User talk:MjolnirPants: Difference between revisions
→Collegial discussion: new section |
|||
| Line 1,276: | Line 1,276: | ||
I was asking questions. You make assertions that it duplicates an existing article; do you not expect anyone to wonder which article? You say there's advertising on linked pages where I find none and even say they exist for the purpose of selling something, do you not expect people to wonder where you find that? Your latest posting looks as if you're actually impatient and annoyed and didn't expect this. Discussions of these things are supposed to be collegial. Your last comment is written in a tone that I would expect only if you thought you were responding to something inappropriate rather than to the use of these pages to discuss Wikipedia editing, which is their intended purpose. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 20:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC) |
I was asking questions. You make assertions that it duplicates an existing article; do you not expect anyone to wonder which article? You say there's advertising on linked pages where I find none and even say they exist for the purpose of selling something, do you not expect people to wonder where you find that? Your latest posting looks as if you're actually impatient and annoyed and didn't expect this. Discussions of these things are supposed to be collegial. Your last comment is written in a tone that I would expect only if you thought you were responding to something inappropriate rather than to the use of these pages to discuss Wikipedia editing, which is their intended purpose. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 20:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Collegial discussion == |
|||
You wrote, "I'll lay off nominating it for a speedy for a week, so you can have time to add more info." We now see that that was insincere. As nearly as I can tell you changed your mind because I violated some rule of yours that forbids arguing with you. Normally discussions among those who edit Wikipedia pages includes disagreeing with others' views and putting forth the reasons for disagreeing. You're the only one I've ever seen declaring himself exempt and ordering far more experienced users not to express disagreements with you. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 01:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:07, 6 August 2016
Requests for comment I have received
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Notifications
Notifications I have received
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Orphaned non-free image File:Dutrou-Bornier flag.jpg  Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mother and child in desert===
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.  This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "natural numbers". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Mdann52talk to me! 07:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Ryanair logo 2013(1).svg Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC) File:Flag of Northamptonshire (vector).svg listed for deletion A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Flag of Northamptonshire (vector).svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Admin Help
Is there an admin who could close the discussion at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Change "myth" to "belief"? There's no consensus for the change, and as outlined in the discussion itself, it's just the latest in a long line of the same objections being raised and shot down. It's only going to distract from those trying to work on the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 31 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Dresden Files short fiction, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages White Night, Ghost Story and Dead Beat. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Ryanair logo 2013(1).svg Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
TalkBack  Message added MinorStoop (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Image tagging for File:Tasmania (Scouts Australia).svg Thanks for uploading File:Tasmania (Scouts Australia).svg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. For more information on using images, see the following pages: Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Talkback Message added 19:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. MinorStoop (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Ryanair logo 2013(1).svg Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for September 17 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Dresden Files characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fool Moon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC) ArbCom elections are now open! Hi, At the dispute resolution noticeboard, a volunteer moderator has considerable authority and discretion over what is commenting on content or on contributors. If I collapse or hat discussion, do not revert it. You may not have been familiar with the procedures for dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Formal mediation has been requested The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Argument from authority". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 February 2016. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. Request for mediation accepted The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Argument from authority, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Argument from authority, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee. As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Request for mediation rejected The request for formal mediation concerning Argument from authority, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC) File:Nevermind the Buzzcocks.svg listed for discussion  |
Praise
Barnstars, thanks and so on
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Praise  Frenzie23 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thank you for all your hard work at the Graphics Lab. Frenzie23 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC) To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! Thanks Thanks for your great work at the Illustration Lab. I really appreciate your help and contributions GIMP Thank you very much, I appreciated it. I will read it carefully to improve my skills.
A barnstar for you!
A small token of appreciation
A Barnstar for You!
Thanks for your recognition Thanks for The SVG Barnstar it feels great. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
And yet another!
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer Knight  Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}} Hi MjolnirPants, re your comments, no hard feelings, I appreciate your candor. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
|
Archived discussions
Archived discussions
|
|---|
|
April 2014
Covering works of fiction As an encyclopedia, an article for a book would include a short plot summary, but call out section listing "plot points" as identified by Wikipedia editors would be entirely redundant to the plot summary and smacking of WP:OR.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Please read WP:PRIMARY: "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Listing key plot points is analysis. --NeilN talk to me 03:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Vote on Merger of Vikings and Norsemen Thanks for notifying me on the vote on Merger of Vikings and Norsemen. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Re:Harry Dresden, Wizard I'd be glad to, not sure how to go about it, though. The difference between "mage" and "wizard" might be slight, but there's definitely a difference between a "magician" and a "wizard". Ngebendi (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Your sandbox... ... was simply out of place among the category I was perusing to keep track of the Dresden files. So, do not worry. Ngebendi (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Skin Game Don't envy you, getting entangled with the OR police. For what it's worth, I support your interpretation even though I may not necessarily like the way you've written the synopsis (I haven't looked at the article). I've always felt there is no reason to nit-pick unless the article's description of a book's content is likely to be challenged. Deb (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deb (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Dresden Files notability Have no idea what that Mikeblas was doing in tagging Cold Days for deletion on this notability issue, without touching the other pages. It seemed that an all-or-none situation. Thank you for addressing it for me. Ngebendi (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Just one request... Hi, thanks again for your explanation. I just need some help in giving this colorized pic a more natural look. I did some times ago but I think it looks like a b/w pic painted by a child. Could you please help me? Thanks in advance.
