User talk:WMrapids

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kent Vanderwood has been accepted

Kent Vanderwood, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Imzadi 1979 → 22:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Request

Hey, would you possibly consider move your refreshed comment here back above the start of the relisting discussion, along with the other responses? - where it currently is, it might get missed. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: I tried to do this. Haven't seen this many collapsible boxes in a discussion before, so it is strange... WMrapids (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Bludgeoning, personalization, and multiple faulty RFCs

Wmrapids, I have pointed out here where you made demonstrably false statements about other editors and their motivations that can only serve to derail a discussion. Your multiple-bludgeoned RFCs and personalization have come to a point of impeding progress; it would be helpful if you would allow discussion to proceed without adding reams of your own opinions, and then let a less-involved editor be the one to put up the next, hopefully better formulated, RFC which would optimally occur after ample discussion of the alternatives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

A less involved editor was the one who led this last proposal after my proposal was shot down. The new move discussion was much better with less bludgeoning, but then users began to complain about the move process (it did get possibly get procedurally messy, but the discussion was still clear). It was appropriate to share my opinion on those opposing the move based on its process instead bringing forward new proposals or counterarguments. Though I don't think many other valid alternatives exist for the move, I have no problem participating and seeing what is proposed and will keep my mind open. Thanks for sharing your concerns. WMrapids (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Collaborating

WMrapids, I'm finding that the amount of time needed to do simple tasks like get clarification on sources and clean up faulty citations is taking endlessly longer than it usually does in my work. If you could answer requests for information on talk without personalization it would be very helpful. Samples:

1. I asked you three times on talk for your opinion on the Vox sources, which uses WP:NYPOST; when you answered, three days after my first query (while actively involved at the talk page), that answer included the unnecessary personalization of Please stop with making an apparent false equivalence of Vox with La Patilla (the latter reposts multiple deprecated sources in a partisan manner). Again, your behavior is seemingly badgering at this point and becoming disruptive. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia in an attempt to illustrate a point. A simple answer like "Yes, I've examined the NY Post content and am satisfied that BLP policy is not a concern here", or some such with your reasoning backing that position, would be a more collaborative approach and would have saved us all time and bandwidth, and would have avoided casting unnecessary aspersions.
2. In the "Attack" discussion section, after NoonIcarus raised a point that is supported by sources and at least worthy of discussion, you added the unhelpful remark Time to stop splitting hairs.
3. In the Recent edits to the lead discussion, while avoiding for multiple days answering good faith queries on talk, you replied instead with personalization: please stop with your possible badgering and sealioning behavior. I appreciate that today you did provided the quote, so that we can now move forward with a more collaborative discussion. But relative to both this discussion, and the one in item 1 here, you've not yet answered about the VICE source and others.
4. In the Discussion of 'use of coup' sources section, I appreciate and acknowledge that you mentioned I'm trying, and wish we'd see more of that collegial tone. I also appreciate that you eventually moved your list to sandbox, where we can hopefully better process through it (as time allows) without clogging talk. But while everyone else was trying to give you constructive comments to strengthen your position in support of your preference (which your original list did not support), your response included: Should we also ignore this because it’s a guideline? It’s like a guideline matters in one instance, or it doesn’t in another. I’m really getting tired of the bludgeoning and Wikilawyering on this topic.

I also appreciate that you have lightened up on the alphabet soup; it makes your responses much more digestible. But can you see a difference in the posts I highlight above compared to:

1. At 8:40 you asked me a question,
2. At 8:43 I acknowledged your query and told you'd I'd get on it tomorrow (Sunday), and
3. I did that as soon as I caught up after church.

I understand that you are feeling hurried to get the title/NPOV/"coup" situation resolved, but the approach you have taken has considerably slowed me down, relative to how much work I'm usually able to get done. The article is a complete wreck wrt sourcing and citations, and getting through them more expeditiously so we can move forward with the move discussion is a common goal; moving towards answering queries on talk without personalization would be a great help in getting to where we both want to be-- formulating the Move request. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

1. You personalized the response by saying "You have advocated vociferously elsewhere that we should never consider a source reliable if it reposts, aggregates or links to non-reliable sources ... How is it OK to use content sourced to the New York Post to cite BLP content? This was an attempt to prove a point about the recent reliable source noticeboard discussions regarding La Patilla. Vox and La Patilla are very different so yes, it was a false equivalency. And yes, context matters when it comes to sources.
2. It really is splitting hairs. They are arguing that since a source doesn't explicitly say that there was a "gunfight" or such, it doesn't support describing the event as an "attack", which is original research. Along with placing in the introduction the "massacre" information, such edits are bordering the opposition's conspiracy theory POV that the event was a false flag operation.
3. I would provide an answer and it was never good enough. That is why I raised the concern about "possible badgering and sealioning behavior" so that you would recognize that the constant demands regarding questions was becoming overwhelming. But you continued with the Vox questioning instead (see #1).
4. It's because we have been splitting hairs in some cases (focusing on which guidelines to ignore, how to define an attack, etc.) while ignoring the bigger questions (is "coup attempt" description applicable per WP:NPOV). You yourself said that WP:NPOV is more important than any guidelines and that is why a discussion was opened on the NPOV noticeboard about whether or not the use of "coup attempt" would be appropriate for use. No matter how the article is titled, it may still be defined as a "coup attempt" in the introduction if there is an agreement on its validity.

