This is "productive edits". --[[User:Niemti|Niemti]] ([[User talk:Niemti|talk]]) 09:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
This is "productive edits". --[[User:Niemti|Niemti]] ([[User talk:Niemti|talk]]) 09:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
*What does "even" mean in that sentence? Why is a vice-mayor so important? Are they normally immune to gas poisoning? Or, why didn't you explain this, one way or another, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis&diff=593270749&oldid=593264817 an edit summary]? That also takes ten seconds. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies#top|talk]]) 15:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
*What does "even" mean in that sentence? Why is a vice-mayor so important? Are they normally immune to gas poisoning? Or, why didn't you explain this, one way or another, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis&diff=593270749&oldid=593264817 an edit summary]? That also takes ten seconds. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies#top|talk]]) 15:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
== woozle effect ==
Thanks for asking me what "yelling" had to do with my edits that were so quickly reverted.
I have a physical disability that makes typing very difficult. So it's frustrating to try and improve a wiki page to see it instantaneously reverted when the edit:
* might have been discussed first on the talk page
* discussed on my talk page
* improved
* reorganized
I find that sort of instant reversion a violation of what I had thought was the wiki prime directive: assume good faith as well as "improve don't just delete".
So I see a few things:
ONE: Woozle effects as seen in popular culture, Stephen Colbert's Wikiality and Elephant Prank are prime examples.
TWO: Woozle effect used in academic research: Google Scholar has 440 examples of that.
THREE: An AFD that is clearly motivated for 'political' reasons, IE, it's feminist vandalism from a Reddit subreddit
FOUR: My desire to improve the article in a way good for WIki, good for everyone.
BUT YES, I AM ABSOLUTELY TIRED WITH WIKILAWYERS REVERTING EVERY LAST LITTLE THING BECAUSE THEY WOULD RATHER BE JUDGE AND JURY AND NOT BE COEDITORS.
SO:
You tell me.
Where is the best place to place cultural examples of the woozle effect in the article?
Where is the best place to cite its uses in academic papers?
And tell me why anyone would ever want to edit the wikipedia when it's know how swiftly edits are reverted and not first improved?
Translation question. English: "It's a wholly modern 2600 game that's actually fun and as awesomely weird as old 2600 games like Frankenstein's Monster." What is this sentence in Germaneze, pleez? As you can prolly guess, *I* am ridiculously unqualified to even guess. In particular, the "awesomely weird" tidbit is difficult to translate properly, with all the Merikan connotations thereof. Is there a German phrase with meaning akin to "cult favorite" or somesuch?
The sentence is in the article, with a translation which has been criticized as old-fashioned, but will stay until we find a better, not one of the above. ;) - see also (and vote - RfB - for so much insight if you have the privilege), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
herrlich verrückt, i.e. "nicely insane". Not far off, IMO. I risked mucking it up to modify a parallelism. They will now eat me alive. The German speakers, not the ducks. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"verrückt" is not insame, not literally at least, what's "rücken" (what you do with chairs)? move a bit out of place. "herrlich" has "Herr" in it - like Lord, I thought that matched "awe" a bit. - The darn duck will not eat you, but breath fire and lay Plutonium eggs, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geil! OK, don't say "rukken", the Dutch version, since that can only be used in one context. Also, whenever "geil" pops up in Dutch, in a conversation you're in, you probably need to extricate from the situation, unless of course that conversation is with your partner. Nap time! Herrlich! Drmies (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While in German, "geil" has become the most common slang for everything people want to praise, forgetting the original meaning. Next word would be "oddity", at the moment it's "Kuriosität", - you hear that it sounds wrong, too formal, but as someone else added it, I politely keep it. - One thing s good about the German WP: the original stays, be it English or Dutch, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zomi/Zo
I don't know if you recall these articles, but I reverted Zomi to Zo after discovering what I thought was copyvio although it turns out the editor had replaced a redirect with material copied from his website. I've been trying to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar)#Zou, Zo, Zomi Kuki with this editor who a major COI. So far I've had no response to the actual issues I've raised although one other editor responded earlier agreeing there's a mess. I can understand if you have no interest, but any comments would be useful. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are getting somewhere here with 2 experienced editors involved (although the Zomi nationalists, if that is what they are, aren't really responding to any discussion), but if you ever have time... Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I read the whole thing and I am not clear at all on any of it. Why not let kwami and Bejnar write it up and take it from there? It might be easier if there is specific content to discuss in article form, even if that content is debatable and nothing might be left of it. For now, I don't know what to say or think. Sorry--I'm useless here and now. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Holy moly! Things really exploded after I went to bed. So now I'm fat and an alcoholic? Awesome! The crazy thing is that I actually thought things were winding down and that OP was going to start behaving in an appropriate manner. Wow! SQGibbon (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops--didn't realize you were a drunk also. Yes, I saw their latest post on ANI, the one with the quotes from 1840 and the dozens of blank lines, and decided someone else could clean it up. I went to bed too, but I finished reading The Gorilla Hunters. I hope you did something useful, Gibbon! (At least no gibbons were shot in that book.) Drmies (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear local linguists of high esteem, and unclubbable talkstalks like Yngvadottir, does this modern phrase, the title of yon article, have an etymology which literally translates as "Killer of the Hindus" ... and if so, does this literal translation refer to the dark times when slave-traders would transport humans out of the Indus valley, through said mountains, often resulting in the death of a large percentage of their captives? Long-running battle over the etymology of this phrase, which stretches back to at least 2005, and governs 80% of the talkpage content, has recently come up at the wp:teahouse this week again.
"May you live in interesting times." :-) Sources say it means that, some of them anyhoo. Yngvadottir found one, see Talk:Hindu_Kush#Possible_edit_war. Apparently, from scanning the page, some now-offline version of Encyclopedia Americana also gave that etymology. Quite a few folks have shown up with folk-citations ("dictionaries of the people of the time" or mentions of the related words in Sanskrit or of the related words in Kurdish or whatnot) which suggest alternative explanations. There is questioning of *both* words: some people, including the person from the teahouse Khabboos, say that the "Hindi" phrase is actually supposed to apply to all residents of the subcontinent, regardless of their religion, and says National Geographic backs them up (I don't know if this is the case... I also don't know if they mean the 1958 one cited already or some newer one). Other people on the talkpage also say the name is non-religious, giving "folk sources".