--Carnby (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Alright, before I start showing you any work, I want to post a few thoughts in the section below. I'm hoping you can take some of this away, and it will help you in the future. - MjolnirPants
Armenian woman and baby is up for FP Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Mother_and_child_in_desert: Feel free to vote. But, more importantly, is there any way to address the concerns raised by Adam at the nomination page? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC) whole numbers redirect and natural number Hello MjolnirPants, I saw that you reverted my redirect for whole numbers to integers. That is a curious thing. I'm pretty sure the explanation was given on the edit. The natural numbers page is under flux. Initially the page provided no definition for whole numbers, and even worse used them in other definitions. In contrast the integers page provides a good discussion on the subject. I would invite you to look at the integers page. I attempted to add a conventional whole number definition to the natural numbers page several times, but each edit I have added on that subject has been deleted without comment. Yes, the last note on this subject on the page after days of back and forth was out of frustration (my bad), but it was a reasonable wakeup remark for the other editors. Now a reasonable definition for whole numbers once again appears on the natural numbers page. We will see if it lasts the day. I'm not sure the state of the redirect right now. Still wisdom would suggest that the Integer page is a more stable source of good information and it would be good to take advantage of that at least until the natural number storm passes. Please take a look at the integer page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Walker Lynch (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Please tutor Thomas on his talk page Your example of talk page formatting is very helpful, but it would be better to tutor Thomas on his talk page. Even better, would be to add your example to WP:THREAD or WP:INDENT and link to it. --50.53.35.229 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
There are guidelines for refactoring talk pages.
Your comment move from Talk:Natural number to Talk:Whole number was done in a confusing way. There are guidelines for refactoring talk pages. In particular, note that "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Reversion would just add more confusion, so I suggest that you put the moved comments in their own section with the original section name: "Why does positive integers redirect here? Whole numbers not related to integers??". --50.53.47.9 (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
File:The Masque of the Red Death poster.jpg Hi MjolnirPants. Thank you for removing the glare and distortion from the poster. However I just noticed that the triangular end of the sword, just at the top of the female head, has been cropped. Can you fix that? Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Hi again MjolnirPants. Sorry again, but George Ho keeps tagging the image as too large. Last time the bot did not respond in 24 hours and I have doubts if it will respond this time. Can you possibly upload a satisfactory resolution, but not ridiculously low, so that this tag-warring can be finished? Thank you again. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Just some hints... Hi, I need some help to remove a squarish scanning effect from these two pics: I tried various GIMP filters with no results; could you please give me some hints? Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Bombshells Have you checked under the "Novellas" heading? MinorStoop (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Now, this is how wikipedia should be working - a disagreement which leads to the improvement of an article. Does not always follow this script, unfortunately, so thank you. MinorStoop (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Shorter Dresden Files, and Molly Carpenter Say, Mjolnir, since there is a page about "Backup", how about having one also for "The Warrior", "Aftermath" and "Bombshells"? Or is too much of a good thing, and will attract the criticism of the likes of Red Pen of Doom? As an alternative we might add the other titles to the Backup page and a sentence or two about the plot, and move it to "Dresden Files short stories" or some such, and have it at that. What do you think? MinorStoop (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC) I also wonder if we shouldn't have an indipendent page about Molly Carpenter - while not on par to Karrin Murphy, her importance and book presence is greater than Thomas Raith's, which does have a page of his own. Or should we compress Murphy's and Thomas's pages and have a relatively biggish entry on the Dresden Files characters page? MinorStoop (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC) P.S. There's also a page for Bob, so perhaps a page for Molly Carpenter is more sensible than the padded entries idea. MinorStoop (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I admit I toyed with the idea of a page each for "Warrior", "Bombshells" and "Aftermath", and one for the rest. :) MinorStoop (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Ouch! MinorStoop (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Christian Mythology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightgodsy (talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC) "The appropriateness of describing Christian stories as “myth” is a contemporary matter of disagreement among Christians." -Statement in Question What I meant was by clarifying it as among Christians, would leave those who would argue for this description such as by an atheist unrepresented. To say among Christians sounded to me like an internal disagreement between differing factions. So if what is intended to be said is that Christians would disagree with the term "Mtyh", perhaps the whole thing should be reworded entirely. I have changed it to- There are disagreements as to whether it is appropriate to describe Christian stories as “myth”. The other sentence seemed unclear and not concise. Perhaps- Christians may disagree with the description of Biblical stories as "myth". - would be less vague, but I would feel that would be leaving other views out, and I think the slight vagueness of it is made up for later in the article, when views of others are Covered extensively in 1) Modern Christian attitudes, where Lewis and Every are cited. EDIT 3:44 PM, 28 December 2014- Upon further reflection, Perhaps s statement about Myth holding a negative connotation to some while technically being an accurate definition, would be more appropriate? UPDATE 9:54 PM, 28 December 2014- It appears another user has rectified the issue in it's entirety, with a rewrite of the opening.
