User talk:Kbog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I thought this AfD was a particularly good idea. You should be commended for raising it and for your editing while it was underway. A good result in the end, so well done! Stalwart111 07:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Aww, thanks bro. Kbog (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Samuel H. Cook[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Samuel H. Cook requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kbog[edit]

I just noticed that you are trying to tidy-up Timeline of nonprofit evaluation. You probably know what I think-(needs to go), but I am sad to see you editing to help these articles when their status is in jeopardy. I don't think that one can be helped. But-maybe if you wait and it becomes an AFD if you still want to try and save it, the very first thing that needs to be done there is a title change or merge. Because what the title says is not the content. That's why I gave up and didn't even try to fix it, because it looks like it needs to just be gone.TeeVeeed (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think one of the main purposes of the deletion process is to provide a motivation to make articles better and it is the best time to do editing. I don't see what the problem with the title is. How about merging the content with charity evaluator into an article about charity evaluation? K.Bog 01:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Well I see your point about trying to save content. That is interesting that Charity Evaluation is a RL! I have to rest my eyes for awhile here but maybe backtrack to see if Charity Evaluation would duplicate something else or not? If not, it probably should be an article I agree there. Or--getting back to my point about title. Charity Evaluation Organisations would be better I think since the title bugged me because I think that you could find the ambiguous "charity evaluation/nonprofit evaluation" going back to the stone age or ??? at least to Biblical times forward. That's another problem that I have with using Singer and Singer's philosophy so extensively,(and spammingly imo)----if we are using Springer's jargon and adopted terms for things that mean one thing to ordinary readers, and the EA advocates are using EA terms and jargon as defined by Singer, why shouldn't MOST of that stuff be on Springer's page? I guess you will tell me that EA is bigger than that, but it certainly doesn't require so many different articles using these alternate jingoistic definitions of terms that just make things upsetting and confusing for people. EA really is not that well-known and widespread that many people such as myself would just accept certain well established words and terms being reused in the service of Singer's philosophy and EA. Maybe the terms, if used should be italicized or something? I'm not really sure-just throwing that out there. Like even Effective Altruisim should both word be capitalised? I don't know I could be wrong about that but basically I don't like seeing this philosophy that someone invented out of perfectly good words being used in unfamiliar ways with the assumption that we and our readers just automatically accept this philosophy as completely legitimate. And we most certainly cannot promote it in the voice of Wikipedia-so those are some of my serious concerns with the topics. I really think that the entire cataloge of EA topics as far as Wikipedia is concerned needs to be whittled-down to the fewest possible number of articles.TeeVeeed (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I think if we could find good information on charity evaluation going back to early human history then it would be worth including. And maybe have some content on all kinds of charity evaluation, not just that which is done by organizations. A lot of this isn't unique to Singer's philosophy, and I don't think the terms are at odds with common definitions. However I will keep an eye out for this kind of problem. Also I'm pretty sure that effective altruism isn't capitalized in standard use, nor is it usually capitalized in Wikipedia articles... but that's also another issue to perhaps be discussed and finalized some other time. I don't have time to figure out all of this at once. The claims and ideas in effective altruism are perfectly unique, I don't think it has been criticized for being trivial or based on wordplay. If you could point out specific examples where this is a problem then I could take a closer look. Hopefully we can find enough content on charity evaluation that the article won't entirely consist of effective altruist ideas. K.Bog 15:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Well the TL itself is still basically nonsensical and confusing in my opinion. Darwinism and empirical or scientific means of measuring charities just doesn't seem like the kick-off point in non-profit evaluations. Maybe if the TL were named "predecessor of the philosophy known as Effective Altruism" since the starting point could be right for that? But even then, you already know how I feel about the TL. And it in my mind is kind of like creating a timeline to feature Wolf Cola, if Wolf Cola were a real brand with the "timeline of beverages"--just to make Wolf Cola look more important. And I'm not really thrilled with the way that EA has been presented on the project, but I understand that it probably is a notable topic in itself---it (EA) just needs to be untangled a bit from some of the articles. I know that you are working to improve the topic, so I hope this helps a little? I think if you are trying to squeeze current non-profit evaluators into a group or topic of some sort, it could just end up looking like an advertisement for any and all .orgs mentioned, since "judging non-profits in a scientific way" is pretty well covered already in the EA and Singer topics--but there may be another angle that I'm not seeing.TeeVeeed (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
There is lots of history of nonprofit evaluation which is prior to effective altruism, notable, and philosophically separated from it. Some of it, especially very old stories, may not be included in the article, but that's fine - we'll just have to find reliable sources and add it in. Overall, I'm not really sure what you're proposing. K.Bog 09:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


