User talk:A Train: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:21, 3 January 2018

Since 2005

Archived talk sections

Archive I (Feb-July 2005) • Archive II (1 August 2005 - 8 August 2005) • Archive III (9 August 2005 - 21 August 2005) • Archive IV (21 August 2005 - 26 August 2005) • Archive V (27 August 2005 - 11 September 2005) • Archive VI (12 September 2005 - 14 September 2006) • Archive VII (15 September 2006 - 1 March 2007) • Archive VIII (2 March 2007 - 12 May 2007) • Archive IX (12 May 2007 - 19 October 2007) • Archive X (19 October 2007 - 8 August 2016) • Archive XI (9 August 2016 - 7 May 2017) • Archive XII (10 May 2017 - 25 July 2017) • Archive XIII (25 July 2017 - 20 December 2017)

Current talk

Greetings in this Christmas season

I'm still feeling the effects of our exchange at the Frangipane AfD, and even if I'm not sure how to proceed, I want to at least express my appreciation for your contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unscintillating, I hope you had a lovely Christmas and an enjoyable New Year. I'm sorry to hear that you are feeling any stress at all about that AfD. You and I had a good back and forth but that's what Wikipedia is all about, isn't it? Lots of frank exchanges of opinions in search of consensus? There's absolutely no hard feelings at all from my end, if that helps at all. Have a wonderful 2018 and I'm sure I'll see you around. A Train^talk 12:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Year's resolution: Write more articles for Women in Red!

		Welcome to Women in Red's January 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/64\|"Prisoners"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/65\|"Fashion designers"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/66\|"Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00\|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello A Train, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
Chris Troutman (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Chris, I hope you had a great Christmas and a happy new year. Cheers! A Train^talk 12:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

A Train,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Happy new year to you too, North America! A Train^talk 12:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent discounting of a source

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter A. Appel, I could not rebut the allegations made against Bloomberg because they were ~~proofs by assertion~~ groundless opinion, considered disruptive at AfD; even though I knew that if evidence were attempted I could refute it.

Further, the casual reader should read into the discussion that neither Bloomberg nor S&P Global are so fiducially irresponsible as to put their name on a wiki, to the extent that the notion should raise a question of competence or bias.

And further, my assertions were backed by the two RSN discussions I cited, which had been dismissed with IDHT. As per the RSN, editors are aware of the problem of puffery. In my experience, this doesn't make Bloomberg any less than among the best when it comes to measuring Wikipedia's notability.

There is one part of your close that I don't want to over state the case, that I have seen a difference between the usefulness of bloomberg biographies and Bloomberg company profiles. The topic under discussion, though, represented the founding of companies.

Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Unscintillating, how's it going? I've read through that old RS noticeboard discussion you linked to at the AfD (this one, right?) and it doesn't read like a particularly conclusive discussion to me. Even if we all agreed that the source is good (I still don't think it is, FWIW), that one single reliable source is not a sturdy rock upon which to build a BLP. I feel like I'm not really grasping your whole argument, though; where exactly is the fiduciary responsibility fitting into all this? You lost me there.

[This paragraph refactored below into a new section. 17:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)]

A Train^talk 20:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At both the AfD and above I've identified two discussions in that RSN archive, those being #2 and #22. This diff is an editor who opined that there was consensus in that RSN archive.

As for what fiduciary responsibility means, perhaps you have never been on a board of officers of a corporation. The point is that if these huge corporations put their name on a Wiki, they would be associating themselves with all manner of personal opinions expressed on that Wiki, which would expose their assets.

This seems at least partly related, that attorney User:Bearian states on his user page, "If you become an admin, you are held to the highest standard, that of a fiduciary."

From looking at the cited Bloomberg web page: for "updates", "Documentation will be required", which appears to be the same standard as for Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability.

As per WP:Articles for deletion#How to contribute, "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." AfD editors are directed to this information in the AfD edit notice.

Look again at a statement regarding Bloomberg in the AfD, "there's no editorial oversight or fact-checking". Do you agree that this is groundless personal point of view? Unscintillating (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's very good of you to explain fiduciary responsibility to me, compadre, but unnecessary. ;)

The place where you lost me is what precisely Bloomberg's fiduciary responsibility has to do with Wikipedia policy. The answer is nothing at all. For our purposes on Wikipedia, it does not matter how strict the requirements are for being listed in Bloomberg's database. I'm sure I don't have to return the favor by explaining the logical fallacy of special pleading to you.

The nut of your argument is that a listing in Bloomberg's business intelligence database is a reliable source upon which to base an article. There are several problems with this.