Good to know... ... that main pages can drag talk pages with them, but the other way around is not true. Thanks! MinorStoop (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Template:The Dresden Files bibliography If/when you've got time, I would really appreciate if you could give a look to it. Thanks! MinorStoop (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of The Dresden Files short fiction  The article The Dresden Files short fiction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing
Laws of magic Thought that you might be interested in this. I would be grateful for some feedback, for sure. Thanks! MinorStoop (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Talk:The Dresden Files#Plot Section
Barnstar Well, thanks, but there was really no need. DF is the small corner of Wikipedia I can edit, it would be stupid not to contribute. MinorStoop (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Ayers Rock - Beyond .gif animation Thankyou so much, once again, for taking a risk, and putting in the extra effort to create that .gif. So far it's been extremely quiet on the deletions front. Perhaps nobody is prepared to put their hand up. Hope you're enjoying your work, bringing colour, and sometimes movement into people's lives. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC) finally got them and posted them! Please see File:Scout Association of Japan uniform change 2015 Kagawa Okinawa Councils.png when you have time. Note 1: The prefectural emblem for Okinawa is normally red, for embroidery limits, vermillion is okay. Note 2: You do not need to match the fonts, I think they found whatever worked, but if you could find a font that supports the western alphabet and a matching typeweight and thickness for the Japanese, that would be fine. I can try to find one as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shisa_face.svg was used for one of the badges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scout_Association_of_Japan.svg can be used, without the bottom rocker, for both fleur-de-lises I put an exhaustive description of sizes and color schemes in the file template itself. Once again, thanks always for your help!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Dresden Files Ya know, it's not only the edit in itself, it's also the editor - this Schweiko guy is still on the green side. Hope s/he gets the gumption to keep editing anyway, we all were green once. MinorStoop (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Is your Notepad ++ system similar to using wikEd? I was just glancing through your user page. How does your Notepad ++ system compare to using Cacycle's wikEd? --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Dresden Files references Mjolnir, greetings. I'm half of the idea of addressing the reference tag situation of the Dresden Files, but I'm unsure on how to proceed - what should be referenced, where to look and so on. This prompts me to wonder whether the article should be padded a bit more, or, indeed, if they can be padded a bit more, except perhaps with a "reception" paragraph. This unfortunately leads also on figuring out how to avoid The Red Pain of Doom pouncing on any change to Skin Game, since he has apparently that page on his watchlist, and he's a stickler for pointless formalities. Might I intrude on your time and ask for some suggestions on how to proceed? It's something I'd like to learn about, and it would be helpful to have somebody to point the way. Thank you, and, since today is Easter Sunday, and in the case MinorStoop (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI...and of course, thanks to you... Template:POTD/2015-04-24 :) Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Re: Jade Court Hmmm. Roleplaying has never interested me that much, so I'm not going to discuss its canonicity. If you think that it's important, fine with me. MinorStoop (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. If you DF roleplay, perhaps you will teach me? MinorStoop (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Cannabis I have no objection to your proposed addition and probably should have done a better search before cutting. My objection was the breadth of statements made across the paragraph, which among other things seemed to imply that cannabis enhances driving safety. The reference to the Huntington Post should probably be replaced too if re-adding the material about driving safety, its not a very good source for that. Thanks for leaving a note. I was a little brusque in my edit summary there, and could have been more tactful. You did better than me. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 13:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC) FYI Just saw your edit at Cannabis (drug). Just wanted to point out one of our tools you may like Google book tool Coverts bare url into {{cite book}} format making the URL's short and direct. It will turn https://books.google.com/books?id=M2xFyBVL8SsC&pg=PA143&dq=how+many+people+have+died+of+a+cannabis+overdose&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BctIVbWOFMKwggTvroCYCA&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=how%20many%20people%20have%20died%20of%20a%20cannabis%20overdose&f=false into this short link http://books.google.com/books?id=M2xFyBVL8SsC&pg=PA143 and fillout all the info. -- Moxy (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Skin Game I'm one of those who deem unnecessary to reference a book's plot section (of course, it's the book itself, unless for some reason or other you have to include something from somewhere else), but, since I don't want to push our luck with the red-penned, primary-school teacher, I'll wait a few days to remove it. MinorStoop (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. Say, Mjolnir, where can I brush it up about "plots" and "references"? You talk about MoS, but navigating I've found help pages more complicated to navigate than main space pages themselves. MS.
