of making controversial [weasel words] comments." That's fine as far as it goes, because 'controversial comments' is true, and is neither positive nor negative as an evaluation. Sometimes controversial comments are good, sometimes they are bad. Fine.
But we are at the same time here being too cautious, I think, in that we fail to inform the reader as to why the comments are controversial. Is he saying things that might be controversial in Iowa like "Gay marriage should be legal" or "Marijuana prohibition has done more harm than good"? No, actually.
So I think we should cautiously say something like "He has a history of making comments that have commonly been referred to as racist.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]" Well, maybe 9 footnotes is excessive, but you see my point. We have more than enough to make the point that the reader needs to know, and I think the point is stronger than if we simply say, in our own voice, that he has a history of making racist comments. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 9:57 am, 19 June 2018, Tuesday (19 days ago) (UTC−5)
To include it in a BLP, or not??
BLPs wherein a subject's work, beliefs or ideologies are perhaps more controversial than the actual subject, should not become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting the subject's views or theories rather than actually defining the subject. In many cases this may in fact be due to the subject trying to push their own ideas, while others work diligently to refute them, but many such cases involve editors who have no affiliation with the subject other than a personal belief/disbelief in their work. A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views.”(modified text based on a quote by user Zaereth)
Did you ever stop to consider that being equal may hold you back?
Oh my! I just realized that I am biased...in favor of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR
Do you want to make money from Wikipedia? It's easy! Log out and go to work!
For a lesson in the proper English application of the F-word seethis video
"This is going nowhere good, so let's stop before it gets there." ~Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
Common sense isn't so common anymore.
The FBI has determined that one's political opinion is not bias. Glad that's out of the way.
Is "group think" the academic version of "mob mentality"?Conformity!
Wikipedia: where anyone can edit and enjoy the benefits of income equality.
That may explain why I subconsciously picked it, but now that you mention it, I do see a slight resemblance when compared to my picture with Steven.... Atsme📞📧16:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNAAAAKE!!, I've asked Nikkimaria to take a look and help prep for GAC. She's an excellent peer reviewer for both GA & FA. If it passes her scrutiny, it will pass anything! Atsme📞📧02:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, Knights is more like a stub and I just wanted it copyedited, and most of all Breunor's section as tagged. Actually would like to see what needs references or expansions/clarifications too, as separate articles they've been not actually worked on since the 2000s and I only worked on them just to a limited degree now. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ole Thunderbritches has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 15:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to explain current issues with lifer admins, and thanks for closing discussion with Jimbo before more admins circled in to disrespect any users who might agree with your research. I think the environment is worse than ever, so it was an awakening to see Jimbo unaware of the admin problems today. Now more than ever, I realize "we are Wikipedia" and what we accomplish is all that will be done in this era.
If Wikipedia dwindles due to lack of modern leadership, then what will matter is the quality of the vital articles; and no end-game archive-pedia will have the stomach to maintain +5 million articles on "cruft" info-mush, as if people would want 5,000 articles on racehorses who only finished in 7th place. Beyond the proposed 50,000 Level-5 wp:VITAL articles, perhaps only 200,000 pages could be expected to matter, and we must focus on vital articles because few people have that vision to avoid the endless distractions of minor pages.
Wikid77 - I found it interesting that we are encouraged to cite academic sources, which I did regarding that study (and there are many more), yet when such a source doesn’t align with a particular POV or the OR that supports it, your (mine) RS and “empirical views” are considered worthless. So why did the WMF bother to conduct the most recent survey regarding a similar topic not that long ago? Was it to see how many editors agree with their views rather than to give us hope for change? Atsme📞📧14:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be unusual delays in WMF activities, where some plan will seem dropped, and then 10 months later, boom, there is a concrete result after all. I think we need to talk directly with more WMF people, or Arbcom members who show interest in various topics which Jimbo doesn't see. For example, when the complex wp:Scribunto/Lua script, for faster templates, was first installed in early 2013, I then mentioned it was unusually (very) slow for tiny Lua Module functions, and a WMF wp:developer responded within days how he found a bottleneck to fix as 2x faster, and a mere 2 weeks later, the official Lua release ran 2x faster as promised(!).
Just recently, the developers have installed a weave merge for the diff action, and now we can move paragraphs across a page up/down over 20 paragraphs away, and the weave-diff will still show which words have changed, even when a paragraph is moved. It is getting harder for hack-edits to hide when text is moved, and the vandalism patrollers can pinpoint false text when inserted inside large paragraphs, as to directly revert false data. For example, someone could alter vital article "Pneumonia" to move paragraphs and insert false advice to try "chain-smoking to use smoke to kill the germs" and a diff could pinpoint to remove the false text.