But the big question is whether Kush means slaughter, or kill, or killer, or something benign (various options... "mountains" and "[other] side [of the border]" being two). Our existing subsection is Hindu_Kush#Origin_of_name, and it looks like about half of it — including a blockquote — is about the killer-of-hindus theory. WP:UNDUE may apply. But as you say, it isn't that easy... but if the wording can be improved, or the sourcing bullet-proofed beond just 1958 nat-geo and 1993 encyc-americana that will prolly help. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have faith in Yngvadottir and won't butt in. After all, the last time two academics got together to hammer something out in India they had to settle it with a fist fight. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies. I was hoping an admin might redact the personally identifiable information someone just posted on my Talk page. This happens to me a lot and I usually ask User:Crisco 1492 for the redaction, but because he hasn't responded to my ping at Talk:ExactTarget#Article title and I saw you were active just last night, I thought you might be able to respond more urgently. CorporateM (Talk) 16:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I think he/she usually just redacts the personally identifiable information and not the whole post. Perhaps I am just jaded, but I rather presumed it was just trolling, which is why I didn't answer. Still to avoid the appearance that I am trying to cover something up as the question relates to paid editing, I think the post should remain, just not the "Mr. <last name>". CorporateM (Talk) 16:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco is a total he. There's a picture somewhere out there--he's not the best-looking Canadian; that's probably Kelapstick (with Bieber a close second). OK, I should be on your payroll now. Better? I even removed the gender identifier, so as to not upset your hypothetical vagina. Hej, maybe Bjarne Stroustrup should hire you for a quick job on his article. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is kind of cute looking, I think... What, I think Dennis Brown was just fine too. What is this irrational high sense of aesthetic craving? Mies? :)Hafspajen (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I love bad jokes, Corp. What does blue paint taste like? Gerda, you have a Boniface connection? (That's you in front of the middle row of panes, right?) Hafspajen, my beauty is the only thing I have, so I am going to try and get out of it what I can. It's not going to last much longer. Dennis Brown is much nicer than he is pretty, but that's not saying all that much since he is incredibly nice, and he is sorely missed. I'm not going to ask him to come back/be more active, there's better things in life than wikiing off, but he sure made the place run better. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean me, I stand in front of a window, but not the middle one, right. (Independent singers stand last row ;) - a nod to the pic cropper, missed) - My interests (no COI, thank goodness, because in church choirs you sing not for money) are linked under "occupation", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to take a look at [1] Editor is going around posting links to his own SPS conspiracy theory site and refering to himself in the 3rd person as if he were a reliable source. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gaijin. I've left a note, and I'm glad to see at least they took it to the talk page. You know, I wonder what that document says about the NRA and the Sandy Hook shooting. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flattered, but you give me too much credit. The busy season has started at work plus I'm spending every spare moment researching legal cannabis: the industry, law, culture, etc. and working with some rather interesting and notable people in that field. Interesting stuff, full of misconceptions. Charlotte's Web oil vs. Dravet Syndrome is particularly interesting. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER23:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should let this escalate so we all end up at ANI over this. Hafspajen, we have established that you are not Jimmy Wales, but we don't know if you look like him or not. And you need to be pretty in this conversation. Perhaps you can send The Lady Catherine de Burgh a picture via Ansiktbok, and I'll gladly accept her verdict. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only on Wikipedia (and only on Drmies' page) do a bunch of dudes get in a discussion over which are more attractive than others. I have to say, if I was doing traditional marketing, I wouldn't get to partake in such "interesting" discussions "at work" but then it's 7:20 p.m. my time and I'm listening to jazz and drinking a vodka 7, so the "at work" line got blurred out of existence a long time ago.
In any case, there's only one way to settle it, which is for all involved Wikipedians to submit ourselves to HotOrNot.com and see who gets the highest rating. CorporateM (Talk) 00:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're just trying to sneak in something: that you're a babe. What if Hafspajen turns out to be a 6'8" blue-eyed Dolf Lundgren clone? We'd all look like fat fools. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Van tarek benali has twice now created a (presumed) autobiography in French, Van tarek benali, which I have now twice deleted A7, the first time in response to a tag. I've left a note on their talk page in (probably bad) French and English, which includes a link to their talk page on the French Wikipedia (where the article was deleted three times and they are now blocked). For non-admin stalkers, their other contributions here include creations of the article in other places - including their user page. Could I get other eyes on this; perhaps I'm being too harsh, perhaps someone can get them to stop with better French, perhaps it needs to be salted, I dunno, but twice from me is probably enough. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from someone other than the intended recipient I blocked the account. They were spamming their article in user space and overwriting article talk page content; they know full well that self-promotion is not allowed as they were told so very clearly when they were blocked on fr.wikipedia ("ne lit aucun message, et ne vient que pour faire sa publicité"). It's self-promotion of a clearly not notable musician, no matter how intelligent he claims to be or how many musician friends he claims to have. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots17:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, you posted over two weeks ago that you were "looking at it", which I took at the time to mean that you were reviewing it. Do you still mean to review it soon, or should I call in a new reviewer? (If you will be reviewing it soon, then just post there.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did--I put up someone for the award last year (and they got it), but I don't remember the details of it. Did I not do it right? Drmies (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant, now I see what you mean. You were right. Note what I've done, and I hope you don't mind I scrapped one line that is no longer relevant. Thanks, and sorry for being dense. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad you can't nominate an admin. But you can still nominate a non-admin! Hint, hint, hint. Seriously, that pic at the top left of your user page is sooooo gross. Which is the admin? :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, I awarded a WER barnstar to Kelapstick instead. Also, you are invited to comment at WT:EotW on how to recognize under-recognized administrators, if you wish. Thanks for your support of EotW. GoPhightins!19:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also Doc, I forgot to mention, couple weeks ago I spent a few days near the top of Mount Ellen, it was bloody cold up there, and the air is thin. They are looking for gold. I am not sure if I will be returning though, at this point it looks like unlikely. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, Almost-Editor of the Week: are you still on the mountain? Or do you mean returning to the mountain? It looks like a pretty bleak mountain; if I were you I'd take a pick axe to the Jungfrau and get someone to pay me for it...? Drmies (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't think I am returning to the mountain. Swiss alps are great if you like majesty, chocolate watches, and skiing, but you don't get near as many random cows on the road as in utah or Nevada. --kelapstick(on the run) 00:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question...
I've been looking over some of my old contributions and I came across this. I'm confused; do you have a problem with my editing or something? You've been going at me a lot lately. Erpertblah, blah, blah...07:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(stalking)I'm not sure what exactly Drmies' issue is, but I'm going to take an educated guess that it might have something to do with appearing to be more interested in posting on ANI than writing articles. To be fair, I do the odd comment on ANI, but it's always with a view to getting discussions closed down and everyone back to article work, and it's where your focus should be too. Now, a quick scan through your contributions suggests that's not actually the case and there is a good corpus of article work, but there's a lot of little gnomish edits on there, and for better or worse, the "big players" on Wikipedia get the recognised meritocracy by doing serious research and article writing. In summary, do less of this and more of this. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can put it bluntly: yes of course I had a problem with that edit, which is why I commented on it, twice. "In fact, BabbaQ, your version seems to be less neutral because for whatever reason, you appear to have a problem with Yokio having a successful career in Sweden", you said, in a third opinion, and there is no evidence at all for some problem BabbaQ has. It's bad faith to assume the worst, and accusing a party of IDONTLIKEIT is, in my book, a pretty bad showing of bad faith. I am still not sure you ever got the point, since you simply walked away from this one. I'm glad that at least you changed your signature. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well isn't that special. A bunch of living creatures from all genera (or types, or whatever) watching me. I guess I should start shaving more often so I don't look like Warrington's walrus. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know you dont like the gun topic much, which is part of why I am coming to you (Nixon_goes_to_China). Could you drop in on Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#First_sentence Hipocrite is insisting on removing [3] highly sourced content (high quality neutral sources, no hints of fringe anywhere), and overriding a very recent consensus discussion on what the wording should be, claiming that "Similarly here we should not take sides in an active dispute and state that the second amendment, regardless of current judicial interpretation, factually agrees with one side of an active debate" (When SCOTUS is the supreme authority on what the constitution means, and that meaning has been repeated in many reliable sources) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Gaijin--I haven't had time to read the whole discussion, just the first half of it, and the edit itself. It's a question of weight, in part, but it's also a question of law, and I think you should probably ask someone who knows: @Newyorkbrad: ping ping. As for the reference, that's a text book, and while I have no doubt about the reliability of Wolters Kluwer (they're Dutch, after all) I am loath to cite text books especially in contested articles like this one. But, like I said, I've not looked at the entire discussion--and the next part of my answer will depend on whether you want me to look at this as if I were an admin, for instance, looking at an RfC or as an editor participating in a discussion. I can play both parts, I think. But ask Brad first, or someone else who couldn't afford a real Ph.D. <cue The Clang> Drmies (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking for the admin hat, to step in on edit warring against established consensus and reliable sources. (There are MANY sources other than that book, this would be a super simple thing to overcite). However, it seems that the situation has resolved itself into a tense collaboration, but unfortunately Newyorkbrad will likely be aware of it already as Hipocrite added this incident into the ongoing Arbcom . Gaijin42 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brad, just for my sake then, can you please comment, generally, on whether this is accurate or not: "The constitution means what SCOTUS says it means. This is one of the foundations of the entire system of law in the US. We can discuss dissents and criticism later, but the amendments mean exactly what SCOTUS majority says they mean." Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not NYB, but would just like to say that that opinion is common, though many (e.g. me) disagree with it. Similarly, some people believe that a falling tree makes no sound if no one is there to hear it. It's BS, but common BS. I believe the Constitution does have independent meaning even if SCOTUS does not follow it. Public officials are wiser to do what SCOTUS says, usually, but they are not obliged to agree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a philosophical level, you have a point. On a practical level, you don't. the legally applicable meaning of the constitution is defined by what SCOTUS says. However, one could certainly argue that they have wrongly decided something, based on prior precedent or on the spirit/text of the constitution, but that argument has no legal ramifications unless SCOTUS reverses themselves, or an amendment is passed. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may have no legal ramifications, but it often has political ramifications. A related issue is whether the judges are bound by oath to anything, or instead are merely sworn to uphold whatever it is they decide to say, which would be a somewhat meaningless oath.Anythingyouwant (talk)
Box 1: Judicialus supremus?