@MinorStoop: Here's the MOS for writing about fiction, and any page with an MOS: prefix is part of the usual manual of style. Check my main page here (the far left column of the table) for some more links that could be useful. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
"category:Fictional characters who use magic" Ridiculous of course, but it may be the least bad of a number of stupid categories... MinorStoop (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
DF Apocalyptic trilogy UselessInfoMine is right - the apocalyptic trilogy bit is still there and needs to be fixed. It looks like we only need a reliable reference to fix it; how do we go finding it? I've scrolled a few pages of google results and for the life of me I can't winnow the grain from the chaff, perhaps because there's no grain I can recognize. Can I call for help? Thank you. MinorStoop (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop Actually, I hit submit slightly before you did. Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Microphone There seems to be a developing consensus at the Trump talk page that we need an image that keeps the desaturation but restores the microphone. Thanks again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Images Hi there. Your work on the Emma Thompson image is brilliant, I'm in awe that you guys can do that! Just yesterday I had a go and doing something similar on Julianne Moore's lead image - I wanted to remove the hair that is blowing over her cheek - and I didn't do an awful job but it wasn't good enough to upload either. So that's why I'm so impressed haha. The Moore job would probably be quite simple for you though; this is the image [1]. If you have time, would you mind giving it a go? Don't worry if not or you prefer requests to be made at the graphics lab. Cheers --Loeba (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Skin Game Mjolnir, there might be a way out of the Introduced characters debacle - we have a page for the Dresden Files characters, which we can edit to get something worthwile. I've started today to wonder that, in view of this, a character section for each book may be redundant. I almost posted something to this effect on your talk page, and didn't because I wanted to think it through. I disagree with TRPoD mostly for two reasons: 1st, he appears fixated on Skin Game without taking account 14 other books and assorted shorter fiction; 2nd, he might state the same things with more WP:Civility. In this case, however, he might have a point; I don't want, however, to edit the DF pages without consulting someone else. I doubt very much that we can reintroduce the Introduced characters to Skin Game (at least he'll have a policy or other to hide behind), which leaves us eliminating the section from the other pages and pad up, where needed, the list of characters. I'd be grateful for some input. Thanks, MinorStoop (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Closing the mediation Why did you close the mediation so quickly? The moderator seemed fine to me... We can find a consensus on the page, but there's gotta be patience. I think we can use the rule of thumb for mediation: a version of the article we can all live with. If I were to add more weight to times an appeal to authority makes sense (like the common used doctor's visit), would that make a version you could be satisfied with? Or, maybe better yet, what if I made it so it noted a minority of philosophers do consider it a valid argument? Don't get frustrated, we can do this! FL or Atlanta (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
One of my New Year's resolution was to do some wikipedia edits, which is why I've been putting in a little work over at the Argument from Authority. That is the first and so far only page I've edited. I'm baffled as to what is going on there. Is that typical or am I just lucky? Original Position (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Arguments from authority Interesting, but I'm not going to block someone based on one edit, unless of course there's significant evidence of sockpuppetry or the edit was egregiously bad (e.g. blatant attacks on someone), and while I can guess that it's a sockpuppet, the edit and the user's creation log aren't current enough for me to block. Please leave a note at the user's talk explaining the situation (basically a quick thing, explaining calmly that the user effectively put back content that was erroneously added by other people), and if the user keeps it up, let me know and I can issue another WP:CIR block. Also, for future reference, I won't issue blocks in this case merely for uninformed comments at the talk page, since the real disruption is when factual errors are introduced into mainspace; good-faith but misinformed attempts to contribute to the discussion don't necessarily cause problems for the article, as long as neither the comments' writers nor anyone else acts on those comments. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
For mediation What's a summary of the issue you'd accept for mediation? I thought that what was given really was the core of the dispute... FL or Atlanta (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@FL or Atlanta: You are incorrect in two ways. First, a presumption that p is true is not the same thing as claiming or assuming that p is true. Instead, a presumption is more like a starting point, or a way of identifying where the burden of proof lies. Probably the most well-known example is the presumption of innocence that the US legal system grants to defendants in criminal trials. This means that defendants are "innocent until proven guilty." Now of course, this doesn't mean that the defendants are actually innocent unless proven guilty--it is very possible that someone committed the crime with which he is charged, but the prosecution has insufficient evidence to convict him. However, for reasons of justice or social comity, the US legal system errors on the side of not punishing some guilty people rather than punish some innocent people.
