User talk:Eggishorn

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

2007

2008

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Filer Blocked

Filing editor blocked for 48 hrs. after filing back-to-back bad faith reports.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tognella99 (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tognella99:, your bad-faith attempt to weaponize AN3 to "win" a content dispute has been noted. Note also that I consider this accusation and report a personal attack and will not hesitate to report any further such disparagement for action. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tognella99. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the analysis

I used the thanks button for your ARCA analysis but that was for the effort to be response to my request. Then I read your results and it's super illuminating. I want to let community members who've been pushing for older dates to have a chance to read and comment on it before I respond, and I'll credit your analysis when I do, but just want to thank you for the time and rigor that went into that work. The results are quite stark and should, I think, inform our response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49:, you're more than welcome. It is gratifying to hear that my analysis was of some use. Happy New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange your ping didn't come through here or at ARCA. I didn't think twice about it ARCA but not sure why it didn't come through here... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your very useful analysis at ARCA [1]. That was a great deal of effort and will be invaluable. Its folks like you who are willing to put in extraordinary amounts of work that keep Wikipedia going! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fake news websites

Hello Eggishorn

19:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC) You said my sources about the fake news website "antikor.com.ua" to be not reliable. You also called my sources: "A Facebook page and two blogs are not sufficient to make this judgment." I can assure You that my source #1 is a news-website with editorial board, but not a blog: https://voxukraine.org/en/about-us-eng/ My source #2 http://vaadua.org/news/esli-feyk-zapuskayut-znachit-eto-komu-nuzhno-ieguda-kellerman-zhiv is also not a blog but "Jewish Organizations and Communities Association(Vaad of Ukraine)" official website http://vaadua.org/ My source #3 is indeed a Facebook page(as You wrote), but this Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/ntkrr/posts/10164542512315495 belongs to ukrainian Wikipedia(https://uk.wikipedia.org/) main editor Nazar Tokar. If You do not want Facebook-source than You can use this URL-address: 1. https://nmapo.edu.ua/n/m/6678-informatsiina-hihiiena-sait-antykor-u-chornomu-spysku-ukrainskoi-vikipedii 2. https://blog.wikimedia.org.ua/2020/10/06/unreliable-sources-filter/ 3. https://www.stopfake.online/p/blog-page.html --Mosha.yu (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mosha.yu:, I admit to some imprecision in my use of the term "blog". Blogs are one subset of self-published sites, which both Vox and the AJOCU are. Vox hosts content but does not actually produce it. The AJOCU is an advocacy organization and its views are acceptable as a reflection of its views but not sufficient for labeling another site as "fake news". None of the three further sources you offer are useful, either. An article that the Ukrainian Wikipedia has banned a site is not helpful because each language Wikipedia is a separate project and neither the article you provided nor the article that it uses as a source provide any reasons why the Ukraine project made their decision. The other two sources are, again, blogs. They even have "blog" in the url. The fact that source #2 is a Wikimedia Foundation blog would be different, but that blog entry is just an explanation of the filtering process and not a RS for why the antikor site should be considered fake news. You should probably start a discussion of Antikor at the reliable sources noticeboard. There are currently eighteen articles that use Antikor as a source so that is probably a better first step. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC close

Thank you for closing the RFC on the MEK talk page. I don't understand why "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland." has been allowed to be kept in the lead of the article? There is just one source talking about 1983 and it talks about Rajavi and Hussein (doesn't talk about the MEK at all). Idealigic (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Idealigic:, thank you for asking. The statement is allowed for the reason that there is no WP:CONSENSUS to remove it. As my close said, the discussion showed that there was an almost even split in opinions and neither side's arguments persuaded the other. Everything said in support of inclusion was challenged within the discussion but that is why there is no consensus. RfC's are not votes and the closer is instructed to read the entire discussion and attempt to find a basis for agreement within the statements expressed, not simply count noses. There was no such basis so there is no consensus. In particular, the statements of the editors supporting inclusion brought multiple sources to the discussion to verify inclusion of the statement. There was "just one source" that was used to cite the statement in the lede at the start of the discussion but that was not the only source cited in the body of the discussion. As the closer, I must evaluate the general thrust of the views expressed in the discussion and there were enough views expressed that the statement satisfied the WP:OR and WP:NPOV policies that I could not reject those out of hand. Unless I can find a basis for rejection that complies with the rules for closing discussions, I have to respect those views. Neither did I find that those core content policies were clearly violated by inclusion. I hope that helps further explain the closing statement and the basis for it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

can you please say which other sources supported this sentence? I cannot find the sources added afterwards support this sentence at all.Idealigic (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Idealigic:, they have not been added to the article but are listed in the discussion. If you review the discussion they are readily apparent, starting with Vice regent's first comment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: This is the disputed sentence: "In 1983, Masud Rajavi sided with Saddam Hussein in exchange for financial support against the Iranian Armed Forces in the Iran–Iraq War, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland."