Information icon Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Noted, and not what I'm doing. Cheers. K.Bog 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles not proxies for the websites of organizations covered by articles. This article and other EA articles have been hijacked, and turned into proxies. Please actually read WP:SOAPBOX which discusses this. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Read it, noted, and see nothing which indicates that I've been soapboxing. The articles seem fine to me. Why don't you explain what the issues and try to solve them properly before starting edit wars? K.Bog 00:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Well that's true. The policy wouldn't talk about you specifically. It does discuss how organizations and their fans tend to want to turn WP articles into proxies for the organization's website. Jytdog (talk) 00:49,r 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Curious how you are resorting to insults instead of discussing the important issues. Why don't you explain what the issues with the article are and try to solve them properly before starting edit wars? K.Bog 00:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Again that this is not obvious to you, shows how POV you are. The article is bloated with SPS. In-bubble bloggy garbage. I deal with this kind of thing across WP. The creationists do it, the scientologists do it, the acupuncturists try to do it, the video game fans do it, etc. All of that is in-bubble fancruft. WP is a scholarly project built with high quality sources. Jytdog (talk)
I'm not used to self published sources being hated this much at all. This is a new witch hunt which I haven't encountered in all my edits on various topics over many years on this site. Funny that I'm being accused of POV pushing because of this. I spend most of my time on articles, not meta space, so forgive me for not being in tune with the latest trends. K.Bog 01:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
You also should have seen the article before I started working on it. If you had then you would consider me an ally, not an opponent. The history of edits I made to the article prior to your arrival proves that I'm not POV pushing. K.Bog 01:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
You would be unhappy if you went to an article about say Scientology (or an article about any other group) and found it almost completely sourced to their website, right? C'mon. You would say to yourself, "Geez this article was completely hijacked." That isn't what we want to offer people, nor how we want people to react when they read a WP article. When that happens, we lose the public trust.
The mission of WP is to provide the public with crowdsourced encyclopedia articles that reflect accepted knowledge. There is a boatload of things that we are not, per WP:NOT. "NOT" exists because so many people mistake WP for something else. The only way this place works, is if we all reach for high quality, independent, secondary sources, and summarize them neutrally. That is the method that allows us to even get close to NPOV articles.
I talk about this on my user page at User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources. I am going back to work on the article now. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
If the sources are being used for information about the source itself, then that's fine. Citing the scientologist church's website as a source for what the scientologist church believes and does is an appropriate use of primary sources, in my opinion. Ideally, of course you should include both primary and secondary sources. But your position in practice seems to be that any material with a primary source is worse than no material at all. I disagree strongly with that. K.Bog 01:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no way, that an article sourced almost entirely from an organization's website can be NPOV. There is no way. The less that kind of stuff is used, the better. Jytdog (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Half the citations were from the organization's website, I agree that is too much, but not severe. K.Bog 05:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Giving What We Can shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You are edit warring. Follow BRD. Seriously. K.Bog 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what you are doing. You are heading directly for a topic ban as a WP:SPA account that advocates for one thing, and you are editing warrring to keep sourcing that violates core policies. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Uh, I'm reverting your changes that you're making without discussing on talk first. Lots of material can be sourced either appropriately from primary sources or from 3rd party sources. If you think this is an SPA then you haven't look far back enough into my history. I'm not going to be banned, because this is in accordance with WP:BRD and you are engaging in edit warring. Why don't you hold on, see what material can be sourced properly, and then see what you can delete? K.Bog 00:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
