Talk:Allan Mustard

Information without proof
no proof found but information re-inserted two times: Please explain. TerraCyprus (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allan_Mustard&diff=978901071&oldid=978899114
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allan_Mustard&diff=978902187&oldid=978902049

no proof for "some Spanish": TerraCyprus (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allan_Mustard&diff=978904329&oldid=978903436


 * The source is perfectly valid (as ), as is the "some Spanish" paraphrasing; your behaviour is disruptive, and appears to be a retaliation for having edit reverted.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * why do you repeat things you have said before? A claim "having been told" doesn't turn the claim from being false into being true. RE "your behaviour is disruptive", please respect WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor .". TerraCyprus (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your behaviour is . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor .". TerraCyprus (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

no need to attribute in this way, the footnote is sufficient
"no need to attribute in this way, the footnote is sufficient": that is inconsistent, e.g. "He describes himself as a Wikipedian", there a footnote is not sufficient, but claim author mentioned? TerraCyprus (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allan_Mustard&diff=978904329&oldid=978903436


 * In what way is a footnote from a reliable source not sufficient? Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Twitter reliable? Is Allan Mustard reliable? Is "Anna" reliable? TerraCyprus (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with our reliable sources policy? There does not appear to be anything in these sources you object to that contradict the policy.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect WP:RS to contain information about "inconsistent" application of "no need to attribute in this way, the footnote is sufficient". But maybe WP:RS could be applied with respect to the "footnote" for "He describes himself as a Wikipedian"? TerraCyprus (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RS applies to all content on Wikipedia. The Twitter footnote is covered by the section WP:SELFSOURCE.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Gamaliel what about English writing demonstrated in Wikipedia? TerraCyprus (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should never be cited as a source by a Wikipedia article.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, here you go, sports fans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amustard Judge for yourself whether I am a Wikipedian. Amustard (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Language skills
There is this partial list of language skills to which I added twice "English" citing a source.
 * Mustard speaks Russian, German and some Spanish
 * Mustard speaks Russian, German and "basic Spanish"


 * English was removed first claiming "unreliable source" by as I know see the same user that inserted a claim based on twitter.
 * User:Gamaliel pointed to WP:SELFSOURCE and I added the claim again, mentioning "WP:SELFSOURCE" and thereby countering the former "unreliable source"
 * English was removed again with the edit summary "???? Any "American agricultural economist and career diplomat" should be assumed to have the ability to write in English. It would only be worth noting if they could not."

A lot can be assumed, more further related knowledge, more can be assumed. Further up it says "Mustard's early positions included work as a guide-interpreter for the U.S. International Communication Agency in Kishinev, Moscow and at Rostov-na-Donu, in the then USSR", so it can be assumed he 'spoke' Russian then, if one knows more about the language situation in Russia. Maybe more people in English Wikipedia would infer from "American agricultural economist and career diplomat" that he is able write in English, but in a list of language "speak" skills it seemed odd to me that "English" is not listed at all. Since I found no source for English speaking, I only added English writing skills.

So for the language skills people are left by English Wikipedia TerraCyprus (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * English: infer and assume regarding speaking and writing (for the latter there was a WP:SELFSOURCE), not bound by WP:RS
 * Russian, German and "basic Spanish": "speaks"
 * all other languages: no information
 * Good grief, is this a serious conversation or some kind of Monty Python farce? Of course American diplomats speak English, and write in English, and can even read in English.  To pass the Foreign Service examination, American diplomats have to pass an English language examination.  This is known knowledge.  Further, since I have been a Russian-language interpreter on an American exhibition in the USSR, it should be rather obvious to even the most dimwitted among us that I speak both Russian and English.  Regarding my status as a Wikipedian, I assume that my authorship of a small number of articles suffices to allow me to claim that.  If there is some threshold of number of articles authored/expanded to qualify for that exalted title, please advise me.  Thank you, and carry on, but stop the nonsense, please.  Amustard (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose that audio recordings of me (such as https://thegeomob.com/podcast/episode-29) or the video of my Senate confirmation hearing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERbi1N6qg7w) or my keynote address to State of the Map 2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t5DxV7cXgQ) are considered "unreliable sources" of evidence that I speak English. Amustard (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)