...Judicial supremacy asserts that the Constitution is what the judges say it is, not because the Constitution has no objective meaning or that courts could not be wrong but because there is no alternative interpretive authority beyond the Court. As Justice Robert Jackson once ironically noted to somewhat different effect, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
It is this authority to say what the Constitution means—not merely to refuse to enforce laws that conflict with the Constitution—that has historically been subject to the greatest challenge and which raises the most interesting questions about the theory and practice of constitutionalism.
Recognizing the constitutional significance of nonjudicial precedents poses serious consequences for both judicial supremacy and constitutional theory generally. The first is that their extensiveness, finality, and other features demonstrate why judicial supremacy is not a fact of constitutional life. It is not possible to credibly claim judicial supremacy as the distinctive pervasive feature of constitutional law, because it is not. Moreover, as we have seen in this chapter (and even more in the next chapter), nonjudicial functions significantly shape both the Court and its doctrine.
Drmies, as to your curiosity question, here are a few sources. Our own article (never trust wikipedia!) on Judicial review is a good starting place Judicial_review_in_the_United_States Or SCOTUS's own page (possibly biased as to their own power? ;) [4] Historically there are some interesting questions. The court essentially gave itself this right in Marbury_v._Madison but its been that way for 200 years now, so its pretty settled. short of a revolution or major constitutional amendment it is what it is. However, here is a well writting criticism of the current state, by the Library of Congress which does raise some interesting points [5] also, here is a tea-partyish source making some of the arguments along what I think Anythingyouwant may be thinking of using quotes from the Founders [6] As I stated in my reply above, the argument has some philisophical/historical (and perhaps political) merit, but as a matter of legal practicality it does not. I too would be interested in Newyorkbrads analysis if he thinks it is far enough away from the arbcom dispute. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant, North8000, Gaijin42, it is my understanding that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual gun rights (and "individual" means something like "not necessarily being part of a militia"). Such a ruling, even though it is the law of the land, is an interpretation of the Second Amendment in all of its weird syntax and punctuation. As an interpretation, it is susceptible to re-investigation and re-evaluation, and it is entirely conceivable that a future ruling will change it. Not likely, but conceivable. The second sentence clarifies the role of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the amendment (and the current legal situation) sufficiently: I think that the "individual" should go from the first sentence. There is no doubt that it guarantees the right for Americans, so that can confidently be stated. But we cannot sit here and honestly propose that rulings can never be overturned--so really, an {{As of|}} template or something like that is called for if you want to keep "individual" in. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ofc rulings can be overturned, but qualifying statements like that would mean almost no aspect of US law could ever be described as a fact. For example, almost every social/liberal right is the result of a supreme court ruling - right to have an abortion, right to have birth control, right to have gay sex, right to remain silent (Miranda rights) etc. Right to desegregated schools, List of landmark court decisions in the United States All of these are theoretically subject to judicial overturn or constitutional amendment, but we don't describe any of them in terms of "As of now" etc. We just describe the current state of the rights and limitations. (along with any notable arguments for change/criticisms, but those arguments are not listed as part of the current state of the law)Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not correct: we don't "just describe the current state", and even if we did, the "disclaimer" that this is an interpretation still stands. That the current state of affairs is the result of the interpretation of the Supreme Court is a matter of fact. If the Second Amendment would "literally" and unequivocally guarantee the individual's right to own a gun the Supreme Court wouldn't have had to rule on it. Again, I wish that Newyorkbrad would answer that question. Brad, what is your rate--$300 an hour? I'll PayPal you $5 for a minute of your time. Basically, all you have to do is say I'm right. Or maybe there's a more affordable paralegal in your office? Drmies (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Statements such as "[t]he constitution means what SCOTUS says it means" are not correct (see Box 1). The Court's authority to interpret the Constitution is restricted to the cases and controversies that come before. In Heller the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense. The ruling did not add the word "individual" to the Second Amendment. What the Constitution "means" is wholly dependent on the question being asked. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ArtifexMayhem Excellent arguments and sources. I do not disagree, but I do not think it materially changes the discussion at hand. The discussion is probably moot as a consensus has been achieved on the article in question but : I entirely agree that there are other mechanisms for constitutional change/interpretation and that the court may only rule on cases that come before it. Perhaps a better way of phrasing the assertion is "When/if SCOTUS rules the Constitution means something, it does mean what they rule." In this case the question of individual self defense rights came before the court. I agree that they did not add the word individual to the constitution, but do you think it is a fact, or merely a pov that the Constitution does at this moment protect an individual self defense right to a handgun (possibly only in the home) (not unlimited, subject to at this time unknown boundaries and possible regulation)? If the latter, do you think the Constitution protects pornography, gay sex, the right to have an attorney present at questioning, desegregated schools, the right of Black people to vote, the right to an abortion (also subject to somewhat ambiguous regulations) etc or are those also just povs/opinions? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comments and the sources supplied speak to the question asked above concerning the accuracy of the statement: "The constitution means what SCOTUS says it means. This is one of the foundations of the entire system of law in the US. We can discuss dissents and criticism later, but the amendments mean exactly what SCOTUS majority says they mean." Rephrasing the question as "When/if SCOTUS rules the Constitution means something, it does mean what they rule" does not substantially change the question or the answer. I cannot answer your last question without first knowing when you stopped beating your wife. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gaijin's last question deserves a serious answer. Of course, the right of black people to vote is very explicit in the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, so we don't have to describe it as a result of judicial interpretation or discretion or decision. But as to rights that are a result of judicial interpretation or discretion or decision, some are more entrenched than others, and some have more basis in the text of the Constitution than others (and some may have no plausible basis at all). Generally speaking, many western democracies have done without judicial review of legislation for constitutionality, and their people have done pretty well at determining what rights need to be protected, and what rights flow from natural law.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
evidence window
the evidence window is closed fyi, but I personally dont object to you giving evidence. The window was also extended several times, so you may get leniency there, but I want you to be aware so you dont get spanked unknowingly. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know--who do I ask? I didn't see a "closed for business" note. Gaijin, you are proving once again what a nice person you are, when you know that we're totally on opposite sides. Kudos to you. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
evidence Response
Brief response here, because I am way over my evidence limit already, but I respect your views and would like to respond to clarify.