In a similar way, Walton and Gensler argue that legitimate arguments from authority give a presumption of acceptance towards the view accepted by a consensus of authorities. In other words, they are claiming that if we are looking at claim, eg is free trade good for a nation's economy, that if there is a consensus of relevant authorities that it is (or is not), that the burden of proof lies on those who claim this consensus view is incorrect. The other, more serious mistake you are making in your description, is that you are entirely ignoring the ways in which arguments from authority can be fallacious. That is, Walton and Gensler both claim that while some arguments from authority can grant this presumption, many other arguments fail to do so. For instance, if the authorities aren't true authorities, or are talking about something outside their expertise, or if there isn't a consensus among the relevant authorities, those arguments from authority are all fallacious (they claim). Thus, neither I, nor MjolnirPants, nor the sources we've cited are claiming that we must assume that what an authority says is true. I have not seen a single reliable source explicitly say that arguments from authority are always fallacious and 15+ sources that explicitly say they are not. Can you tell me which ones you are referring to that explicitly make the claim that arguments from authority are always fallacious? Original Position (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@FL or Atlanta:Why aren't you quoting philosophers? Why are you picking martial artists, environmental scientists, computer scientists and neurologists instead of actually going to the people who have expertise in the subject? I haven't forgotten that you're assertion is that your argument is fallacious (because you're appealing to authorities), and I can't help but notice that even if it is legitimate for you to do so, you're appealing to non-authorities. Seriously, no matter who's right, your argument is a fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Anastasia Luccio and modern technology Can I bother you by asking where in the books it is so stated that Luccio likes modern technology? The book would be enough; I'm loath to wade through 16 novels to find the exact passage. Sorry if I reverted your edit; it caught me by surprise. 82.49.64.106 (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"A kind of entity composed of pure information. Think of it as software for the brain," Luccio said. "Like a very advanced database management system." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
"Ah," Sanya said, nodding. I arched an eyebrow at Luccio in surprise. She shrugged, smiling a little. "I like computers. I read all about them. It's... my hobby, really. I understand the theory behind them." —Small Favor (pp. 288-289)
Fad Why are you adding the word fad to the lede a second time? The first sentence should not have fad in it. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The source flatly contradicts you. Get over it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Stop posting to my talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Just a reminder Be careful of WP:3R. Even if they are IP editors, this is more a content dispute than vandalism reverting. SilverserenC 22:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Cryonics. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) Peace Talks MP, I'm aware of Peace Talks being referred to on JButcher's site, on the reddit forum relating to Butcher and on goodreads. The first two are posts from the author, interested party, none of which have been updated in a long time, and goodreads is not very informative. Might be, as you say, that this makes the title notable and bound to happen, but I've been following an "Untitled 16 Dresden Files book" on Amazon, and it has been stricken down. Though I know Amazon is not a reliable source, I can't help feeling that such a move speaks against the notability of what we know now about PT a lot louder than anything else in favor. Can you convince me that it is otherwise? 79.55.132.96 (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC) P.S. Answer here or on my IP's talk page, as you prefer, I think that WP notifies of messages to an IP when it logs in.
OK, I'll buy that. Thanks! 79.55.132.96 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC) ANI Edit Warring Report To give a warning, I'm about to open a case at the edit warring ANI about the recent removals at argument from authority. I'm really sorry to have to do this but we'll never get anywhere if you remove everything you dislike like this this often. FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC) I have added it, it can be found here. Sorry but I can't see any alternative :( FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
|
.jpg)
_colorized.jpg)
.png)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Julianne_Moore_%2815011443428%29.jpg){kind=link}
Please place new discussions below this line
re: youtube video you recommended
I'm responding here since the conversation on WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#General Discussion of Above Chiropractic Articles moved on and now my response seems too far off-topic to post there. Just wanted to say thanks for the link. It was funny how they basically said the same thing that I thought I came up with all by myself the other day. :) But, man, that main guy is a slow talker! I thought I had been used the chiropractor for the few reasons the people on the video said were valid (i.e. therapies that aren't specific to chiropractic like adjustments for lower back pain, hip alignment, etc.) even though I didn't know it at the time. I wasn't sure if that was wishful thinking though, so that podcast validated my justification. :-P PermStrump(talk) 20:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Permstrump: Glad you liked it! I thought it was funny, because I listened to it for the first time yesterday, and then you came along the next day, and with only a month of research had arrived at the same conclusion as a guy who's been looking into it for years! :D MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Now I feel like I should fess up a little b/c there are a few details that didn’t seem relevant before, but now their omission makes it seem like I'm smarter than I really am... When I was still in high school, my PCP was a DO and he did some adjustments once after I hurt my back and the next couple of adjustments I had were from a physical therapist. So when I saw a chiropractor for the first time, it was because I was specifically looking for the most convenient way to repeat the experience I had been introduced to by a DO and a PT. I’ve also know for a long time that MDs scoff at chiropractors, but I assumed it was for the same reasons as my mom… because "everyone" knows that there are a lot of crooked chiropractors and dentists who pretend that radiology isn’t something that takes years of extra medical training to become competent in and then they convince people that their total normal X-rays indicate some made-up misalignment issue/cavity that will require multiple follow-up visits to treat. So, a knee-jerk skepticism towards chiropractors had been instilled in me from a young age. So technically, the only brand new information that I learned last week was that my mom’s reasons distrusting chiropractors were only the tip of the iceberg. PermStrump(talk) 01:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, when I said I didn't purposely go to the chiropractor for the only valid techniques they offer, what I meant was... I had no idea there were other reasons to see a chiropractor. It never would have occurred to me that someone might go for any issue other than neck or back pain. PermStrump(talk) 01:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Permstrump: I believed for many years that a chiropractor was like a masseuse with a medical degree. I thought it was all based on sound science, and that the only issues they dealt with were muscular and skeletal issues that spinal adjustments could actually help with. It was only a few (okay, maybe ten or so, god I'm old...) years ago I learned otherwise, and I was blown away. So don't feel bad. Pulling the wool over people's eyes is just what these sorts do. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Walter Krickeberg
Thank you. / I wrote: For example, in German article there's an article about Walter Krickeberg (1885-1962). No article about him in English Wikipedia. Also no article about Hermann Trimborn (1901-1986) in English Wikipedia. I can't write these articles. But maybe the others can write them. / They wrote books about the Maya civilization, the Aztecs, the Toltecs, the Inca Empire... / No article about Johann Rudolf Rengger (1795-1832) on English Wikipedia... (but we see that article in German, Russian and in Spanish.) / No article about Ramona-Ann Gale / No article about Bertha Morris Parker (1890-1980) we see that article on Croatian Wikipedia. / No article about Vladimir Stchepinsky / No article about Ron Carter, the author of The Coming Of Civilization. / They wrote books about history, geology, archaeology, paleontology, etc. I don't know much about their lives... For example, Croatian Wikipedia has an article about Bertha Morris Parker and the names of her books in English. Böri (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Böri: Okay, let's start with Walter Krickeberg. I found a few english-language sources, and I can read a tiny bit of German, so with the help of google translate, I can start transcribing some of the German article and sourcing it to English language sources. If you can find any English sources, or you have copies of any books (in any language you can read) which we could use to source it, post them to my talk page. Later tonight, I'll start a draft in my user space and give you a link. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you again. Böri (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I liked that page. Please edit it as a Wikipedia-article. Thanks. Böri (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you again. Böri (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cryonics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 April 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Cryonics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It's always a pleasure to talk about Ehrman with someone who agrees
It's kind of off-topic, so I'm taking it to your talk page.