The Bloomberg database is enormous, and contains board-level officers for countless corporations. Your argument suggests that they are all, as a result, notable. I do not think you will find many established editors who will concur, though I encourage you to bring the question to the RS noticeboard if you have any doubt.
The goal of every Wikipedia article is to be a work of encyclopedic prose about the subject. The Bloomberg listing is a little less than a CV: how you could squeeze any prose blood from that stone I have no idea. The canonical example of "significant coverage" from the GNG page is "book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel"; is a non-prose, non-bylined listing in Bloomberg really in the same ballpark or even the same universe as that?

So yes, I'm sure that Bloomberg endeavour to ensure that the listing in their database are correct. I don't care, and neither should you. In an article with an otherwise solid foundation, such a reference would be handy for establishing certain uncontroversial facts. But you cannot use it alone as the basis for an encyclopedia article. A Train^talk 18:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that we agree that "Bloomberg endeavour[s] to ensure that the listing in their database are correct". Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, if that is your takeaway from this conversation (and the previous conversations with other editors, as highlighted by K.e.coffman below, then I don't know what to tell you. If, over the course of almost two years, you have never managed to convince anybody of your position, it may be time to reassess that position. A Train^talk 21:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we just agreed that "Bloomberg endeavour[s] to ensure that the listing in their database are correct", which is a wise thing for a fiduciary to say. Regarding the one case of anecdotal evidence that k.e.coffman brought to the discussion below, I had already responded above when I said, "As per the RSN, editors are aware of the problem of puffery." Unscintillating (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool bro. Thanks for letting me know. A Train^talk 22:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg News vs S&P Market Intelligence

This was discussed with editor Unscintillating here:

That was more than a year ago; that's why I said I was surprised that they kept bringing up these directory listings at AfDs. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another discussion

The following blockquote is refactored from above, in a reply to me:

:At any rate, fully 50% of the editors arguing to keep that article were confirmed socks. I think you can pick a better hill to die on than this one. A Train^talk 20:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Refactored by Unscintillating (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you referred to me as a confirmed sock and disregarded my input for purposes of deciding this AfD discussion, I don’t know if your openness to a request to review your decision to delete the article on Appel extends to me. For what it’s worth, I don’t believe I am characterized as a confirmed sock. I acknowledged during the investigation that I canvassed out of genuine inexperience and I have been unblocked after the administrator who initially blocked me reconsidered the ban. I do recognize that I’m an SPA so I don’t carry the weight of far more experienced editors, and I appreciate that you must have skepticism as to whether I have a conflict of interest (I really don’t). Despite that, I would really appreciate it if you would help me better understand your decision. Please let me know if you would be willing to respond to a few questions of mine, and, if so, I will provide them. Thank you. Bernice McCullers (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bernice, my understanding is that you have been unblocked on the basis that you agree to refrain from further sockpuppetry. You acted in bad faith to influence an AfD discussion that, for now, has represented the entire width and breadth of your editing career. I think acting as though you've done nothing wrong is not a great look. If you want to be taken seriously as a well-meaning editor, I would strongly suggest that you go make improvements to non-Peter Appel articles for a while before beating this horse to death.

If you have some specific questions you'd like to pose about the Peter Appel AfD, I will answer them. But it's not helping you appear like less of a single-purpose account. A Train^talk 09:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in North Korea

Can you undelete 2018 in North Korea, which you deleted following a discussion? The concern shared by the nominator and all three participants has been resolved. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: done! A Train^talk 15:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
 :::::My friend, if that is your takeaway from this conversation (and the previous conversations with other editors, as highlighted by {{u|K.e.coffman}} below, then I don't know what to tell you. If, over the course of almost two years, you have never managed to convince anybody of your position, it may be time to reassess that position. [[User:A Train|<b><span style="background:#324B91;color:white">A</span></b> <span style="color:#324B91">Train</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Train|talk]]''</sup> 21:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 ::::::No, we just agreed that "Bloomberg endeavour[s] to ensure that the listing in their database are correct", which is a wise thing for a fiduciary to say.&nbsp; Regarding the one case of anecdotal evidence that k.e.coffman brought to the discussion below, I had already responded above when I said, "As per the RSN, editors are aware of the problem of puffery."&nbsp; [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 22:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
+:::::::Okay, cool bro. Thanks for letting me know. [[User:A Train|<b><span style="background:#324B91;color:white">A</span></b> <span style="color:#324B91">Train</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Train|talk]]''</sup> 22:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 ===Bloomberg News vs S&P Market Intelligence===