The "facts" are supported by more than Halbrook etc. Yes you raise a good point about the possibility of error in the NYT, but There is no doubt the laws were passed/decreed. There is no doubt announcements about the confiscation were made (although one should always mistrust the honesty of statements by the Nazis). There is no doubt there are plenty of primary sources (diaries, orders, telegrams) discussing the confiscation. All of these are documented by plenty of Holocaust histories (although admittedly they are mainly mentioned in passing and not making any sort of tyranny argument)
the "fringe" sources are needed for nothing more than their opinions. The only question really is are there opinions notable enough or significant enough for inclusion. (Or at a meta level, is the Godwining controversy notable enough) If so that then addresses your next point about the filter being used to discuss facts - The facts which are made notable by being discussed in secondary sources. (Although halbrook does go into good length actually about the Weimar laws, particularly in his new book). Halbrook is a very notable commentator and author on gun laws. He is quoted repeatedly by the supreme court on gun laws and gun history. (As is Kates, one of the other academic authors)
This is an argument that has been being raised in US gun control debates literally since Hitler was still in power (1941, Edwin Hall, quote at the top of my evidence page) To say it isnt notable or hasnt had an effect on gun control is a tough stretch. Yes, this is an argument made by partisan gun rights sources. But the arguments for gun control are also generally made by partisan gun control sources. Controversial political topics by definition are mainly going to focus on the arguments of partisan sources. It would be a pretty empty article if nobody who had a POV could be quoted. (The argument has also been made to a lesser degree internationally, but I freely admit its most notable in the US by a long shot)
Even if you consider the historical argument completely fringe, its been very notable in the gun control debate, and should be covered at a meta level (which I think the current article state does actually - its not asserting the arguments as truth, its saying that the NRA and others make the argument, and then goes into quite a bit of detail in the counter argument). You can actually source the entire paragraph to sources arguing against the argument, without changing any text imo.
My main complaint against Andy and Goethean are the gaming. Complaining that things arent sourced, and then deleting sources is about as WP:DE as it gets. Deleting content that has been in place in some form since 2003, claiming no consensus, while there are ongoing RFCs is disruptive. Note that some editors such as Scolaire, FirachaByrne etc are also making strong arguments against inclusion, but they are doing so using actual sources, actual discussion not deleting the content and saying "It violates policy, no need to discuss". If I am on the losing end of consensus, I will be dissapointed, but that is the way the wiki works. But everyone deserves a fair process of building consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And my response to Drmies is: if Grump is not reprimanded in any way for calling everyone and his mother a lowlifesonofabitch, then I hope that I can be allowed to start saying such things too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, its pretty obvious that the NPA/CIV rules are meaningless once you get to a certain level of notability on wiki. Unless an admin notices within a few seconds the block is "punitive, not preventive" and nothing is done. Andy, Eric, lots of big examples of this. (Probably myself here and there). It needs to be enforced with some teeth, or it needs to be dropped, but right now its a cudgel against the newbies basically. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, if arbcom takes a hardline on anyone, its prboably a hardline on everyone, so bans/blocks all around. I think leniency and some policy guidance is the best we can hope for at this point unless its mutually assured destruction we are looking for. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'll foulmouth you all day long if you want. Listen, Andy is not likely to be punished for anything (and, for the record, I believe his language is typically much worse than was Goethean's, whose sometimes exasperated sarcasm you all (erroneously) took for personal attacks. His foul mouth is bad, but ANI has proven that it takes much more than that to get blocked (let alone topic-banned), and the problem (well, your problem, not mine) is that Andy is usually pretty knowledgeable in his policy and guidelines. And I wouldn't say it's a matter of being new--I tend to think that under some circumstances bad words are allowed if the person uttering has built up some credit, proving that they're here for realsies. Some things are never (or hardly ever) OK. I'll block for racist and homophobic cussing, which I think is unacceptable. "Lowlifesoneofabitch"--meh, as Writ Keeper would say. It's not polite, sure. But, on the other hand, there are lots of impolite things that don't involve cussing. Anyway. Gaijin, thanks for your comments. I may get back to them later. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you hit on the key point in understanding this site's apparently inconsistent approach to incivility. If an editor's track record shows that they have a clue and are dedicated to the goal of building a serious, respectable reference work, then occasional outbursts of incivility might be handled with polite discouragement rather than a block. On the other hand, if an editor's track record indicates that they're here to push their ideological agenda, or edit tendentiously, or degrade the quality and accuracy of the encyclopedia, then uncivil outbursts are likely to be treated more severely. This isn't really a "double standard"—it's a single standard, in that editors are handled in accordance with their overall commitment to and suitability for the project, rather than on narrow grounds of word choice. MastCellTalk19:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, someone who is not me might well argue that someone who knows how to write and who's been here a long time should know what not to do. I don't have an easy rebuttal for that, I'm afraid. Then again, it's usually not the bad-faith uncivil POV pushers who get baited--from personal observation. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the rebuttal is that being here a long time tends to lead to burnout. We don't do a good job of dealing with editorial burnout, nor of providing support for good editors. Instead, we just wait for them to slip up and cuss someone out, then run to AN/I because "they've been here long enough to know better". (See rule #2 for the typical career arc of an intelligent, dedicated Wikipedian). MastCellTalk19:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)True. But there's also an intractable problem of varying social backgrounds - regional (for example, different places really do have different lists of unmentionable words, and in some the idea of a word list is taken as unsophisticated) - and the elephant hiding under the lampshade, class. Some of you may have to trust me on this one: snideness and straightforward use of "profanity" are class markers for some of us, which is distinct from markers of education. For others, of course, they're more simply ways to assess honesty. But that's about as far as I dare go, especially since I am not a sociolinguist :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI Seraphimblade asked about a comment on the ArbCom workship regarding late evidence. I think the focus of the original complaint/question and therefore the response question would be about Hipocrite putting new diffs into the workship, but since you did make late commentary, you might want to make a brief mention in that thread too. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is back - well you said Both IP and account should be blocked if it happens again, of course.
This image is just as bad, you just can*t have those poor quality images in the lead. The tiles are red now, and one can't se any of the dogs feathures, Hafspajen (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
These pictures are not as good pictures as the ones removed, so it is the reason why we remove them time to time, but they keep coming back. The author is putting them back all the time. There is a conflict of interest when promoting one’s own pictures. Even if I do understand the creator’s feelings for liking their own pictures, it’s not a good enough reason, adding pictures that are not up to wikipedia standards. One can not jump into an article and replace the leading picture in this random way. There is a conflict of interest when promoting one’s own pictures. We chosed that picture and the new ones arenot at all as good as the lead picture, so leave it alone, please. One can't have a sitting dog in the lead.
When you see other editors don't agree with your additions, you must discuss that, but no, he just keep adding the same very bad pictures all the time, even when I explain to him why you should stop doing this and why those pictures are not good enough. And unless you have an extraordinarely wonderful picture that is much much better that the lead picture - the lead picture stays where it is.
FYI - because you were mentioned. No diffs were cited of course. I had to reply to the message on my tp but my policy for a while now has been simply to ignore attacks from people who appear to persistently harbour an antipathy towards all things admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sure Epipelagic would disagree, saying they don't blah blah "all things admin", that they're only pointing at some admins, etc. Saying I made "crass attacks" is just so much hot air, even if there were diffs to back it up, because I haven't made any "crass" attacks, or even "attacks" as far as I know. Thanks for pinging me: I see no reason to respond to them. If they want to claim that I'm just another admin who isn't building content but just hinders the work of content builders, well, I'm sure they wouldn't: I think my content-building record speaks for itself, and I'm on the record as opposing (civility?) blocks for content builders like Eric. I don't think I was around (as an admin), or I just missed it, when he got blocked for "sycophant"--no one should be blocked for that. (I think, Kudpung, you and I have different opinions on Eric and that's fine.)
