User talk:Rsjaffe/Archives/2022/February

Tell el-Hammam

"This group claims that Tell el-Hammam was destroyed cataclysmically by an air burst."

Hi. I am 100% sure Deg777 stands for [redacted]. This doesn't change anything objectively, but it did remind me of the fact that it's not just armchair "experts" like poor ole' me editing here, but also people who do a lot of actual exploration, be it for the better or the worse of our knowledge (archaeology is destruction, it's only positive if it leads to better knowledge and so forth, all the known fundamental maxims). He's pointing out the fact that it's not "this team", i.e. those excavating Tell el-Hammam on behalf of Trinity & Veritas, but a wide range of academics who've signed the "Tunguska" article. Out of the 21, there are 2 members of that bizarre "Comet Research Group", Timothy Witwer and Phillip J. Silvia, but the rest are a huge collection of specialists from Alaska Fairbanks U to UCLA Santa Barbara, East & West Coast, Midwest, and everywhere in between, including one from Los Alamos. Not a single Trinity or Veritas cadre. I can imagine that many have just done their part in studying & analysing in their university labs this or that category of material findings (ceramics, metal, glass, organic materials, etc.) and did little else, leaving it mainly to a coordinating author to draw the conclusions and come up with the airburst theory - although they did all sign on the final paper. I suggest that the wording should be modified to, say,

"A group of researchers published a paper claiming that Tell el-Hammam was destroyed cataclysmically by an air burst."

That would reflect the truth accurately and refrain from any POV.

Unless you do have the patience to read the whole paper and then go through the CVs of all the 19 non-CRG-affiliated contributors and find out

• a- what they wrote in the paper, and
• b- how they are connected to the "Trinity, Veritas & Co." project, or in wider terms, to the Creationist camp in general.

But I doubt you're ready to do all that. There's enough in this Wiki article to make any reader become weary of believing everything claimed by X or Y; making unsupported counter-claims is not permissible - and not needed either. Would you agree? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Agree with the change.

And I had also positively identified that person. Unfortunately, that still leaves us with the rest of the article being a mess, as that user and the others associated with the dig started their “science” with the fixed conclusion that what is found must agree with the Bible. I am not an archaeologist, but have a science background and experience looking at proper conduct of research. I felt comfortable writing about the debate regarding the air burst article, but can’t really fix the issue with dates and sifting through their assertions to find those that are objectively reasonable. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

For example, is Tell el-Hammam Livias? They claim that here and in the Livias article. They are the only group making that claim but it dominates the Livias article. Perhaps they’re right. The article claiming the tell is Livias is reasonably persuasive to me, but no one else yet backs their claim. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

What worries me is that the Jordanian Department of Antiquities is giving the license to dig to such institutions. They are marketing themselves as "The other Holy Land", but aren't getting enough religious tourists. Such a shame. Arminden (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

BEFORE Australian

Hi Rsjaffe.

I refer you to your recent PROD of Eric Lacy Vowles, which I assume you are aware I dePRODed.

If I may suggest, for future reference, TROVE is a good place to look BEFORE any PROD or AfD of any Australian related article which has some historical context.

Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you so much for letting me know. I'm really new. I want more help on the topic Govardhan dravyam App. I don't know what to do next? mr cosmic king07:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)talk

Contribute to other articles in Wikipedia; those in which you don't have a paid conflict of interest. Read up on how to contribute. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You deleted my cruft

Hello @Rsjaffe and thank you for cutting the cruft from Zabbix. I appreciate this step. Sadly you have been also deleting my edits even I have been very verbal about deleting it without notice nor further reason.

I talk about this edit of yours.

I said here and here with the mention "I created Zabbix#Security_vulnerabilities" that I prefer comments on my edit since I'm new instead of just deleting it. To go just over this by either not leaving a comment or not even reading it is not very motivating.

And this is not about the article itself. I was even in favor of deleting Zabbix before you cut it down, now we might be able to keep it. But this is simply about how you behaved against my request on 2 separate places. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The standard way to watch for changes in a page you have edited is to have it on your watchlist. Expecting someone else to personally notify you is not how Wikipedia works. Help:Watchlist has further information on using a watchlist. See WP:OWN for more info on rights and responsibilities concerning content ownership. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The edit was to focus the article. That’s not a judgement on the inherent quality of the removed text, just its relevance to an encyclopedia article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It feels like you didn't received the point I was trying to make. I was not talking about my watchlist. As you see I'm aware of your edit. So your whole reply seemingly misses the point.

Just calling something cruft is not a reason for deletion of someone who added critical notes on an article which is considered WP:CRUFT

How was my edit about security vulnerabilities (to show that this software is comparatively unsafe to use) not relevant? You know probably the policies better than I am. I still would like to understand why you removed it and why you ignored both warnings without any comment. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The word "cruft" was a bit too general, and I apologize for that: I try to be brief when I comment, and sometimes nuance gets lost. What I was doing was blowing up the article to try to preserve it, so I removed most of the article to focus on the intro. There was lots of cruft there, and some innocent bystander text, like yours. WP:TNT is a blunt instrument, but probably the only hope. By doing that, the edit history is retained, and people can eventually retrieve portions of their contributions to add back if appropriate to the rejuvenated article. If, instead, the article gets deleted, those who try to write a new version cannot see the edit history and all the prior work is truly lost.

So

1 The removal of your text was not a judgment of its quality, rather it was part of an attempt to reduce the article to its bare bones so it could be regenerated.

2 I didn't read your warnings until you pointed them out to me. I'm commenting on your edit now. Editors do not routinely read article talk pages prior to doing edits, unless they have a question or want to discuss the article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank your for clarifying this issue. Apology accepted 👍 GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 17:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Barstow Community Hospital

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 Barstow Community Hospital 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 company, corporation or organization that does not credibly 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 "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 deleted 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. Shyamsunder (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Barstowchlogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Barstowchlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)