I think we interacted a bit back in a historicity of Moses (!?) dispute two years ago.
Well, I know for a fact that Yale's open course on the New Testament (taught by Dale Martin) uses Ehrman's textbooks and recommends several of his popular books.
Don't I know it! I found those lectures by accident on YouTube back in 2012, and in a manner of speaking they changed my life, in that they eventually led to NT being my main non-Japan focused academic hobby. Martin was whom I was thinking of when I made these edits.
As an even more remote aside, have you seen this? Martin's introduction of his friend Ehrman is delightful in so many ways, and he specifically mentioned that he and others use Ehrman's books as textbooks (which I think might imply that in Martin's non-introductory seminars he uses Ehrman's books that aren't explicitly marketed as textbooks). Heck, he even kinda-sorta addressed the problem I brought up in this edit, but he did it in a tongue-in-cheek manner so unfortunately can't be cited.
And the Gospel of Judas talk you were listening to wasn't the one where his audience kept laughing and clapping at extremely bizarre places and in the Q&A asked him about "the Twelve Female Disciples" and Mary Magdalene's grotto in southern France, was it? I love that one. :P
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88: Wow, such enthusiasm! Don't worry, I'm not criticizing it. I'm sharing it. ;) Okay, to respond to your comments:
- No, I don't think I was involved in a debate about the historicity of Moses, though I would have been, had I known of it. I could be wrong however, as I've argued about a lot of things here, mostly civilly.
- I've listened to the entire course series by Hayes and Martin, and I loved them. Open courses are one of the greatest things to come out of internet culture, IMHO.
- No, I've never seen that video before! Thank you for sharing, it's going next in my playlist.
- Yes, that's the video I'm referring to. I've watched it before, and I love Ehrman's reaction to it. It's such a typical expert reaction to an off-the-wall claim, but coming from Ehrman (who generally sounds more like an evangelical preacher than an academic) it's just plain funny.
- Now I have a question for you. Don't take this the wrong way, and know that your answer doesn't really matter to me beyond simple curiosity. Are you religious? I'm not, but I find the study of religions fascinating. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- DON'T PUT IT NEXT ON YOUR PLAYLIST!! It's the third in a series. Admittedly, I saw the first two parts about a year before I found out there was a third part, because YaleDivinitySchool's YouTube channel is somewhat messy, so it's possible you too have already seen his first two lectures on anti-Docetic and anti-adoptionist changes to Luke without knowing that there was a third on anti-Jewish changes to Luke.
- No, I'm not religious. I was raised Catholic (I'm Irish and went to public school, which means I really went to Catholic school, and my parents are both liberal Catholics), but I live in Japan and feel more of an attachment to Buddhism on a spiritual level, but even then not so much. I'm interested in Buddhism in an academic manner about as much as Judaism and Christianity. More textual, literary and historical study than "study of religion", though, if you get my meaning. Comparative religion (mythology) is something I'm also kinda interested in, but I haven't read a book on the subject from start to finish since c. 2008. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- It was eating at me what on earth we were talking about two years ago if not the historicity of Moses, so I checked our interactions and found nothing. Then I recalled that it may have been in the period I was editing logged out because of some off-wiki bullshit (I blamed my phone, and I don't mind admitting that I was lying; anyone who wants the details can email me). The IP you were referring to here was me, and you posted on the IP's talk page here something that in my memory became a discussion of the historicity of Moses... it's funny how memory works... :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, sorry for never getting back to you!! Pretty much everything I said there that wasn't explicitly sourced to Hayes was ... well, implicitly sourced to Hayes. :D Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ahh, I remember that now! Yeah, we discussed Moses, but in the context of the overall historicity of Genesis. Good times. It's all good on not getting back to me. I discovered the Hayes lectures since, and found the reference myself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement
I have filed an enforcement request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MjolnirPants concerning your recent editing. Rhoark (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Notification of decision
In the recent AE request filed against you, I have come to the following decision:
Rhoark is cautioned that further enforcement requests without solid evidence of wrongdoing will not engender leniency. Creating frivolous complaints often results in quick sanctions. MjolnirPants is advised that upholding Wikipedia's policies on Pseudoscience is not an exemption from civility.