I think Eric's criticism of the admin system is nuanced enough for my taste, and at any rate Eric knows what it's like to be blocked unjustly (as do I), so I'll have to allow him leeway. Epipelagic does not know that, and for the life of me I don't know what specifically they're pointing at, which content builders are or were hindered by which admins (I certainly wasn't hindering them in this comment. The only two cases that I know of that might fit that bill are Rob and Kiefer, but in both cases they weren't done away with by one admin, or one small group of admins. Personally, I'd like to see both come back. Both were blocked/banned for disruption of various kinds and were judged to be net negatives, I suppose, but I didn't support the site ban for Rob and, for better or for worse, I was not involved in Kiefer's ArbCom case. Or, in other words, whatever. Water off a duck's back. Take it easy Kudpung, Drmies (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just thought it would be right to link you to that discussion especially as you were mentioned but where there were no links to support any of the claims that were made. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators Noticeboard Incidents
I am having a problem with User:Ryulong and a couple of other editors who object to some of my recent categories. I'll admit some of them could have been divided into two precise categories instead of one vague one, however unlike alternative reproduction artificial wombs in fiction is a common science fiction theme and technology. I realized fairly quickly the categories which had almost no examples or were too subjective. However the value of mythological rapists is being called into question; as if of historical slave owners. I think both are serious concerns; but particularly that Category:Slave owner is being so opposed. I was going to list people other than U.S. presidents; however there are a lot more slave owners than convicted murderers so the list will be gigantic in the end. Thank you for the alert in the past about the notice board, I was unable to edit for a few days which is being called a lie. CensoredScribe (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Ryulong is having a problem with you! This is an ANI matter, not one for my talk page. I won't say you're forum shopping cause that's not nice--but posting on Jimbo's talk page and on mine? I will defend some of your categories, but I think, as do others, that you have gone a bit far. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my view after thinking about it, we probably ought to have a category for slave owners, as long as reliable sources verify each of the entries. But when the first four entries added to the category are past presidents and founding fathers of the U.S., then suspicion that the motivation is pointy or POV pushing is certainly justified. Properly and neutrally populating categories is much more work and much more useful than simply creating categories. Some of the sci-fi related categories may be legitimate, but rapid creation of quite a few controversial categories is problematic.Cullen328Let's discuss it03:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been racking my brain about that category too. On the one hand, sure, I suppose it matters (but I'm on the record as saying that birth year is in many regards trivial); on the other hand, that's every notable Southern planter, politician, and officer, making it relatively meaningless. Besides, one may well argue over what "slave" means, given sexual slavery and economic indenture.
That's one of the problems with categories--they suppose that things can be easily categorized and that the labels are meaningful and well-defined. On Facebook, I am apparently a "she"; I must have checked that box when I signed up. So I get ads about weight loss and Rachael Ray on my sidebar. Now, I know what my plumbing is, but what it means, that's an entirely different matter. I drive a Prius, but according to the ads I see when I watch football (Broncos!) I'm probably not much of a man. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously think slave owner will be the largest category and should be, I will go through it listing confederates and nazi camp wardens, scientists and corporations which used nazi slave labor. I'm not sure how many presidents before Lincoln other than Adams did not own slaves; that would have been a good question to have been asked in school. Thank you for being just. CensoredScribe (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just? Hmm. But this is getting more and more problematic. If Nazi camp wardens are slave owners, then do you equate forced labor with slavery? And which Nazi camps--there were many different ones. In Belzec and Treblinka the life expectancy was maybe a couple of hours, so that's hardly "enslavement". And the warden--did they wardens personally "own" their prisoners? What about the lower ranks? And wouldn't Hitler count as a slave owner then? Are you adding him? And Pol Pot? IG Farben used forced labor, but did they "own" them? And if so, at which level of management? The janitors? Middle management? The board? Are you limiting yourself to slavery in the Southern US (if a plantation owner had slaves, and his wife and/or children are notable by our standards, do you tag them?) and the Nazis? No, CensoredScribe, you are raising more questions than you're answering and that's in part why you're in hot water at ANI. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mythological rape victims is being depopulated; Category:Fictional rape victims and Category:Rape victims should also be created; I believe you should be the creator. I've proposed the slave owner category on the talk page for slavery. To answer your question, I think that corporations such as IBM, Siemens, and Ford that used slave labor should be listed as slave owners. When I proposed the emperor from Star Wars was a slave owner, the argument against this was that he did not personally have slaves around. That would also exclude Hitler from being a slave owner. However owning people from a distance is still owning them, even if you never meet. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) That's a pretty novel interpretation of things, and not what categories are set up for. Per the policy I can't believe I didn't get a policy wonk ping: A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. (emphasis original) Even if it is true that Hitler and Emperor Palpatine were slave owners by proxy (and I'm not conceding that they are quite yet), that is not a descriptor that is commonly or consistently applied to either of them, and so they should not be part of a "slave owners" category. Writ Keeper⚇♔23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly becoming a subjective category which is the opposite of what categorization should be. Categories should not display an argument or a point of view, they are tools for organizing articles, not make some point. Without a limited and clear definition of what constitutes slavery and slave owner, these categories should not be created. This is too controversial to allow for ambiguity, for I to have one understanding of what is slavery (owning a human being) and a different editor have a varying understanding (including concentration camps). This should all be discussed among editors before the category is created or there will be confusion.
And there is NO way that a category on Rape Victims is going to survive more than a day. This has already been discussed at length in the past and the category was deleted. One editor doesn't get to reverse consensus-based decisions without entering into a conversation first. LizRead!Talk!01:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mythological rape victims will survive, if I can help it. Liz, are you aware that long, long ago I recreated the Rape victims category? I'm still interested in why Lucretia's suicide is worthy of being categorized but the very cause of that suicide isn't. Seriously, read that article and explain it to me. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I depopulated most (but not all) of Category:Mythological rape victims because the articles did not mention rape or sexual assault, and the few that did mention rape were not "rape" in the sense as it is used now ("The Rape of Europa", "The Rape of Ganymede", "The Rape of the Sabine Women", etc.).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the most evil and powerful human beings in history owned slaves and that much is obvious. I'm sure someone can provide a reference he selectively freed some people from camps to use them as spies for his genocide, or some other purpose, perhaps some comfort women. There has to be at least one case in recorded history; I'm simply asking what it is. I did post this on a talk page. Maybe he only owned 10 people for a month as he sent them on suicide missions. I also don't believe that the theory Hitler may have raped a particularly attractive Jewish woman has never been proposed by an academic. That seems like at least a question pursued in a book, given Hitlers possible relationship with Wittgenstein has been covered. Though I suppose wikipedia doesn't even mention the sex slaves of Moammar Gadhafi either. Again these are questions for talk pages; not things I would add to an article. I asked whether Hitler counted as a slave owner, I knew George washington counted. Hitler probably did things like that; and clues may exist somewhere; asking if anyone knows where they might be is a legitimate use of a talk page. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not even sure what is true and historical and who qualifies as a slave owner. Your own uncertainty is a sign that who this category should be applied to is ambiguous and subjective. Those are two qualities that shouldn't be aspects of a Wikipedia category and are signs of a category that will be contested and, likely, deleted. LizRead!Talk!05:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CensoredScribe, are you for real? Hitler freeing camp victims to use them as spies? Raping Jewish women? Your "That seems like..." sentence is very ungrammatical--but you're saying that a possible relation with Wittgenstein (I assume you mean Ludwig Wittgenstein?) could provide proof of Hitler having raped a Jewish woman? This is crazy talk: you're in Area 51 territory, and I'd appreciate it if you kept Von Daniken-style speculation off my talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes your talk page is not the correct place to be having this conversation; my apologies. I should have just said Hitler owned slaves by proxy; I should not have proposed yet another unsourced Hitler conspiracy theory; even a slightly more plausible one. That would be like listing Hitler as an arsonist for ordering the Reichstag building being caught on fire; a more commonly proposed theory; which is still just a theory. Knowing Ludwig Wittgenstein in grade school would obviously not prove Hitler was a rapist, just that he knew Wittgenstein and that Wittgenstein is probably the Jew of Linz as proposed by Kimberley Cornish in her book. That Hitler knew Wittgenstein which is the only theory I've tried adding to Hitlers page; as it is mentioned on the page for Ludwig Wittgenstein. Clearly there is no evidence Hitler ordered any of those things even once; however Wikipedia does include historical theories and books on them; if Wittgensteins page and The Jew of Linz are any indication. There would need to be a reference obviously; and I doubt any reference suggests Hitler broke his own racist rules like Strom Thurman or raped anyone. However such a reference may exist so asking if anyone has seen it is reasonable if kept to talk pages of the appropriate article. There are plenty of less contested examples of slave owners however; it just seemed bizarre the list of slave owners would include several U.S. presidents but not Hitler. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq, Luke, take it easy, please. CensoredScribe, my talk page is an open space but I like to keep it happy, and while you are more than welcome to have and continue a conversation over those categories, this is just crackpot speculating. Plus, you never addressed my other points: is the wife is a slave owner also a slave owner? For instance. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Myth and narrative