You know that I have been receptive to your recommendations ("I also appreciate that you have lightened up on the alphabet soup") and I have slowed down my editing processes quite a bit so we don't miss anything (again, your recommendation). But with your last points, you seem to want more prompt editing, especially when it comes to answering your questions and for your own benefit when you want things done? I have the liberty of answering your questions when I want to. Maybe I could acknowledge your question in discussions, but again, not a requirement on my part.

Overall, we have a lot of similarities while editing; we both want answers and results. How we achieve this may be different for us personally, though. Thank you for reaching out to me and I'll continue to be as receptive as possible. WMrapids (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

First, this is a much welcome improvement, which I appreciate. You stated where you stand on the issue without repetitive bludgeoning, lecturing, or personalization. Thank you for listening.

1. That was my third attempt to get you to respond; can you see that the discussion would have/could have/might have gone differently if you had answered the first time and I hadn't needed to press? I admit to still not being clear where you stand, and a more comprehensive answer would be to analyze the Vox source to make sure that no NYPost content is given UNDUE weight in the article; I don't know who added the source, or who has used it (I wouldn't), but that should be done at minimum, and I hope not to have to be the one to do it (I'm busy enough so far just cleaning up citations and checking sources).
2. I agree with NoonIcarus on talk that you may be mixing up two issues, but that can be resolved on talk; we'll make better progress if you work on keeping WP:AGF intact and avoiding personalization. (See my first line in this post at how you've better done that now.) Clarifying questions always help.
3. I continued because you didn't answer; I think you now may understand how a quote request works and hope work will be easier going forward. If someone doesn't have access to a book or paywalled source, you should just supply the necessary info from the source to back the content. That matter is still jumbled, but we can work that out on article talk.
4. The NPOV issue of "coup" will be decided by the community when we get the RM ready, and I'll be content with whatever uninvolved participants decide. My point with this post is that we'll get there much more quickly via collaboration and straightforward answers to good faith queries.
   Guideline is very different from policy; WP:CODENAME is often overlooked; WP:RS is not often ignored. One possibility is that the RFC/RM decides that the codename is the best or only option here, and such a possibility is mentioned in that guideline, but I'd be surprised to see anyone arguing against the appropriate use of the RS guideline. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

But ... in the 16:04 diff above you were doing fine, and then at 16:14 you reverted to accusations of OR and an acronym-laded policy lecture. Do you see the concern? What does your post do to advance discussion? If you'd work on your AGFometer, you might realize that I'm not posting that info as an intent to use it for synth, rather to inform others about why we might not have an update yet (basically, the ICC never moves quickly, and then chavismo stonewalled the issue for several years on top of that, but I'm not putting that in the article, and not advocating we add content without more sources). So now, I've not done a single bit of source work towards the RM in all my editing time this morning, rather tried to get the personalization on talk to stop; this is keeping us from moving forward as quickly as we'd both like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that the operation is not an "attack" based on a user's interpretation of a source (saying that "gunfight", etc. is not present in a source) is original research, plain and simple. I'm not saying that you are attempting WP:SYNTH, just that it could go that direction with future editing and we should avoid that. You should focus on good faith too as you are now writing a novel on my talk page about my editing. I've said what needed to be said. Can we please move forward with the article now? WMrapids (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Most of my day is gone now, so I don't anticipate making any progress for the day on the needed work with sources; perhaps tomorrow will be a new day for trudging forward with the hard work productively!

