User talk:GabrielF/Archives/2015/March
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
@GabrielF:: I wrote the article according to rules but the matter had a lot of quotations and I tried that mentioned them in ". You must give a tag on the top of article until fix it. Please restore it until improved the article.AliAkar (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- @AliAkar: The article contained numerous instances of copying of sentences and phrases from sources without attribution. See WP:COPYVIO. There were also a number of non-neutral statements. See WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. There were statements which contradicted the cited source and statements that were inconsistent with other parts of the article. Given all of this, I felt that replacing the article with a redirect was the correct approach. These fundamental problems must be fixed before anyone can restore the article. GabrielF (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Moms Demand Action Edit
How is Shannon Watts' own Twitter feed and a direct link to her own Tweet calling every firearm capable of firing one shot every six seconds an assault weapon not a reliable source for Moms Demand Action?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.190.21 (talk • contribs)
- @24.45.190.21: She made a statement about the technical capacity of firearms. You used that statement to conclude that she "advocates banning every firearm made after the mid 1800's". She never directly said that she advocates banning such weapons. That leap is original research and it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.GabrielF (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Moms Demand Action Edit
So now I provided citations to Moms Demand Action stating they wished to ban assault weapons and cited Shannon Watts, the head of Moms Demand Action defining an assault weapon as one which can fire 10 rounds in one minute (one every six seconds) and that gets taken down.
There was no extrapolation and the edit was 100% factual and accurate with links to official Moms Demand Action pages and Ms. Watts' actual Twitter feed.
Can you explain why you are so insistent in taking down factual edits regarding this organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.190.21 (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- This does not meet our standards. A tweet from the founder of an organization is a primary source. Primary sources need to be used carefully and should not be interpreted or synthesized. You are making an implicit claim that because the founder of the group wrote this tweet, the organization seeks to ban guns that fire more than 10 rounds per minute. Without a reliable secondary source that makes this claim, this is synthesis. And it's a very good example of why we don't allow this type of synthesis, because, in fact, other sources say that the group does not consider the assault weapons ban a legislative priority (and as you know, the assault weapons ban refers to a much more limited class of weapons than those that can fire more than 10 rounds per minute):
| “ | But while polls suggest a majority of Americans still support an assault weapons ban, it is no longer one of Watts' top priorities.
"We've very much changed our strategy to focus on public safety measures that will save the most lives," she told ProPublica. It's not just that the ban proved to be what Watts calls a "nonstarter" politically, gaining fewer votes in the Senate post-Sandy Hook than background check legislation. It was also that as Watts spoke to experts and learned more about gun violence in the United States, she realized that pushing for a ban isn't the best way to prevent gun deaths. ... While many gun control groups still officially support the assault weapons ban 2014 "we haven't abandoned the issue," as Watts said 2014 they're no longer actively fighting for it.[1] |
” |
GabrielF (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Evgeny Buryakov
If, as you say, there is a vast amount of news coverage that brings the article past WP:N, you should add a source - in fact, be creating new articles with multiple sources from the get-go - since that's what the notability policy usually requires. Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Ironholds: given that the article is one sentence long, and that the citation is to a front page article in The New York Times, you can give me a break. GabrielF (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reliability doesn't buffer overflow into multiple fields, unfortunately; multiple sources is still multiple sources. And unless you're a lot more grateful than your message suggests, please don't use the "Thanks" tool in an attempt to goad users. Ironholds (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Ironholds: First, I hit the thanks button by mistake because I was on my phone and the button is positioned in such a way that it's easy to tap accidentally. Secondly, I'd like to give you the following advice, and I hope that you'll take it in the spirit that it is intended. In a previous career I worked for non-profit organizations, and I interacted with volunteers. For instance, I ran volunteer events. When one works for a non-profit organization, regardless of whether one is on the clock, it is essential to treat volunteer contributions with respect. To do otherwise is to make volunteers feel that their efforts are not appreciated, in which case they'll spend their time elsewhere. In a situation in which a volunteer is making a good-faith attempt to do something productive, but you feel that the volunteer needs to do it a little differently, I would recommend approaching the situation by demonstrating that you appreciate the effort but that you have a suggestion for improvement. To publicly accuse a volunteer of trying to "goad" you would be considered completely unacceptable