User talk:DatGuy

Vacations
Please note that recently I have been on a lot of vacations. If I haven't responded in more than two days, I am away. Thanks, DatGuy

Archives (Index)

2015/November 2015/December 2016/January 2016/February 2016/March 2016/April 2016/May 2016/June 2016/July 2016/August 2016/September 2016/October 2016/November 2016/December 2017/January 2017/February 2017/March 2017/April 2017/May 2017/June 2017/July 2017/September 2017/October 2017/November 2017/December 2018/January 2018/February 2018/March 2018/April 2018/May 2018/June 2018/July 2018/August 2018/September 2018/October 2018/December 2019/January 2019/February 2019/March 2019/April 2019/May 2019/June 2019/July 2019/August 2019/September 2019/October 2019/November 2019/December 2020/January 2020/February 2020/March 2020/April 2020/May 2020/June 2020/July 2020/August 2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/August 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June

Counter Vandalism Consultant Sought

I am in the U.S., but I am looking for someone who can advise on what is and is not vandalism before conclusions. Time zone difference should not be an issue as I am mainly looking to shore up my understanding with questions that can easily wait to be answered the next day, or longer if needed. Please advise on availability/interest. KSci ^(talk) 22:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@KSci: Sure. Ask them here and I'll answer them within this day or the next. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 05:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

- In may, someone adding numerous "citation needed" tags for very basic uncontested biographical data along and three other templates "this article has multiple issues" "too many primary sources" "requests for POV review" in an article about a living person. The subtle effect was to give the appearance that the living person, a Ph.D. in Philosophy, had a questionable CV.

- A disparaging quote supported by a citation that isn't relevant to the point.

I corrected the above giving a detailed explanation for each change. There were no objections, despite running active talk page disputes on other topics.

Other cases:

Changing words like "argument" (in philosophy), "debate", or disagree" to "attack" suggesting aggression by one party to an otherwise cordial disagreement.

Substituting the word "polemics" for the word "apologetics".

Adding "see also" links or category templates that are not unfavorable to the subject of the topic.

What do you see as "in" vs. "out" as subtle vandalism? These are the sorts of things I've corrected in 6-8 articles.

So far I have not encountered opposition correcting these things. This is only a question about the scope of the subtle vandalism role. I've run into a pattern of stuff like the above following the links to other articles on the same sort of topics. Ranging from very subtle to blatant.

KSci ^(talk) 01:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Per the BLP policy, any and every bold statement should be referenced. The tags depend per page. Don't understand what you mean by CV, as Wikipedia isn't meant to contain that sort of stuff
2. Again, depends per article. What is the "point"? Is it for example just a random point in the article, when talking about Phil Dumontet or Bill Gates that there'll just be a random quote saying

I like chocolate milk

— Steve Jobs and Phil Dumontet in a choir

1. Per BRD, if you feel it's unneeded, revert and discuss it on the article's talk page.
2. Same as the above
3. Not unfavorable? You mean unrelated? If the editor is new, revert (while keeping good faith in mind) and post a note on their talk page why it shouldn't be there, citing to the relevant guideline/policy. If this continues, then try not to edit war but tell them that it is disruptive. If it continues, warn them.
4. Depends per article, BRD.

Hopefully that helped. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it helps on some points. :)

I think you asked for clarification of CV (CV = Curriculum Vitae, a professional's short-form resume. In this case the CV was published by the professor's University. The effect of the tags was to make it appear that the living person's CV was either dishonest or at least questionable. No bold statements, just the subtle implication of multiple templates suggesting a reason to question the honesty of the person's CV.

I goofed in writing "not unfavorable" rather than "unfavorable". An example of what I described as would be an article on health and nutrition with a bunch of links added for McDonald, Wendy's, and Burger King.

I have a personal policy to revert once, and with a very, very good reason given, on a couple of occasions I reverted twice. I have no interest in edit wars and thankfully have not encountered this problem. Usually, I've found that those who perform undue reverts don't want to talk about the reasons. I've encountered one exception.

I like your suggestion to cite disruptive, though this can be a hard case to make. I've never tried this approach.

More questions later. Thanks for the input.

KSci ^(talk) 06:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I like that policy, seems like a good idea. I did not request what CV means. I said that a CV should not be on Wikipedia. As far as I can see, in the example you put that is probably vandalism. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dat Guy. Sorry for misunderstanding your point on the CV.

Have you ever encountered a "too many primary sources" problem? To many primary sources would be, from what I've read on the topic, a template used when there is a question about the appropriateness of the article content. An clear cut example would, I think, be something like a someone's bio including something like offering medical advice that runs against accepted medical practice supporting its validity with the person's own books and friends.

In this case I'm referring to the offender's talk posts were uncivil and referred to the living person as "the crackpot", though he is a well-known and respected philosopher. Per your prior advice, the disruptive link might have been a reasonable suggestion - thanks for that tip. Fortunately, the problem person went away when other editors were firm with him.

Our conversation may be more helpful than is apparent from your vantage point.

Okay, here is another example.

The topic "apologetics" (for all religions) had its disambiguation page and lead text too wide in scope, and this was opportunistically used to include non-religious "apologists"(e.g. Bob is an apologist for mass murderers) as an apologist for the Nazis is said to engage in "apologetics", a usage I've never heard. I could find only one dictionary in many that included non-religious apologetics. Okay, so with the term "apologetics" used this way a large number unsavory examples of extremist non-religious apologists were interwoven through the article with the net effect being to lump religious apologetics with defenders of mass murderer as equivalent. Additionally, a section on "polemics" was added even though apologetics means "to provide a defense" meaning polemics was at odds with the topic definition. Next,two completely irrelevant textbook quotes (such as an outline of one author's methodology for assessing Nixon's responses to polemics in Watergate) was added with no relevance whatsoever.

I removed the POV stuff and the stuff on polemics and narrowed the article's focus to include only "religious" apologetics, and adjusted the disambiguation page to redirect non-religious apologist to the apology topic. I think this was the right thing to do and believe this was an example of subtle vandalism. I encountered no opposition, but I'd like a second opinion to be sure my view of subtle vandalism agrees with that of a more experienced editor.

The apologetics article says, by the way, that in British english the term apologetics is not commonly used. Is this true from where you sit? I have not been able to find a citation to support this statement in the lead, and your impression could indicate that one is needed.

Thanks again, Dat Guy. (BTW, my wife is a New Orleans Saints fan - "Who Dat?".

KSci ^(talk) 00:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Anti Vandalism Academy

Can I be one of your students? Adotchar (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Console peasants

I'm not familiar with the term, but other parts of the edit seemed reasonable, so I thought perhaps it was a relevant term that I'd just not heard. Nyttend (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2016 Eséka train derailment

On 22 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2016 Eséka train derailment, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T♦C 16:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Happy holiday! Muffled Pocketed 08:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Eséka train.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Eséka train.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Negro Head Road

Hi, over a decade ago, when NC changed the name, I recall much reporting about it in Southern newspapers. I just added a relevant quote from a journal. Someone else has linked it to Nigger#Place_names. Derntno (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC) See https://www.google.com/search?q=nigger+head+road&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22nigger+head+road%22+OR+%22niggerhead+road%22+OR+%22nigro+head+road%22+