That is supported by this source,

By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support.
— Vanguard of the Imam

The other sources provided by VR are these,

Since 1982, the MEK had received substantial financial support from the nemesis of the Iranian people, Saddam Hussein.
— Terronomics

After invading Iran in 1980, Saddam Hussein began funding the MeK to extend the reach of the NCRI’s European publicity campaign opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and to secure any intelligence that the MeK collected regarding Iran.
— RAND report

Rajavi fled Tehran for Paris in 1981...At a meeting arranged by Mr. Cheysson [French foreign minister], Rajavi and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz signed a deal in which the MEK would receive cash and backing from Baghdad in exchange for help in the war against Iran. Between 1982 and 1985 Rajavi visited Baghdad six times and formed a relationship with Saddam Hussein, who helped the MEK set up camps in Iraq to train Iranians for sabotage.
— WSJ by Amir Taheri

Besides the first source (that is already in the article), how do the other sources support the disputed sentence? The first talks about the MEK receiving financial support from Hussein since 1982, the second sentence talks about Hussein funding the MEK, and the third talks about a meeting between Rajavi and Aziz. Idealigic (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Idealigic:, to repeat myself: the position of an RfC closer, whether and admin or non-admin, is not to evaluate what should or should not be in the article. Doing as you are asking is a WP:SUPERVOTE and explicitly not allowed: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community... [emphasis added] The close is not my opinion on the merits of the discussion participants, their arguments, or their sources. It is a summary of what has been said. Whether I think that the sources actually support the disputed sentence or not is immaterial. The question I evaluated as closer is if the discussion participants felt that the sources supported the disputed sentence. There was an obviously and strongly expressed opinion by multiple editors that they did. This view did not gain consensus but neither did the view that the sources did not. I haven't expressed an opinion on whether "the other sources support the disputed sentence" and it would be inappropriate for me to do so, either in the close or here. You are free to think that the sources used violate policy and you are allowed to open a further discussion on the article talk page. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. You say that "I evaluated as closer is if the discussion participants felt that the sources supported the disputed sentence. There was an obviously and strongly expressed opinion by multiple editors that they did." Besides what participants felt (which is really irrelevant since what we need here is a substantiated arguments), can you please clarify what you think the substantiated arguments were for keeping this sentence in the lead? (it cannot be the sources added during the discussion since they do not seem to support the sentence). This clarification is needed to understand how we can continue to build on the points made in that RFC. Thank you again. Idealigic (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idealigic, before I address your specific question, I need to make a small correction. Where you said: Besides what participants felt (which is really irrelevant since what we need here is a substantiated arguments)... I think perhaps my use of the term "felt" may have mislead you. What I maybe should have said was:

The question I evaluated as closer is if the discussion participants ~~felt~~ expressed the opinion...There was an obviously and strongly expressed opinion...

As I've already said, my role is not to decide if those arguments were correctly evaluating the sources presented but rather to take into account that such arguments were made. So the only thing that is relevant is what the participants "~~felt~~ expressed as opinions". The only arguments I can discard in evaluating what the participants expressed are: ...those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. The key here is "flatly contradict". That is a high bar to clear and although there were some which did so, those that you appear to question did not. I understand that you disagree that the sources presented in the discussion did not, in your judgement, fulfill the sourcing requirements of the core content policies but that is not the standard that is used to close a discussion.

You seem to want to draw me on my judgment about sourcing. I thought I had made it clear that I won't express my own opinion on what or how or how well anyone's arguments were substantiated beyond what I have already said in the closing statement. I can, however, provide the "clarification...needed to understand how...to build on the...RFC": Both the pro-MEK and anti-MEK editors need to stop talking and leave the article and its talk page completely alone. This article and related ones have been treated as a battleground for far too long. Both "sides" need to go away and let neutral, unbiased editors actually try to reach some sort of stable consensus version. For years now one group mobilizes on one small point and as surely as Newton formalized this has an equal and opposite reaction and nobody actually attempts to reach a consensus. Everyone just argues past each other and drives away any possible source of actual mediation or consensus-building. This is wasteful and not what the project stands for. I hope that clarifies the next steps but, hey, my advice is worth exactly what you paid for it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Greetings. At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hog Farm I noticed an error in the !vote tally that was attributing two more support votes than actually were present. I looked into it, and found the error. When you commented on the RfA, your signature left two line breaks between elements in a statement. Have a look: [2]. That was tripping up the !vote counting tool, thinking your !vote was three supports when it was in fact one of course. I fixed it. I'm not sure if you can fix it in your signature or not, but thought I would give you a heads up. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

@Hammersoft:, thank you for letting me know. The extra line breaks were not intended but that was how the software was interpreting my markup. I had seen that behavior before but only on pages where it didn't affect the displayed text so I admit to mentally writing it off as an oddity. After some testing, I think I've found out what is happening. If you use the {{font color}} template and then sign using the tildes, that produces line breaks even where not intended. I can only surmise that it's because the software has to first substitute the actual sig markup for the tildes and then substitute <span style="background-color:#FF7400; color:#FFFFFF;"> for the font color template. If you run into it again, maybe that will be of some use. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Khosla Kumar

Someone once again edited the page say her DOB is 1987. They put in some sources, but are they actually reliable? It completely contradicts an interview from back in 2013 with Divya herself saying she was 20 when she moved to Mumbai and worked on a movie that was released in 2004-2005. If she was born in 1987 she wouldn't have even turned 18 yet when that film was released.99.21.95.87 (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]