User talk:Cwobeel: Difference between revisions

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dave Brat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christ Episcopal Church (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) 08:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Arab winter

These term is not well recognized or widely used. It has not gained the traction some have desired. It seems to be fan cruft of a term. 172.56.11.229 (talk)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Arab Winter". 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 26 November 2014.

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. 22:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move Discussion at Talk:American-led intervention in Syria

There is currently an requested move underway here and I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - SantiLak (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Six-Day War

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Six-Day War. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watergate scandal#Reactions

I added reactions from leaders, but I need your help on expanding the section. This should take away your time with "Arab Winter" if you are willing to help me expand or copy edit. --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite, but I am not interested in that subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alan Chambers (Exodus International)

I've made a requested move. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Jihad. 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) 10:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Arab Winter, 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/Arab Winter, 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, User:TransporterMan (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Hi! I noticed this edit on the above article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neil_deGrasse_Tyson&curid=1972777&diff=635827974&oldid=635827959

Since it seems like a threat, I notified Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, but it also said to contact an administrator to "privately to remove the revision from public view and have the user blocked". I know that you are interested in this article, and I don't know a whole lot of admins, so I thought I'd throw it in your lap (you can thank me later). Hope this is the correct procedure. Take care.Onel5969 (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That nutjob has been blocked indef [1]. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Please specify on the talk page precisely which WP:BLP criteria you used to justify removing factually accurate and non-trivial information about Ariel Fernandez. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded in article's talk. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your diagram

Un fricking believable. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, coming from you, I am touched. Thanks! - Cwobeel (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	Content Creativity Barnstar
	Wow! Excellent work on the infographic at Shooting of Michael Brown. It really helps illustrate the shooting and will certainly be appreciated by our readers. Thank you very much for your contributions! - Mr X 16:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It was a great learning experience. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Arab Winter

You withdrew from mediation, so I don't know what to do with the draft. And what about the tags that you added at Arab Winter? Perhaps Arena situation will be resolved in no time without your help. It will be considered compliant with existing policies and guidelines, so I hope you will not do similar actions in the future. Otherwise, one of us will go to WP:arbitration/Requests. --George Ho (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can continue discussions in the talk page. That is unless a different mediator is assigned. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a reply at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Arab Winter. --George Ho (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: I saw your comment. At this time I am very concerned about the way the mediator has engaged (both the amount of time he has invested, which is very minimal, and the lack of process), so I have withdrawn unless a new mediator is appointed. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:United States House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mashable

You're internet famous! Gamaliel (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:) - Cwobeel (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation Regarding Reliable Sources

Given your recent activity on the talk page of Identifying reliable sources, I am inviting you to participate in the discussion I started in regard to establishing a prima facia case for verifiable sources if it is has met and maintained the standards for inclusion in Google News.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor)

added a link pointing to Fortune

Shooting of Michael Brown

added a link pointing to Fortune

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:ChrisGualtieri's behavior at Shooting of Michael Brown. Thank you. --RAN1 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re

"You have made your arguments about the HuffPo, which from your comments you consider that an opinion blog. Are there any other sources about which you make the same claims? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Tons of times. I do not trust any source, Fox News or even The New York Times. I prefer the BBC when I can get it for a distanced perspective on United States stuff, but in general - I dislike Dani Cavallaro's uninspired analysis and lack of fact checking. Cavallaro has "Reliable Source" status to some editors, but I make it a point whenever I get to point out the errors. Some of them are baffling, I don't even know how she got the Castle of Cagliostro error. Someone who can't read Japanese would still have caught it because it was so obvious. Anyways - I hate from working with limited sources, but I usually find faults with just about

Copying within Wikipedia

Hi Cwobeel. It's okay to copy withing Wikipedia like you did here (content was copied from The Holocaust). But you must give attribution. At a minimum, you must mention in your edit summary where you got the content. For more extensive copying, it's a good idea to add {{copied}} templates to the talk pages of the involved articles. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Did not know about that nifty template. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Carmen