Hey, I just thought of something related to your comment at that AfD about Genesis on the difference between myth and narrative. It occurred to me that there is a real difference, in that a narrative is a particular instantiation of a myth. A token as opposed to a type if that kind of jargon doesn't bother you. For a story to be a narrative it has to be realized in a particular text whereas there may be many tellings of a myth, each one a separate narrative. In the case at hand, the article is about the actual old testament text, and so *must* be called narrative. If there were other incarnations of the story in other texts, and the range of these different narratives of the creation myth became notable enough to have an article about it, we could then sensibly have both Genesis Creation Narrative (about the old testament text) and Genesis Creation Myth (about the many narratives of the myth). With many creation myths there is no existing narrative or else many not especially notable narratives, so would make sense to use the word "myth" in the title rather than narrative. So I guess I'm saying that I don't agree that there's no distinction between narrative and myth, as you argued at the AfD, but we do agree that this article should be kept. Anyway, feel free to ignore this if it doesn't interest you. It's just something I was thinking about.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Alf, thanks for your note. I'm a bit cold and really should do some real work, so I can only respond briefly. I can see where you're coming from, pointing at the difference between general (myth) and specific instantiation (narrative), but I am a bit less strict in those divisions. For something like Gilgamesh that seems valid but for Beowulf (if anyone still wants to call that a myth) not so much, since we have only one text. I shouldn't say there's no distinction at all (did I? if I did, I should modify), and in the Genesis case your argument strikes me as valid. But let me tell you also that I was profoundly confused by the multiplicity of articles related to that whole affair and it would require some time and energy to figure it all out, even in my head. Is that AfD still open? Shiveringly yours, Drmies (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Warmer now. Listen, when you said "Creation", above, you meant "flood", I suppose? We actually have the myth part, in Flood myth (an article that's half external links). If it's a myth, it can't just be Genesis, so to speak.
Yep--flood myth being by far the more interesting and important one. And what I should have said at the AfD was not "the distinction" but something like "this particular unexplained distinction". Drmies (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't flatter yourself, Joshua. Bescheidenheid siert de mens (though I like your moxie). And if I were you I'd stay away or you'll just get blocked again. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Dude, I'm kidding--geintje, meneer Sonneberg.] What's funny is that there seems to be relatively little caste warfare. Joshua, didn't I see you involved in some parapsychology or something? And isn't there something somewhere about Hindu theology? These are very different issues from a few years ago. Sitush, have you been that effective? Drmies (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just send me an email with the names of all your alternate accounts so I can make them immune to prosecution, and I'll send you the number of myTaoist vegetarian. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you will probably recall, the name of Soccer in Australia is a controversial issue. I have probably been the editor most strongly defending the consensus established, and then repeated twice more in the past two years, to use that name. This has involved repeatedly pointing out the flaws in the arguments of those wanting to change it, and reverting the changes that often happen several times a day, against that consensus, in many articles.
While I lay no claim to owning the article, I have put in a lot of effort to defend that consensus, the kind of activity I regard as important in Wikipedia.
Right now we have a brand new section created with this edit.
Now, I have a huge amount to contribute to that topic. The editor involved, who only recently began to "care" about this particular article, knows that. The IBAN effectively tells me to not respond. I seriously question that editor's motives. He has offered no new evidence, apart from a claimed vote count. I believe that creating the thread is a deliberately confrontational act, possibly trying to bait me. He's certainly not going out of his way to make peace.
Hmm. Maybe (haha, no). HiLo, if you can--succinctly--make the case that you were there before and that Skyring possibly followed you there recently, maybe you have a point. But this would be a balancing act: you should suggest that you are being followed there without claiming ownership over the article. Alternately, you could argue that this is indeed baiting, but the required burden of evidence might well be high, and no one reads long paragraphs anymore. I wonder if the policy wonks (Bbb23, Writ Keeper, Favonian, DangerousPanda--just to pick a few) have any ideas--folks, is this something HiLo could/should bring up at AN? Or should he just suck it up? Drmies (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a pretty clear case of baiting from Skyring. Whether it is provable is another matter, but it would require a pretty good explanation as to how it isn't baiting from Skyring... Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)17:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to review the history of the discussions to reach any conclusion. If HiLo wants to argue that Skyring's post is baiting or effectively a violation of the IBAN in and of itself, the safest course would be to take it to ANI (where the ban was imposed), although I suppose AN is also an acceptable forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to "argue" this anywhere. I do have a reputation, perhaps partly deserved, some of it certainly not, and every time I make a complaint at AN/I, there's a massive pile-on of critical posts, including from some Administrators, telling the world how bad a person I am, rather than discussing my concerns. I just want to be able to continue what I regard as useful work defending a consensus on the article in question, and feel prevented from doing so in the thread I've mentioned. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I always prefer AN for such cases: it's less of a slugfest, dramafest, trollfest... HiLo has a pretty bad reputation, as the last thread indicated, and that has a tendency to disturb legitimate complaints. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I've ever been called a "policy wonk" before. "Public wanker", yes; "policy wonk", no. I seem to find myself on HiLo's side on this one DP20:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Policy wonk and public wanker are, of course, not mutually exclusive. In any event, I think Drmies is buttering us up hoping we'll do his job for him. Worked, too. :-) I don't really mind; he's always helping me out.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we agree on some things, wonkishly or not. Now what do we do? I have chastised HiLo in the past for various things and our relationship, if we have one, is rocky to say the least, but I agree with him on this one. Who will cast the first stone? Drmies (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure. The response is below--thanks. Then again, while you were shuffling electrons around, I played outside with the kids, drank coffee, cleaned up, went grocery shopping, made a rub and applied it so some spareribs for tomorrow, cooked minestrone (with delicious Dinosaur kale (nice article!), cooked tapioca pudding, ate dinner, did the dishes, and drank a New Belgium Shift. So yak yak yak? Drmies (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty obvious gaming of the system for an IBAN editor to develop their interest in a topic which just coincidentally is the one most likely to irritate their opponent. If a polite "please stop" is not productive, may I suggest returning the matter to ANI and asking for a Skyring/Pete topic ban to be added to the IBAN. It is obvious from the comment below that NE Ent's request is not enough. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Misplaced
Hi, in this discussion, I was surprised when you said: "Support. 172's arguments would be valid if there were actual content in the article: there isn't." Apparently the bulk of that article's content got trashedmisplaced, but has since been restored, and this additional material added. You may want to look at the rest of the article and re-evaluate your merge position. I appreciate your candid remarks over at the AfD. Thank you. 172.129.34.141 (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes, I see that now. But I see two problem still. 1. Your scientist talks of "gun culture", not "gun cultures", and thus the promise of the title isn't fulfilled. 2. As other editors have argued in their edit summaries (trashing your content, I suppose), there's really too much from one person, one book. So in general I would certainly have supported a trimming (down to a couple of sentences, maybe), though maybe not complete removal, and so I don't see enough valid content ("valid" in my opinion, of course) to keep the article. Thanks, but I'm sticking to my guns, for now. But another thing is I don't really care which way it goes--I just want one discussion over with, so we have only half a dozen or so left. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on?