Another issue was Arbcom almost ready to forbid the forcing of dashes into words where hyphens have been for over 100 years, such as the "Mason-Dixon Line" (or "Michelson-Morley experiment"), but no one talked to them as supportive of a hyphen/dash study. The current developers are helping Wikipedia, and some Arbcom seem to want to help more. I guess what I'm saying is: we need to find better ways for the tail to wag the dog, now that you have confirmed that is how the system is working. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd like to see is the ability to click on a paragraph or sentence and get a pop-up window that provides the edit history of that paragraph and/or selection - including the user's name & date when the last edit was made to the selected text. I wonder if weave merge could be the foundation for making that happen, or if it will require something entirely different....Atsme📞📧16:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be amazing, especially for articles under consensus required. Right now it is a pain in the rear to find when something was added. PackMecEng (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are complications that I haven't thought of, but yes, that's a very interesting idea. Every year, the WMF developers have a big RfC-like discussion at meta, where they invite suggestions for technical innovations, so it might be worth proposing it there. (Although it tends to become a bit testy when editors from smaller wikis object that en-Wiki gets too much attention.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiblame versus line-author tracking
The wp:developers have discussed storing each line of a page with internal linenumbers, and line-author history could be stored as well. Currently, the wp:Wikiblame tool (run) can be used to find a revision where a phrase was added into a page, but results might be confusing if the phrase was added in several portions of the page.
The difficulty of line-author tracking would likely deter such a feature, but because the developers have spent years developing the wp:VE visual editor (plus template-editing), then the storage of lines with line-revision history might be a feature they would consider, and possibly already exists from storage systems which handle avionics software to track each line of source code back to requirements authorization documents plus related test cases. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - as long as I’ve been here, I didn’t know that tool existed. Actually, never had to use it before but things have changed on our beloved pedia and I don’t think it’s for the better. Perhaps if we could get something done about it, we will start seeing more FA than coatracks. Atsme📞📧13:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snake
Hi there. Was it you who volunteered to be Snake's mentor? Are you still doing that? If so, I wanted to be fair and give you a shot to intervene before escalating things. He has made repeated long, aggressive, accusatory messages on my talk page, and has refused to stop. Are you able to get through to him any better? Because it's like he doesn't even read what I'm saying, and he's not making any sense. Sergecross73msg me14:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the late reply,Sergecross73. I am traveling for the next 10 days so my internet time will be limited. I will look into the issue to see if there is anything I can do to help. Atsme📞📧18:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ancestral health
I advise you not to go there. This is an article deleted two years ago, righteously. The link you just added to MH's talk page is an absolutely classic red flag for a group of quacks. The problem with "ancestral health" is that it is a walled garden of self-reinforcing True Believers, a bunch of people out looking for evidence to support what they believe to be true, not seeking to test and falsify their beliefs. This is known as pathological science or (less formally) as policy-based evidence making. The fact that MH appears unable to get over the deletion of one article, even two years later, is really his problem, not anyone else's, and I really do urge you not to get involved. It is difficult for an outsider to spot the difference between legitimate medical inquiry and quackery, and you've had trouble with this in the past. Guy (Help!) 07:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I was just trying to help a fellow editor - but now that you're here, can we please clear something up once and for all regarding the unjustified hot brand that was affixed to my....uhm, reputation? Read the section at the top of my TP titled "To include it in a BLP, or not??" because that exchange sums up what my position was in the past, what it has always been throughout my longtime career, and what it is today. Make no mistake, I am a pragmatic writer, not an advocate. Your recollection, "you've had trouble with this in the past", is correct but misleading. I was not the one creating the problems; rather, I was the one trying to fix them but I suppose that depends on one's perspective. What I do know is that in exchange for my good faith efforts, I was "punished", beginning with an attack by 3 disruptive editors on the very first essay, WP:AVDUCK, I created and co-authored. My reward for filing that case at ANI was an unwarranted boomerang and a pile-on by what felt like a merciless mobocracy - keeping in mind that not one diff was presented to support any of the aspersions - but I'm not going to re-litigate that nightmare or the COINoscopy that occurred at the same time - I just want it all to go away. I can say with certainty that 2015 taught me some valuable lessons about the WP community, the skeptic movement and what topic areas and editors to avoid. Nevertheless, all the misconceptions and aspersions that were cast against me have not been put to rest, and I want it to stop. My block log was wrongfully tarnished as was my reputation, and while I am unable to clear my block log (but remain cautiously optimistic), I can provide the necessary diffs that will substantiate my claims. I find it rather hypocritical that editors are expected to move-on, just forgive and forget, while their block log serves as a constant reminder. Back on point - regarding the trouble you referred to above - my position is quite evident in my final attempts to change that particular BLP from a WP:POV coatrack to an encyclopedic article as demonstrated in this Feb 9 2015 diff. The section I asked you to read at the top of my TP further supports that position. I will also add that I'm hard-pressed to disagree with MH's comment about our broken system. Atsme📞📧17:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]