User talk:Klortho

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

ANI case[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk pages[edit]

Users are welcome to change their use talk pages as they like. When removing things that aren't insulting or anything, that is an indication of bad faith, but that's their problem. Refusing to use a users username, no matter how self-aggrandizing, is rude. You should stop that. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I disagree with you about refusing to use his username. I was surprised to learn that it's not against the rules to delete another's comments on user talk pages. But I think FxC has a nasty habit of using his mastery of WP policies to dominate discussions and bludgeon his opponents, as opposed to having a civil discussion based on common sense and sound reasoning. Klortho (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
You are both WP:BATTLE-prone, and I fall into that as well sometimes. That's bad. If you are unable to even type out his name, you should probably not interact with him at all. Just don't respond. Mastery of policy can indeed be used to disrupt, the only way to fix that is to read up on those processes as they happen. It's a lot of work, but worth it. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again. It's good advice. Klortho (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

March events and meetups in DC[edit]

Greetings from Wikimedia DC!

Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:

Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.

The Signpost: 02 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 14 April 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 05 June 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016[edit]

BAMN[edit]

Hi, I would appreciate it if you could add your input on this issue: Talk:2016_Sacramento_riot#BAMN_on_FBI_terror_list. Thanks! --Eightofnine (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your input. I appreciate it. --Eightofnine (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016[edit]

Question on BLM talk page[edit]

Klortho, I am still somewhat unclear on what, precisely, you're arguing here. I know you have said that there is a double standard, but I'm not clear on whether you're pointing to those because you think they should be removed, or simply to make a point about "double standards". Which of these are you arguing?

  1. You don't actually think there are any problems with those items, but you think editors are biased because those are not any less verifiable than the claims about the DePaul protests.
  2. You do think there are problem with those items AND with the DePaul protests.
  3. You think there is a problem with those other cases, but you think the coverage of the DePaul protest is fine.

Please clarify. Nblund (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll respond on the talk page. Klortho (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

POV Tag[edit]

Okay, since you haven't responded, I addressed the specific issues you mentioned in talk with re-wording and additional sources, and removed the POV tag again. If you want to replace it, you need to point to some aspect of the article content that is actually biased. Cleanup tags are meant to signify an issue that can be addressed with article content, not your beliefs about other editors. NPOV does not apply to talk page proposals, and there is no such thing as "prima facie" evidence of bias. If you are actually fine with the article in its current state, then you absolutely shouldn't be adding cleanup templates to it.

I want to improve the article, I didn't find (and still haven't found) verification for the claim related to DePaul. Several other editors also recognized the exact same issue I did. It's counterproductive and, frankly, just obnoxious, to make accusations of editorial bias simply because you disagree with someone about content. Going forward: just stick to discussing article content and keep your views about other editors to yourself unless you have some kind of meaningful evidence of impropriety. I think several of your comments have already been WP:UNCIVIL, but I am still willing to work with you if you show a little more tact. Nblund (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

"there is no such thing as "prima facie" evidence of bias" -- citation needed. I take issue with every point you raised above, especially with regards to my being uncivil. From what I've seen, you've steamrolled every discussion that you've been involved in, repeating the same assertions over and over, wearing everyone else down through attrition, and utterly deaf to valid points that counter your arguments. Klortho (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]

NPOV[edit]

We the editors will make changes to pages. You are welcome to help move the discussion but endless threats and circular "discussions" are unhelpful. You seem to have a narrow view but I will try to work with your ideas. It's not personal and therefore I expect the same from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talkcontribs) 21:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, okay, I will try to be as responsive as I can. I have always said that I think the page could use improvements. And, yes, I know that my viewpoint is a minority one among the editors who have poked their heads up so far. And I'm, of course, familiar with "verifiability, not truth", but nevertheless, I would repeat the same question I asked you before, just on a personal level: Why is it so important to you to besmirch this Nobel Prize winner's reputation? Regardless of what you consider his "thought-crime", he made fantastic contributions to science. And, I think he's 89 years old now, and has paid a great price already. Frankly, even if I agreed with you on the adjective, I can't even see that insisting on adding it makes this a better encyclopedia. Klortho (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016[edit]

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate[edit]

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. We welcome you to have a look. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reach@wikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

-from Diptanshu.D (talk · contribs · count) and others of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

DiptanshuTalk 10:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]