I find a note on my talk page from User:NE Ent, asking that I remove a contribution on one page because I haven't edited a different page. Odd.
Looking further, I find the source is here on this page, so I'm copying my note to NE Ent here. Talk amongst yourselves, please.
Thanks for your note, but I think you're looking at the wrong page history. My contributions here have been ongoing for some time. August 2013, going by the page history and this diff. There may be earlier edits, but that one predates the IBAN. Further discussion on the RFC for name change, where I supported the current title. After doing a little research I find that "Soccer" is now deprecated amongst media and sports organisations, accordingly I now support a name change to reflect the changed reality.
This seems to be a majority position amongst editors, going by the !vote here. There are some points raised in the discussion immediately preceding, where my position is made quite clear: we should set aside our own personal opinions and look for good sources. My feeling is that whatever I might have called the game fifty years ago as a schoolchild in Victoria, the name has changed, especially over the last few years,
Do we have any guidance on where to proceed? My understanding is that both participants to an IBAN are able to participate in !votes for RfCs and so on so long as there is no interaction. I think every editor involved is entitled to a voice in that sort of discussion, and if any editor were to lodge a !vote in the ongoing "Gauge Support" discussion I would not seek to have it removed on a spurious technicality. It is a matter of fairness and commonsense. --Pete (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you or any of your page talk stalkers want to look at this lovely article, please do. I came across it because I was looking at the contributions of an account that is problematic. That user made only a minor edit to the article, and I wasn't even concerned about that, but the article itself was amazing. It had no footnotes, only two external links, one to IMDb and the other to an "unofficial" site (the site of a 28-year-old who is obsessed with the actress). Nonetheless the article was both horribly written and had some rather astounding claims:
She was in London in 1959 and "it has been recognised that she attended nearly every stage performance during this time."
"Nicolson went on to later say that the producer awarded her with the role on account of her stunning legs."
"Gentle and feminine, Gerda Nicolson was a very popular member of the Prisoner cast."
Take a look at the Legacy (part of this section was copied from IMDb trivia) and Own Awards sections.
Nothing, of course, is susbtantiated. In any event, I gutted the article, but it's been restored by the other account with a warning on my talk page about vandalism (since removed by me). I'm not touching the article again because I don't want someone to claim I'm WP:INVOLVED. Of course some people may understandably believe that I shouldn't have slashed it, and that's fine. Anyone who looks at the article can do whatever they deem is appropriate. Looking at her IMDb page, it sounds like she's sufficiently notable to have an article here. It just needs to be written by someone other than a fan or fans. Considering that she's been dead for over 20 years, it's unlikely there will be a lot on the web, but I haven't checked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, I pruned. (I see no need to cut it all--only some of the claims were non-neutral or outlandish, in my opinion.) Some of the claims, a quick Google search verifies, can be sourced, but I found only snippet views and I'm a bit loath to use those. We could leave it to the experts, like MichaelQSchmidt. I left a note for the editor. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iss, I can't be the one to judge possible disruption on that talk page and in the article by myself, at least not right now and to the point where I decide on a block--certainly the previous block reasons don't apply, and there's no edit warring. Now, there was serious disruption back in October, but I can't see easily whether this is a continuation of that session (where I see, basically, Mrm going up against three or four others and not getting their consensus for his edits). I think you need to decide whether this (and perhaps issues in other articles) are serious enough for another ANI thread. I can't make that decision for you nor can I foresee how it might go. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drmies. Please refer to my comments at base of Talk:Work & Stress. Also the recent and civil consensus building on the occupational safety and health article between my self and 2 other editors. My edits on the organizational psychology article are content related only, and civil. In no way are my edits disruptive. I also thought it was wise to instead ask for another independent editor's, (MarkViking's) comments about the multiple reverts made by iss246 on the 17th January as Mark was involved in developing consensus on that contentious article. I also today chose not revert, and instead have asked iss246 and any other editors if we can discuss this multiple reverts issue instead. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again
Looking at this diff, I can't help but feel that the message has not been appreciated. Looking at WP:IBAN, we see, "For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to … make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;"
That discussion with a third party looks to me to be about as direct a reference as you can get.
Apart from the specified exceptions listed immediately following. I am now making use of one of those exceptions to ask you to issue a gentle reminder, if I may presume upon your goodwill once more. --Pete (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, I can't look at any right now, I'm sorry: my shift is over. On my to-do list is to ponder even more whether I should take the previous matter to AN: I was pondering that already yesterday but the toolserver was down and I couldn't check what I wanted to check on that soccer/football page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. By raising the matter here, I trust the point will be appreciated. No further action required there.
On the other matter, I'm not aiming to be obnoxious. I guess if one is looking to be offended, one will be offended no matter what. Language is something I'm interested in, and I'm charmed by the way it is changing. I see it all over the world, phrases now moving with viral speed through the public consciousness. The dictionaries - and Wikipedia, I suppose! - are struggling to keep up. It's a different world to the one I grew up in. What hit me was the speed with which media outlets embraced the new usage of "football" over the long-familiar "soccer". I hadn't noticed, but now my eyes are opened, it's everywhere. --Pete (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, I won't make much of this (I mean "I" as in "me", not as in "if I were you"--obviously you feel differently). You are welcome to ask at AN whether it is deemed a violation; I suppose technically it could be deemed thus. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Hi Drmies, if you have time, would you look at Menstrual synchrony. There is an IP who does not understand the meanings of "methodical" and "methodological". I have already reverted 3 times, and although I think it falls under a 3rr exception, I'm not going to revert again [11], but the changes as they stand are ridiculous, so maybe a third party can explain it to the IP better than me. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating topic. Strange that there seems to be some doubt about it--isn't it common sense borne out by experience? (And why a references from The Straight Dope?) Drmies (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod reverted a final time. I left an edit warring note, since I don't think anything can be added to the explanation already given.
It turns out that once the theoretical problem of what synchrony means (phase locking or some type of probabilistic phase locking) was pointed out together with methodological issues that created biases towards the statistical detection of synchrony, it could not be replicated. One of these days I'll get around to finishing this article because it is very interesting case in science. Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back: it's perfectly appropriate here in a meta sense, taking it to mean to make the same incorrect change three or four times in a row. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you think that "88" was an unfortunate name? It makes me think of the piano. Something to do with German artillery in WW II? As I said, just curious. BMK (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(tps) Eighth letter of alphabet repeated= Heil Hitler (often used as a tattoo by idiots). I'd be interested to know what 786 means-it appeared a few years ago as Islamic graffiti (pre 2000). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, all that. More or less tongue in cheek, though. One can't choose one's IP any more than one can choose being straight, or beautiful. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, I'll read it to you later if you like. Been kind of busy with IBANs and gun control and stuff. Good thing there's no more football to distract me. But you know you have a tendency to rub people the wrong way sometimes...and I say this out of love and affection. Also, the whole family is singing musical songs these days, especially at breakfast. Can we trade places until this blows over? Drmies (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the side effects of some of the meds I'm taking is that many everyday phrases remind me of the same or similar phrases in various song -- rock songs, folk song, show tunes, children's songs, TV theme songs -- and I feel... not "compelled" exactly, but "interested" in singing part of that song. It's completely suppressible, so it's not like it's making me a social pariah, but it is a bit odd.