It looks as if an IP address from what looks like Crimea wants to edit war regarding the twice cited DUI arrest of Eric Carmen. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep an eye. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another Crimean IP address reverted it. I mentioned it in the noticeboard. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both IP addresses are now blocked. Feel free to revert. I cannot revert right now for risk of going 3RR. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP address, this one from Japan reverted it. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FCAYS

You should probably stop responding to his comments since doing that only seems to result in more comments. --RAN1 (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC) every source I read. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EL

Please read WP:EL - those links would not survive justification at Featured Article Candidates and duplicate content already discussed in the article. Article length is not excuse for duplication of content to video links. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is long ways from being in a state that would warrant GA.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more careful in your additions, you moved an inline citation down to the end of the paragraph, but did not retain the inline-citation as required. Also, do not put words into the sources mouth as you did. Its not a justification defense and it is not appropriate in that section either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a talk page for these comments, please don't bring up these issues here.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I have never said that their arguments are true. They can be true, they can be false, or any shade in between. We follow the sources and attribute viewpoints to those that hold them, without bias and in a neutral manner as much as possible. NPOV 101.

So if source says the prosecution conspired to "throw the case" you are including it because the source says it? Regardless of whether or not the arguments are true, you reflect it based on the legal background and the fact the source is published? Is that correct? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of sources leveling that particular line of attack against the prosecutors, so it is not against NPOV to describe these viewpoints. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In short existence of sources leveling attacks perfectly justifies the inclusion of said claims despite lacking any factual evidence to support them? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Of course, context is always needed, in particular when the "lack of factual evidence" is disputed. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed by the non-existence of facts or the existence of facts not cited by the source making the attacks? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For widely stated opinions, yes. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Chris would care to divulge his credentials on legal matters. If he has some, perhaps he would tell us why using his legal knowledge to edit Wikipedia is not original research. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be surprised if he has any credentials. Surprise us, Chris. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, if you don't have legal credentials, how do you feel qualified to rule on the validity of legal opinions of multiple people who do have legal credentials? Are you really that smart? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please no misdirection. Gaijin42 makes a point, but "widely held" opinions need perspective and according WP:10YT this can be difficult to judge. Though People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson#Reaction to the verdict is an interesting comparison and far more neutral. I am of the opinion that an overview one or twice removed from the opinion pieces will be the best we will get for now. Also, would it matter if I said I am (or was) a United States Attorney? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, except that it would change the objection from lack of credentials to OR. Please, no characterization of legitimate concerns as "misdirection". ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The SImpson case has the benefit of years, and thus much easier to summarize, so the comparison is not useful. I am sure that 15 years from now the Brown article will be quite different as well. What I found confounding is that Chris is dismissing legal expert's opinion with a wave of the hand, just because he believes they are wrong. That is what makes that discussion so difficult. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: And how does the fact the source makes an accusation that is not supported by fact constitute to original research? You present a logical fallacy. I'll provide a suitable metaphor and case. "Joe Schmo, senior Wikipedia editor, says Jimbo Wales (Founder of Wikipedia) does not care about Wikipedia because he allows anonymous users to vandalize articles". What is wrong with this statement? Hint: There is at least two or more things wrong with the statement. I'll use your answer(s) to show the validity and premise of my argument on Nolan. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Joe Schmo is an expert on collaborative editing, wikis and in particular, Wikipedia, we surely can include Mr. Schmo. Just read Criticism of Wikipedia for some good examples. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia allows inclusion of opinions with attribution. If Wikipedia excluded opinions that were not supported by fact, they would not be called opinions. They would be called facts. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no other problems which would prevent this inclusion on Criticism of Wikipedia? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, sources cannot do OR as wiki defines it. They can be wrong, but if they are wrong and widely held, its still what wiki reports. See WP:FLAT, in particular WP:FLAT#Wikipedia.27s_role_as_a_reference_work and the part about "If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification." Where RS have contradicted other RS, we can report that per NPOV, but just plain excluding POVs is not an option (On the other hand, excluding a particular persons quote representing that POV is an option - but not the POV as a whole). You are essentially making an Wikipedia:Editorial_discretion argument, which is valid to a degree, but probably not to the degree of completely excluding entire swaths of the controversy. When we move away from direct quotes and into summary style some of this will be less of a problem because we can say things like "Some commentators ^[who?] hold the opinion that X did Y because they think Z" where we are more clearly identifying things as opinions Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I get that last part. Doesn't the {{who}} flag the statement as needing attribution? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes that usage is valid, if accompanied with a ref that includes multiple sources and the names of the commentators. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>Joe Schmoe{{cite|quote}}, Mary Contrary{{cite|quote}}, John Doe{{cite|quote}}</ref>