If you wish to appeal this decision you may do so to me on my Talk page, through Arbitration Enforcement, Administrator's Noticeboard, or to the Arbitration Committee. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I've edited that ANI thread too many times already, so responding here
What I meant was that you could vouch for my having edited in very technical discussions of biblical scholarship as early as two years ago.[2] The other user and I first came into conflict at the very end of February 2015, and he has claimed several times between April 2015 and April 2016 that I am somehow "following" him to biblical/Christian topics. You and I interacted in a discussion of biblical topics almost a year before I supposedly started "following" that user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
alt-white?
Check your last talk page edit! Doug Weller talk 13:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: LOL Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know...
...that these comments made me "lol", "One wonders how one could have one's mind controlled, yet still be able to rebel against it, or indeed, even recognize it."
and "but twenty minutes of google searching (by a guy who, not to toot my own horn, knows how to squeeze results out of google) returns nothing"
. —PermStrump(talk) 21:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Permstrump: I'm glad somebody finally laughed at a joke I made here. ;) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Dont bother..
...with SageRad, he shows up at an article, declares it biased (ie, not how he likes) then claims anyone different is not editing neutrally. Its really not worth your or anyone's time to justify his comments by labelling them PA's or striking them. No one really listens anymore. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Only in death: I know he doesn't have much of a voice, but me and him once had a bit of a rapport. I was just hoping he'd listen. It's worth a shot if there's a chance Sage might listen and tone it down a bit. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well it never has before. Good luck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I... Probably will need it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well it never has before. Good luck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the disruption there, it is ultra-slow and long term, but still a disruption. I happen to think there's a WP:COMPETENCE issue in his not being able to understand the encyclopedia's policies. AFAIK, his only experience has been with a small group of editors on article Talk pages. I was hoping maybe if he got some wider input he'd come to the realization that it isn't a few biased editors opinions he's fighting, it's a widespread and agreed-upon set of community standards. But maybe that's unrealistic and WP:AE is the best way forward. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- @LuckyLouie: I understand where you're coming from: You want to help the editor as much as (or more than) you want to help the article. I sympathize and even agree for the most part, but I can't help but remember that sanctions on WP aren't supposed to be punitive (even though they often work out that way). If Jed were put in a position to only edit other areas of WP, areas where he may be more neutrally minded, that might do a lot more good than having a bunch of people trying to convince him directly. I've always believed that you can't convince anyone of anything, you can only give them the tools to convince themselves. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good point. I forgot about the WP:TBAN option. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
FYI: [3]. Sigh. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Michael Laucke at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop
Hey Mjolnirpants, hope all is well! Are you still doing photo alteration/repair requests? Michael Laucke is a WP:FAC article at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop that has an embarrassing case of the blurs... would you be able to look at it? If not, do you know someone who is good at these things? Thanks!! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Lingzhi: Hey. No, I've unwatched the page and I'm not bothering there. Way too much drama, almost all of it revolving around one editor makes it no fun to contribute there. I'll take a look at that image sometime in the next week, if no-one else gets to it. I can't promise much (blurriness is notoriously difficult to fix), but I can probably do a few things with it. The motion-blurring on his hand, for instance, looks like something I could do a lot for. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Another editor has already chopped off the blurry hand, but then a different editor said she has a better picture anyhow. Sorry you had an unpleasant experience in a Wikipedia process. I hate it when that happens. It's happened to me before too in a vastly different context, years ago... Hope all is well with you. Let me know if you ever need any help with articles etc. (Except I'll be traveling through most of July, with only intermittent access). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
June 2016
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
12 hours is not a long time to calm down and see if somebody else tries to resolve the dispute. If nobody does, come back then and start a conversation on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: I think you blocked the wrong guy... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- This was a tricky one to call, but I felt since it was only you and the IP warring on the article today, protecting would knock out anybody else attempting to reach a consensus, so it had to be a short block (the IP is also blocked for the same reason). However, if you tell me you won't go near James Ossuary at all for the next 12 hours and are happy to edit something else, I am happy to unblock. I will say that comments such as "Was that really so hard? Next time, you're likely to end up getting blocked" led me to believe that you were trying to pick a fight with the IP and not reach a peaceful conclusion. Remember, that when there is an edit war, don't keep changing the article while the discussion is ongoing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: I made two reverts (not even three, let alone four or more) and began a discussion in which I agreed to the changes I first reverted, then categorically stated that I would not violate the 3RR. How is that edit warring? That's exactly the process we're supposed to use. Hell, I requested page semi-protection because this wasn't something that called for blocks at all in my view. Check the page history. There were IP editors edit warring on both sides which I why I didn't rescind my request for page protection. I even explained to the IP who I reverted how they could get the changes I had changed my mind about to put back in if the page got protected and someone else blindly reverted them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, now I've had a chance to look at what's going on, I've assessed the situation and I'm happy to unblock here. As you were. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Personally, I think an apology is due. The reason given for the block has been shown above to be flawed. MjolnirPants had a clean block log and the claim that the block was because of repetitive behavior hasn't been made.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I had made a mistake (as explained on my talk I got dates mixed up and thought I was dealing with a current set of reverts) and am happy to apologise for royally screwing everything up. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- (It bears repeating here)Apology accepted, and with no hard feelings. We all make mistakes! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I had made a mistake (as explained on my talk I got dates mixed up and thought I was dealing with a current set of reverts) and am happy to apologise for royally screwing everything up. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Personally, I think an apology is due. The reason given for the block has been shown above to be flawed. MjolnirPants had a clean block log and the claim that the block was because of repetitive behavior hasn't been made.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, now I've had a chance to look at what's going on, I've assessed the situation and I'm happy to unblock here. As you were. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: I made two reverts (not even three, let alone four or more) and began a discussion in which I agreed to the changes I first reverted, then categorically stated that I would not violate the 3RR. How is that edit warring? That's exactly the process we're supposed to use. Hell, I requested page semi-protection because this wasn't something that called for blocks at all in my view. Check the page history. There were IP editors edit warring on both sides which I why I didn't rescind my request for page protection. I even explained to the IP who I reverted how they could get the changes I had changed my mind about to put back in if the page got protected and someone else blindly reverted them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- This was a tricky one to call, but I felt since it was only you and the IP warring on the article today, protecting would knock out anybody else attempting to reach a consensus, so it had to be a short block (the IP is also blocked for the same reason). However, if you tell me you won't go near James Ossuary at all for the next 12 hours and are happy to edit something else, I am happy to unblock. I will say that comments such as "Was that really so hard? Next time, you're likely to end up getting blocked" led me to believe that you were trying to pick a fight with the IP and not reach a peaceful conclusion. Remember, that when there is an edit war, don't keep changing the article while the discussion is ongoing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Please don't delete material from my talk page
I wanted to know about that. Thanks. --200.114.212.124 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I deleted nothing. There's this thing called a page history that contains all of that information. The message I removed was canvassing that was sent to a large number of editors who have self-identified as atheists on their user pages. Of course, if you plan to act on it while logged out, you're going to end up being banned for sockpupptry and canvassing, but that's on you, not me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Southern Levant
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern Levant. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Horizontal line test
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Horizontal line test. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
...might interest you.
With my apologies for bothering you, 79.43.19.105 (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Ancestral health
Your suggestion that the article titled "Ancestral health" violates WP:ELNO needs some specificity. What provision in that list do you think it may violate, and how? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- All three links in the EL section are to websites advocating for what amounts to a paeolithic diet. So it runs up against 1, 5 and possibly 2. Also, I should point out that the article meets WP:A10 of the speedy deletion criteria. I'll lay off nominating it for a speedy for a week, so you can have time to add more info. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- A10 is about a new article that duplicates an existing article, yet you do not specify any existing article that you think it duplicates. Tell me which one. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- All three links in the EL section are to websites advocating for what amounts to a paeolithic diet. So it runs up against 1, 5 and possibly 2. Also, I should point out that the article meets WP:A10 of the speedy deletion criteria. I'll lay off nominating it for a speedy for a week, so you can have time to add more info. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Item 1 in WP:ELNO discourages "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Obviously the links do provide a unique resource that the article cannot: One has links to a refereed journal in which articles can be read; one has the schedule of speakers at a symposium on a university campus; one has a site run by a non-profit organization offering information about the ancestral health movement.
Item 5 discourages "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising." The linked web pages contain no advertising and do not try to sell anything, let alone exist for the purpose of selling something.
Item 2 discourages "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". Did you choose this on by throwing a dart at the list? For this to apply, you would have to at least allege that there is factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. This is an organization that publishes a refereed journal.
How does your citing of ELNO make any sense at all? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Michael Hardy: Listen, do you want me to just go ahead and nominate this for speedy deletion? Because if you insist upon arguing with me, that's what I'm going to do. Right now, you've got a one-sentence article with a bunch of advocacy groups in the external links and one citation that doesn't support what it's used for. This thing will get deleted so fast you'll forget it ever existed. I've offered to put off nominating it so you can get the chance to improve it, but you seem more interested in arguing with me about it. So make up your mind. If you post back here without improving the article significantly, I'm just going to go ahead and nominate it, and we can happily go on arguing about an article that doesn't even exist anymore. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I was asking questions. You make assertions that it duplicates an existing article; do you not expect anyone to wonder which article? You say there's advertising on linked pages where I find none and even say they exist for the purpose of selling something, do you not expect people to wonder where you find that? Your latest posting looks as if you're actually impatient and annoyed and didn't expect this. Discussions of these things are supposed to be collegial. Your last comment is written in a tone that I would expect only if you thought you were responding to something inappropriate rather than to the use of these pages to discuss Wikipedia editing, which is their intended purpose. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Collegial discussion
You wrote, "I'll lay off nominating it for a speedy for a week, so you can have time to add more info." We now see that that was insincere. As nearly as I can tell you changed your mind because I violated some rule of yours that forbids arguing with you. Normally discussions among those who edit Wikipedia pages includes disagreeing with others' views and putting forth the reasons for disagreeing. You're the only one I've ever seen declaring himself exempt and ordering far more experienced users not to express disagreements with you. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)