The 88 thing is very common in the neoNazi movement. 786 seems less controversial, seems to be the equivalent of some Jews/Christians using G-d instead of spelling out God, or saying "The lord" instead of YHWH etc. (stolen from the internet, unreliable, possibly wrong, but seems likely to me)
"786" is the total value of the letters of "Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim". In Arabic there are two methods of arranging letters. One method is the most common method known as the alphabetical method. Here we begin with Alif, ba, ta, tha etc. The other method is known as the Abjad method or ordinal method. In this method each letter has an arithmetic value assigned to it from one to one thousand. The letters are arranged in the following order: Abjad, Hawwaz, Hutti, Kalaman, Sa'fas, Qarshat, Sakhaz, Zazagh. This arrangement was done, most probably in the 3rd century of Hijrah during the 'Abbasid period, following other Semitic languages such as Phoenician, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldean etc.
If you take the numeric values of all the letters of the Basmalah, according to the Abjad order, the total will be 786. In the Indian subcontinent the Abjad numerals became quite popular. Some people, mostly in India and Pakistan, use 786 as a substitute for Bismillah. They write this number to avoid writing the name of Allah or the Qur'anic ayah on ordinary papers. This tradition is not from the time of the Prophet -peace be upon him- or his Sahabah. It developed much later, perhaps during the later 'Abbasid period. We do not know of any reputable Imams or Jurists who used this number instead of the Bismillah.
For fighting for the right cause. We shall defend our land, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. Hafspajen (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Language problems
My recent facebook posts about a "safety" after the first "offensive snap" has resulted in my friends and family asking me who was the person I was snarky with and then later apologised to. No, I'm not making this up. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I hadn't thought about that, but I see it now, yes. My kinfolk back home has no idea what this sport is all about, of course--how does one explain the magnitude of the Iron Bowl to a furriner? (I went to the last one in Birmingham.) Drmies (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fix a page move
Have you got time to fix a couple of errant page moves? We had Goud Saraswat Brahmin but someone moved it to Gaud or Gawd Saraswat Brahmin and then also did something very weird at Gaud Saraswat Brahmin. They've basically ignored COMMONNAME and were probably unaware of how we treat alternate spellings but I don't have the powers to fix it. The situation should be:
While trying to find an article on a particular starfish named "Crown of Thorns" I stumbled across Crown of thorns. The wording of several sections had a strong copyvio smell to me, and then found http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04540b.htm Normally at this point I would go straight to CSD as copyvio. But then I also found https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Crown_of_Thorns which appears to have mostly the same content. So with the copyright problem resolved, it seems like we may be left with WP:VWP:RSWP:POV issues. the 1913 encyclopedia doesn't really have any footnotes or anything, so we are basically saying our content is WP:V to itself, and since its a catholic source, its not going to be the most neutral on anything that could cast doubt on the official line - Its not a huge deal here, we are basically just describing historical-ish legends (The relics section) but it seems odd. I would put good money that there probably a few thousand articles exactly like this (one per entry in the original source) so I cant imagine this hasn't come up before, but I dunno what to do. Seems like any real attempt to clean this up is going to just open up a ginormous can of worms. I think i may go over to my corner and ignore the issue :) Advice? Ideas? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might could have a look after dinner. The Catholic Encyclopedia is in the public domain now. Its reliability is a mixed bag: sure, they're "POV", but I hate using that term as a kind of generality--as if Catholics can't be objective. Having said that, specific claims will need to be used carefully: there's a thread on ANI involving Matthew, where an apparent convenient yardstick is used: no theological sources older than 50 years--but I may be abbreviating unfairly here. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only section where I see real difficulty is "Purported remnants", sourced to an archived personal website. I don't really have a reason to doubt its correctness, but there must be better sources out there, though I don't know of a single monograph dedicated to it (not really my field, and I haven't looked around much yet). The thorns in Charlemagne's possession can probably be written up; he had a lot of relics, and both he and his hagiographers made much of them. BTW, this is the kind of article that one can really sink their teeth into, since there are legends, possibly historical accounts, afterlives, and uses, not to mention illustrations from church art. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found references (from local newspapers) for two of them. Both date from the Counter-Reformation, and I wouldn't be surprised if most of them (or, most of the ones outside of France and Italy) date from that period. Just imagine how exciting it must have been to acquire one of those thorns. Anyways, don't take my word for it: Patrick J. Geary's Furta Sacra is a blast, and accessible to the lay person as well--and Furta sacra (the concept, not the book title) deserves an article. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something odd is going on
I was looking at a discussion and a username caught my eye (Sportsfan 1234) being quite similar to Sportsfan5000, whom are both probably the same person. But that led me to Benjaminolympique, who posted a series of odd help requests to several user talk pages. I suspect this is a bot of some sorts. Any idea as to what is going on?Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. If I had to guess I'd say that Benjamin is a good-willing but somewhat inept editor who does a lot of copying and pasting in those admittedly odd requests. I'd seen 5000, I think, and didn't know until just now that they were sock-blocked (I'm not familiar with the master). One does wonder where 1234 comes from all of sudden, racking up hundreds and thousands of fairly gnomish edits, but I don't see a similarity with 5000. It is interesting, however, how the layout of the talk page messages by 5000 and Benjamin are similar, but their edits run concurrently. So I don't know what to think of it, sorry. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spending 10 seconds to use the magic of google, you'll learn it was Valery Shantsev who was there. He's entered the building and 4 hours after the assault reported on the successful operation, but he did not say a word about casualties. Instead he said: "I saw dead terrorists. I myself saw Barayev, an Afghan and an Arab." (there was no Afghan). I guess they treated him just in case (and gave him the antidote).
About the SOBRs, afair they've entered with no gas masks for some reason, through the ground level entries. They then spend time vomiting and fainting after they entered the show room. (Obviously, the FSB did not inform the MVD about the gas.)
I also (more) recently rewrote OMON, who were there too (even if just standing around and scratching their asses).[12] And by this I rewrote my own article, which I've originally write in the 2000s.
What does "even" mean in that sentence? Why is a vice-mayor so important? Are they normally immune to gas poisoning? Or, why didn't you explain this, one way or another, in an edit summary? That also takes ten seconds. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
woozle effect
Thanks for asking me what "yelling" had to do with my edits that were so quickly reverted.
I have a physical disability that makes typing very difficult. So it's frustrating to try and improve a wiki page to see it instantaneously reverted when the edit:
might have been discussed first on the talk page
discussed on my talk page
improved
reorganized
I find that sort of instant reversion a violation of what I had thought was the wiki prime directive: assume good faith as well as "improve don't just delete".
So I see a few things:
ONE: Woozle effects as seen in popular culture, Stephen Colbert's Wikiality and Elephant Prank are prime examples.
TWO: Woozle effect used in academic research: Google Scholar has 440 examples of that.
THREE: An AFD that is clearly motivated for 'political' reasons, IE, it's feminist vandalism from a Reddit subreddit
FOUR: My desire to improve the article in a way good for WIki, good for everyone.
BUT YES, I AM ABSOLUTELY TIRED WITH WIKILAWYERS REVERTING EVERY LAST LITTLE THING BECAUSE THEY WOULD RATHER BE JUDGE AND JURY AND NOT BE COEDITORS.
SO:
You tell me.
Where is the best place to place cultural examples of the woozle effect in the article?
Where is the best place to cite its uses in academic papers?
And tell me why anyone would ever want to edit the wikipedia when it's know how swiftly edits are reverted and not first improved?
Hafspajen (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