You will be topic banned for long term POV pushing, and your efforts to fight the cleanup of this article will be exhibit 1. It is a spamfest nightmare abuse of WP. It is indefensible content wise. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Here is a proposal. Let me finish cleaning it up, and then we can have an RfC and have the community choose between the fetid piece of shit that existed before I started working and the cleaned up version. When I am done I will revert back to the shitfest and then open an RfC. How is that? Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think your threats are very scary. If you want to drastically change an article without discussing on talk first then it's entirely normal to revert edits. Go ahead and look through my actual edit history to see if I'm "POV pushing" - most of my edits have been improvements. I trust the Wikipedia community to be more perceptive than you are.K.Bog 00:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Ooh, insults. No, I don't like that proposal. The community can choose between whatever 'improvements' you're making, and the improvements which I'm making, which I will make regardless of whether they are preceded by your edits and deletions. K.Bog 00:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
LOok, I put the tag on the article that it is under construction. Your jumping in after I did that, is just tacky. Let me clean it up, then I will self-revert. Then you can do you do your thing. After you are ready, we will have the RfC. OK? Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I did not see the tag, since I went straight to edit history. I don't think this is the right way to edit Wikipedia articles, it's not a contest of who can make the better version. The right approach is to identify specific issues and then fix them. If there is no way to fix or properly source a particular piece of material, then you can delete it. The way you're trying to do this is garbage. K.Bog 01:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Also it seems that you are quite a bit more ideologically motivated than any editor I've come across recently: ([1]) Soapboxing is still soapboxing, whether it's positive or negative. K.Bog 01:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I changed the tag to template:in use to make it more clear. The only ideology i have is Wikipedian. I work to keep articles NPOV and have to deal with all kinds of fans. The EA people are some of the worst i that i encounter. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
If this is how you treat every EA article then that's not a surprise. K.Bog 01:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Almost every EA article has been hijacked by EA advocates. This happens to sets of articles in WP where there is an online community of advocates. They come here and take over articles. It is one of the vulnerabilities of WP. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
And now apparently it's going to be taken over by folks from the COI noticeboard who got angry because of advocates. Round and round we go. K.Bog 01:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm less experienced than either of you on WP, but arrived at this discussion because I was concerned that Jytdog was ideologically editing against effective altruism content across multiple articles. I think Jytdog has good intentions, but worry he's being more deletionist than he would be in other areas that didn't have the same history, mess, advocacy, and other annoying features that WP's effective altruism-related content has. (Also, I'm sorry if this comment is inappropriate. I didn't know a better place to put it.) Utsill (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, that's exactly what I thought. And there's no good way to stop it since as long as he has friends on ANI and the edits are technically allowable under some wikipolicy then no one will take action. The only thing to do is to go through these articles and spam them with 3rd party refs. Unfortunately, whoever wrote them in the first place wasn't aware of how people treat primary sourced material (and I wasn't either, until very recently). K.Bog 01:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • as promised, after I got the article to a decent state here, i reverted all my changes and restored the shitpile. It is all yours. Let me know when you are ready for the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Third time you've used that word to describe an article that I worked on. I don't know what to say except just drop it. K.Bog 04:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Did you see what happened to the GiveWell article? I turned a shitpile into a WP article there, as i did here. You really need to stop citing in-bubble EA-universe blogs and the like. If you want to be effective in WP and not waste your own time creating shit that other people will have to spend yet more time cleaning up, use high quality secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you've even seen what I've been doing. How many instances can you find where I added a new self-published source or blog to an EA-related article? K.Bog 04:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
You reverted my first set of changes to the GWWC article. In doing so, you owned the sources you restored. You just did that. And you just said that you have worked hard on both of the articles I have now worked over, so apparently you were just fine with the horrible sourcing there..
I am not going to go working through your edit history yet, but I am getting close to doing that to prepare a case. But not yet. In any case, I am done here. Please make your changes to the GWWC article and let me know when you are done. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, if you include that sort of thing, sure. I was not finished with the article and would have preferred to improve on existing material than start over. But when I'm not busy putting out fires like this, my real contributions are all supported by reliable published sources. Try not to let your big tarry brush touch anything on your way out. K.Bog 04:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick note[edit]