- Or something along these lines. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So why ask "who?" when that question is answered at the end of the statement? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Im pushing for using something like the Sun example in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Bundling_citations where we can use weasel wording summary for readability, but potentially still have a dump of quotes in the footnote backing it. We are already doing something in that vein in Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Accounts where we say "The witness accounts have been widely described as conflicting on various points" and then just dump all the sources that say that. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV really breaks down when you have the number of opinions that we do, and WP:RS/AC sources have not come out yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaijin42: you presented an argument with faulty metaphor. Certainly, the discussion pre-discovery and calculation would have been under WP:FRINGE. Hypothetically, a debate over this would be based on arguments between sides with flat earth evidence being weighed against round earth notions. This requires a familiarity and much hypothetical framing and a little philosophy, but the fact that a "round earther" would have used line of sight on the ocean would be a clear argument even from 8th century B.C. and that at minimum the earth was not flat, but was curved. This is a basic test that can be done without any equipment and does not require more conjecture or rare observational evidence like on a lunar eclipse. So no... given the ability to test it and the arguments existence... it is an argument which can be tested and repeatedly found to not be proven false. That's part of the scientific process - this here is unsupported accusation and not comparable. Since no one will indulge... I'll highlight the logical fallacies in my test case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, that would be an excellent argument on a discussion about scientific process. But Wikipedia has a much wider scope than science. We have articles on porn stars, serious subjects, and crazy shit, just because there are significant sources that attest to the notability of the subject. And on mainstream subjects, we relay on reliable sources to describe opinions, even if these opinions are crazy shit. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we have an article about the Black Knight satellite. Proponents are bat-shit-crazy IMO, but we report their viewpoints nonetheless. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear difference between reporting opinion and fact about the handling of a case and an article which can survive because reliable sources report hoaxes or fringe theories to an extent that they are included. This is a matter considering the accusations against a living person which is unsupported by facts. I am tiring of your inability to understand the difference. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I patrol BLP/N and I am very well informed on WP:BLP. Accusations leveled against a living person are permissible, if the source is reliable, if the author is notable, and if it is not a minority viewpoint. I am also tiring from your inability to make these distinctions. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Test case

"Joe Schmo, senior Wikipedia editor, says Jimbo Wales (Founder of Wikipedia) does not care about Wikipedia because he allows anonymous users to vandalize articles"

Basically every part of this is highly contentious as a logical fallacy and unsupported allegation. I will go through this, word by word and refer to a "reliable source" for argument's sake since BLP enters play here.

"Joe Schmo" - The assumption of a name or otherwise reflected by a source is typically accurate.
"senior Wikipedia editor" - is a title to get authority. There are many issues which should immediately become clear. "Senior" implies authority, title or authority, but Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit and is not a job. Suspect "puffery" to give weight to the incoming opinion. As a whole "senior Wikipedia editor" implies a relevant credential for the opinion which is going to be given - an attribution which inverts the role of attribution to give the air of authority.
"says Jimbo Wales does not care about Wikipedia" - This is an accusation that the founder does not care about Wikipedia. This is already a serious issue because it is "Joe Schmo"'s opinion which is framed as if it is fact. Schmoe is advancing this "false fact" with an argument to back it up.
"because he allows anonymous users to vandalize articles" - This is completely illogical and contradictory to standard process. This is actually stating "[Jimbo Wales] allows anonymous users to vandalize articles." Jimbo Wales does not over see or control other people much less "allow" them to do anything. "anonymous users" is vague it could be IP addresses or users with pseudonyms - it is not specific even it is criticism. While "vandalize articles" is supposed to be clear, it is not. What you call vandalism is not what I call vandalism.