And the "novel" belongs on your talk page, so issues don't have to continue spilling over to article talk :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Casting aspersions in edit summaries

WMrapids, please catch up on the talk page before editing, and avoid casting aspersions on other editors in general, but in particular in edit summaries. You stated in edit summary that NoonIcarus ... arbitrarily removed this information, when in fact, there is a talk page discussion supporting reducing the parameters in the infobox. I understand you've been away from the article for several days, but you should catch up on talk before editing, and you should never cast aspersions in edit summary, partly, but not only because now you can't go back and strike your error. You can apologize, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, please avoid personalizing edit summaries; you can't then go back and strike your misunderstanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Not casting aspersions as they personally made a bold edit against a consensus discussion they were previously involved with. Please stop with these accusations. WMrapids (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, they removed information and it was to link to the previous edit. WMrapids (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not quite the case. You are casting aspersions, and you've already been warned about that issue at ANI. Anyway, while I'm here, would you mind not adding unnecessary quote marks to citations that don't need them?[1] See WP:REFNAME; the quote marks aren't needed, and they only much up the text in edit mode and make for much harder checking and editing for others. And taking away spaces that are useful for those with poor eyesight, while adding spaces where they aren't needed ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

ALso, in the edit I just diffed above, you removed cited content that is used in the lead, leaving a breach in WP:LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Usually with visual editing, the sources self-correct. Is there a reason why this is not the case in this instance? WMrapids (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It did it automatically upon removal. Not my intention. WMrapids (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, if the visual editor is doing that all by itself, that really stinks (not the least because it obscures the rest of your edit); please pardon my intrusion for asking you not to do it, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

RFCs

Hi WMrapids. I've closed you most recent RFC at WP:RSN, it's not the way to get the answers to the questions you asked. If you want clarification of the close of an RFC such as the original La Patilla, your first step should be to ask the closer. If you don't think their answer is satisfactory you can ask for the close to be reviewed at WP:AN.
RFCs are meant to be the last step in a process, not something you should rush into. I suggest you try discussion with other editors, and if you can't come to a consensus follow the advice at WP:DISPUTE. Also before you create any more RFC I strongly suggest you read WP:RFCBEFORE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Thanks for the information and I'll try my best to apply it as needed. I genuinely am trying to avoid disputes and appreciate you taking the time to explain things to me (again). As I've said before, I really don't want to be involved in controversial topics, but I've seen a need in some areas. If you ever feel frustrated with explaining things to other editors (I this hope isn't the case with me), please remember that it's users like you who help guide others in the right direction, which is something vital for the project. I'll try to be careful with potential RfCs in the future and try other dispute resolution processes first. WMrapids (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids, after Siroxo closed the first RFC, and ActivelyDisinterested closed the second RFC, you queried Siroxo about contentious topics, and Siroxo clarified. There are no general sanctions on Venezuelan topics; BLPs are a contentious topic, Venezuela is not. Telesur is not a BLP or a contentious topic. And yet, you are doing this. Which part of the summary at WP:RSP of the close of La Patilla do you think supports your edit warring at Telesur? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The point where it says "be extremely cautious in referencing coverage of politics". Since La Patilla is a direct political opponent to those operating Telesur, it would be undue to have its coverage spread throughout the article of its opponent. I'll try to find better sources than La Patilla as I don't want to just gut the article. WMrapids (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're stretching the conclusions of the close, but more importantly, I see no edits on the talk page regarding the edit warring; please engage talk more to avoid multiple reverts requiring others to inquire about your logic. What I see is the removal of text whose point will be easily cited, as its the very reason Telesur is deprecated. They lie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not they lie, are blatant propaganda, etc. does not mean that POV and undue content should be placed in the article. WMrapids (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Juan Guaidó, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Signers of the Madrid Charter has been nominated for deletion

Category:Signers of the Madrid Charter has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

G11 on Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy

Hello WMrapids -- I've declined this speedy deletion request as G11 is meant for articles that are irredeemable promotion, with no factual content or reliable sources. Generally, if you feel the need to explain why something should be deleted, speedy is not the appropriate route. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: Thank you for the explanation. Would you recommend a nomination for deletion instead? WMrapids (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Your rationale "Article promoting the legitimization of the disputed presidency of Juan Guaidó. Topic is not notable, only covered by local sources and has no Spanish-language equivalent on Wikipedia, suggesting that this article is not relevant in the Spanish-speaking sphere and is solely promotional in nature. Article has not been edited since year of its creation." would be best explored at Articles for Deletion; then other editors with experience in the area (which I lack) would have a chance to respond. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Copyright and copying within

Copying within without attribution is a copyright violation; basically, you've taken a lot of content written by me and removed my attribution to it at List of individuals and entities sanctioned during the Venezuelan crisis, which is a big problem because you've been told about this before. I don't have time to fix this today. Please read WP:CWW, add the dummy edit summaries, add the {{Copied}} template with the diffs to the talk page, and please do not do that again. Diannaa pointed this out to you in April 2023 and made a second request in August 2023, and I have a distinct memory of having to cleanup copying within on another article for you that I don't have time to look for right now. You also left no mention on the article you moved content from. All in all, that was a very sloppy move, without WikiProject templates, recovering sources, and the like, creating a lot of work for other editors, with no good reason for the move that I can discern. PLEASE discuss edits such as this before you make them, as there are plenty of editors who know how to correctly move content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)