in any organization that I've worked with. In addition, it should be on you to make the minimal effort required to verify that a volunteer's claim is correct before you speak with them (in this case you could have done a google search in about a second). To express doubt as to the truthfulness of a volunteer's claim without having checked it (which comes across as accusing the person of dishonesty) would also be considered unprofessional in any organization I've worked with. Maybe you don't see yourself as a volunteer coordinator, but when you work for an organization and you're very public about your role with the organization, then your behavior reflects on the organization and it behooves you to hold yourself to a different standard of conduct than people who are on the outside. I'm not interested in having a fight with you, I probably should have just ignored your initial comment. However, I hope that you'll take a moment to consider how your comments come across to people who are donating their time to help your organization.GabrielF (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure what spirit your commentary is intended in, but it's coming off as...wanting to, I guess, have your cake and eat it. To state that you consider my behaviour unprofessional and unacceptable for my employment but are "not interested in having a fight" - to say that I am not someone donating their time to help the movement, well...see the previous sentence. I agree, I should have extended more good faith, and I apologise for not doing so; consider it the legacy of spending rather an extended period of time being trolled via the thanks button and told I'm not a "real user" precisely because of my employer. Ironholds (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Ironholds: First, I hit the thanks button by mistake because I was on my phone and the button is positioned in such a way that it's easy to tap accidentally. Secondly, I'd like to give you the following advice, and I hope that you'll take it in the spirit that it is intended. In a previous career I worked for non-profit organizations, and I interacted with volunteers. For instance, I ran volunteer events. When one works for a non-profit organization, regardless of whether one is on the clock, it is essential to treat volunteer contributions with respect. To do otherwise is to make volunteers feel that their efforts are not appreciated, in which case they'll spend their time elsewhere. In a situation in which a volunteer is making a good-faith attempt to do something productive, but you feel that the volunteer needs to do it a little differently, I would recommend approaching the situation by demonstrating that you appreciate the effort but that you have a suggestion for improvement. To publicly accuse a volunteer of trying to "goad" you would be considered completely unacceptable in any organization that I've worked with. In addition, it should be on you to make the minimal effort required to verify that a volunteer's claim is correct before you speak with them (in this case you could have done a google search in about a second). To express doubt as to the truthfulness of a volunteer's claim without having checked it (which comes across as accusing the person of dishonesty) would also be considered unprofessional in any organization I've worked with. Maybe you don't see yourself as a volunteer coordinator, but when you work for an organization and you're very public about your role with the organization, then your behavior reflects on the organization and it behooves you to hold yourself to a different standard of conduct than people who are on the outside. I'm not interested in having a fight with you, I probably should have just ignored your initial comment. However, I hope that you'll take a moment to consider how your comments come across to people who are donating their time to help your organization.GabrielF (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reliability doesn't buffer overflow into multiple fields, unfortunately; multiple sources is still multiple sources. And unless you're a lot more grateful than your message suggests, please don't use the "Thanks" tool in an attempt to goad users. Ironholds (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Chris Hughes and Marty Peretz
hello, i added new information about TNR's firings and restructuting. The facts are objective in every way. Added to the entry was information abut the number of people who resigned and descriptions of their positions. These are just facts and little more. The articles quoted were from the Washington Post and New York Times and New Yorker. In some, the author expressed their opinion, but the fact that there was such expressions of opinion it seems is objective fact. Also added were long quotations from Chris Hughes countering those comments. This seems to be well within Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuno2223 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Zuno2223: Please address the concerns that I raised at Talk:Chris Hughes. Your presentation of quotes from Hughes, for instance, describing Hughes as making a "seemingly bitter parting shot", and as offering "qualified contrition" clearly fail to meet WP:NOR and WP:BLP. With respect to Marty Peretz, criticism of a living person requires an explicit citation. GabrielF (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Garbriel F: Would you be satisfied if I took out the comments about the "seemingly bitter shot" and "qualified contrition" but used the same information. I know understand that two phrases were editoralizing. I am new to Wikipedia and now better understand the standards here. I tried to go back and say instead--- Hughes wrote of his former employees..... to make it more objective. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuno2223 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)