I have been pretty harsh here. I recognize that.

What I care about is the integrity of WP.

People argue whether corporate-driven advocacy editors (typically commercial spammers writing about some company or video game or whatever) or advocates (fans of vegetarianism, or gun control, or whatever) harm Wikipedia more.

They both harm WP a lot.

Generally I keep a pretty cool head when dealing with this stuff in WP.

But I find the hijacking of WP pages by EA advocates to be particularly hard to stomach. EA is supposedly all about making the world a better place... about giving.

But EA advocates have hijacked a bunch of WP pages (I won't call them articles) and used them to promote their cause - it is as blatant and ugly as some drug rep coming here to write about how great their drug is or some politician deleting scandal about themselves.

It is exactly the same kind of abuse of WP.

But I have been too harsh when discussing the bad content, and I am sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that. But I think you don't realize that people who aren't experienced with particular areas of Wikipedia, even if they've been on the site for a long time, don't have the same familiarity or understanding of WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:UNDUE that you do. I don't think it's abuse. K.Bog 05:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Unintentional abuse is still abuse. But I should be kinder. And i appreciate you hearing me. :) Jytdog (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


How do you know this?

If you have some connection with this group, please disclose it per the WP:COI guideline. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I just looked on his Wiki page K.Bog 19:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't say that his story wasn't interesting enough to be covered because he was a PhD student at William MacAskill .... I guess you can figure out that he was a PhD student at the time of the founding from that page, but that's all. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Kbog can you please disclose any association with EA? Thinking a TBAN could be a good idea maybe?TeeVeeed (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
No, Teeveed, I think Kbog is getting it and is going to be part of the solution here. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I just thought it odd that the question was not answered. But I guess it is up to Kbog.TeeVeeed (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
MacAskill is already known for being pretty young ([2]), so when Jytdog was puzzled over his absence in the GWWC stories my first thought was to check if he had even graduated at the time, and then I inferred that that was probably the reason he wasn't mentioned. The only way I could have really known about the history of GWWC's media coverage would be actually being with them at the time, which I couldn't have been given that I'm not British. I have no COI with the organization. K.Bog 23:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 :) Thanks. Please avoid making definitive claims like that in the future when you are guessing, especially about living people. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Slate Star Codex[edit]

As you have edited the Slate Star Codex article, I thought you might be interested to know that it has been nominated for deletion. I was notified by the nominator, but it doesn't look like you were, so I am rectifying that situation by leaving this comment. Please note that deletion discussions are not votes, and closing administrators might pay greater attention to comments referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines than to those that don't, or those that simply restate points already made. It's also worth noting that deletion discussions are said to typically remain open for at least 7 days, except in cases where credible grounds for speedy deletion are identified.--greenrd (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I saw the original deletion flag, but felt unsure for a while. Just added a statement. K.Bog 20:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


Being bold is fine, when there is no opposition, or when you can reasonably expect your edits will not be controversial.

But we are in the middle of a merge discussion in which your merge proposal is being opposed, and in which there is no consensus as of yet. In the midst of that, you unilaterally merge most of the article.

That's not appropriate behavior.

I've reverted the merge. We need to resume the discussion to collaborate on a solution. (Propose some solutions, further discuss, until a consensus is reached). I'll see you there. The Transhumanist 20:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You did not, and still have not, responded to my last comments and proposal on the talk page, where the majority of participants supported a merge. And the changes I made, rather than being a complete merge as originally proposed, were a simple move of content to their appropriate pages. It's absolutely silly to split content between different articles, as you have done. K.Bog 21:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)