The critic is not making an argument for the sake of making an argument - it is an attack on Jimbo Wales as a person. It suggests that Jimbo Wales has control or can exert control to stop people from doing something bad. By that reasoning Jimbo Wales must not care about Wikipedia otherwise he would have done something. Even without any "facts" the argument's structure is completely unsupported and its nature discerned.

Now... we move to fact checking. Is there evidence to suggest Jimbo Wales does not care about Wikipedia? Clearly, Wales does care about Wikipedia given the continual and persistent involvement in its operation, but the conclusion was never intended to be fair. Which means that this should be removed. Leaving the "supporting argument": "[Jimbo Wales] allows anonymous users to vandalize articles." Given that Jimbo Wales has a known administrative role, this requires a factual check. Does he "allow users" - Wikipedia certainly allows IP editing, but this is not subject to personal oversight by Jimbo for each action by said user. So while Jimbo Wales is open to the idea that "anyone can edit" he is not personally responsible for the actions of others. The other two parts are purposefully vague and relies on the reader to "fill in the blanks". Lastly, is "Joe Schmoe a "senior Wikipedia editor"? Considering it isn't a job title, no. "Wikipedia editor" suffices. Still... what is the qualification of a Wikipedia editor? Has the editor even interacted with others, with Wales, with anyone of any importance? Is the user in good standing or was blocked numerous times for fringe beliefs? In real cases - the latter is most often correct. The end result is a complete fabrication of ideas by a false authority which essentially has an axe to grind and is using the publisher or is being used by the publisher to advance something which no proper editorial process should have allowed. Even if it is published, the mere inclusion of such information doubts the integrity of the whole. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great material for a Wikipedia essay. But what you are arguing is contrary to our core content policies. Now, I understand why we have so much trouble understanding each other.... - Cwobeel (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In December 2004, Sanger wrote a critical article for the website Kuro5hin, in which he stated that Wikipedia is not perceived as credible among librarians, teachers, and academics when it does not have a formal review process and it is "anti-elitist."

I could deconstruct Sanger's criticism of Wikipedia, and prove that his assertions are false. And yet, we report Sanger's criticism, right? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policies already cover both my and your cases. Sanger, who is a co-Founder of Wikipedia is qualified and likely reliable for many statements as a person of direct authority. In December 2004, Wikipedia did have a Featured Article Review, but it was [different] and there was no GA process. Even still, Sanger's criticism that there is no formal review holds weight because FAC is still informal and does not require experts to fact check and verify the article's content. So under analysis, while nuance could be an issue - Sanger's comments were not only correct when they were made, but still are. You seem to have trouble analyzing and reading the material. WP:NPOVT offers help. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems analyzing sources, but you seem to have a problem with a too narrow interpretation of our policies (basically, if the source fits your POV, then is fine, but if it does not, then you bring a cavalry of arguments, long windded discussions and unparalleled stubbornness to the discussions). If your view and behavior was pervasive in Wikipedia, it would be a disaster for the project. Thank god that is not the case. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 227: / Line 227: @@
 ::: That is why we have an article about the [[Black Knight satellite]]. Proponents are bat-shit-crazy IMO, but we report their viewpoints nonetheless. -  [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 18:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 :::: There is a clear difference between reporting opinion and fact about the handling of a case and an article which can survive because reliable sources report hoaxes or fringe theories to an extent that they are included. This is a matter considering the accusations against a living person which is unsupported by facts. I am tiring of your inability to understand the difference. [[User:ChrisGualtieri|ChrisGualtieri]] ([[User talk:ChrisGualtieri|talk]]) 19:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
+::::: I patrol BLP/N and I am very well informed on WP:BLP. Accusations leveled against a living person are permissible, if the source is reliable, if the author is notable, and if it is not a minority viewpoint. I am also tiring from your inability to make these distinctions. -  [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 19:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 === Test case ===