User talk:Cwobeel/Archives/2014/December

BLP
Please specify on the talk page precisely which WP:BLP criteria you used to justify removing factually accurate and non-trivial information about Ariel Fernandez. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded in article's talk. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your diagram
Un fricking believable. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, coming from you, I am touched. Thanks! -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Seconded. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It was a great learning experience. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

== Please comment on Talk:United States House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi ==

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Mashable
You're internet famous! Gamaliel ( talk ) 04:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * :) -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation Regarding Reliable Sources
Given your recent activity on the talk page of Identifying reliable sources, I am inviting you to participate in the discussion I started in regard to establishing a prima facia case for verifiable sources if it is has met and maintained the standards for inclusion in Google News.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map
I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Re
Tons of times. I do not trust any source, Fox News or even The New York Times. I prefer the BBC when I can get it for a distanced perspective on United States stuff, but in general - I dislike Dani Cavallaro's uninspired analysis and lack of fact checking. Cavallaro has "Reliable Source" status to some editors, but I make it a point whenever I get to point out the errors. Some of them are baffling, I don't even know how she got the Castle of Cagliostro error. Someone who can't read Japanese would still have caught it because it was so obvious. Anyways - I hate from working with limited sources, but I usually find faults with just about

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor)
 * added a link pointing to Fortune


 * Shooting of Michael Brown
 * added a link pointing to Fortune

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:ChrisGualtieri's behavior at Shooting of Michael Brown. Thank you. --RAN1 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia
Hi Cwobeel. It's okay to copy withing Wikipedia like you did (content was copied from The Holocaust). But you must give attribution. At a minimum, you must mention in your edit summary where you got the content. For more extensive copying, it's a good idea to add copied templates to the talk pages of the involved articles. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Did not know about that nifty template. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

FCAYS
You should probably stop responding to his comments since doing that only seems to result in more comments. --RAN1 (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC) every source I read. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I will. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

EL
Please read WP:EL - those links would not survive justification at Featured Article Candidates and duplicate content already discussed in the article. Article length is not excuse for duplication of content to video links. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is long ways from being in a state that would warrant GA.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you please be more careful in your additions, you moved an inline citation down to the end of the paragraph, but did not retain the inline-citation as required. Also, do not put words into the sources mouth as you did. Its not a justification defense and it is not appropriate in that section either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a talk page for these comments, please don't bring up these issues here.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV
So if source says the prosecution conspired to "throw the case" you are including it because the source says it? Regardless of whether or not the arguments are true, you reflect it based on the legal background and the fact the source is published? Is that correct? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There are a number of sources leveling that particular line of attack against the prosecutors, so it is not against NPOV to describe these viewpoints. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In short existence of sources leveling attacks perfectly justifies the inclusion of said claims despite lacking any factual evidence to support them? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Of course, context is always needed, in particular when the "lack of factual evidence" is disputed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Disputed by the non-existence of facts or the existence of facts not cited by the source making the attacks? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For widely stated opinions, yes. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Chris would care to divulge his credentials on legal matters. If he has some, perhaps he would tell us why using his legal knowledge to edit Wikipedia is not original research. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will be surprised if he has any credentials. Surprise us, Chris. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Chris, if you don't have legal credentials, how do you feel qualified to rule on the validity of legal opinions of multiple people who do have legal credentials? Are you really that smart? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please no misdirection. Gaijin42 makes a point, but "widely held" opinions need perspective and according WP:10YT this can be difficult to judge. Though People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson is an interesting comparison and far more neutral. I am of the opinion that an overview one or twice removed from the opinion pieces will be the best we will get for now. Also, would it matter if I said I am (or was) a United States Attorney? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, except that it would change the objection from lack of credentials to OR. Please, no characterization of legitimate concerns as "misdirection". &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The SImpson case has the benefit of years, and thus much easier to summarize, so the comparison is not useful. I am sure that 15 years from now the Brown article will be quite different as well. What I found confounding is that Chris is dismissing legal expert's opinion with a wave of the hand, just because he believes they are wrong. That is what makes that discussion so difficult. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And how does the fact the source makes an accusation that is not supported by fact constitute to original research? You present a logical fallacy. I'll provide a suitable metaphor and case. "Joe Schmo, senior Wikipedia editor, says Jimbo Wales (Founder of Wikipedia) does not care about Wikipedia because he allows anonymous users to vandalize articles". What is wrong with this statement? Hint: There is at least two or more things wrong with the statement. I'll use your answer(s) to show the validity and premise of my argument on Nolan. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If Joe Schmo is an expert on collaborative editing, wikis and in particular, Wikipedia, we surely can include Mr. Schmo. Just read Criticism of Wikipedia for some good examples. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia allows inclusion of opinions with attribution. If Wikipedia excluded opinions that were not supported by fact, they would not be called opinions. They would be called facts. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there no other problems which would prevent this inclusion on Criticism of Wikipedia? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * By definition, sources cannot do OR as wiki defines it. They can be wrong, but if they are wrong and widely held, its still what wiki reports. See WP:FLAT, in particular WP:FLAT and the part about "If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification."  Where RS have contradicted other RS, we can report that per NPOV, but just plain excluding POVs is not an option (On the other hand, excluding a particular persons quote representing that POV is an option - but not the POV as a whole). You are essentially making an Editorial_discretion argument, which is valid to a degree, but probably not to the degree of completely excluding entire swaths of the controversy. When we move away from direct quotes and into summary style some of this will be less of a problem because we can say things like "Some commentators   hold the opinion that X did Y because they think Z" where we are more clearly identifying things as opinions Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I get that last part. Doesn't the who flag the statement as needing attribution? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes that usage is valid, if accompanied with a ref that includes multiple sources and the names of the commentators. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Or something along these lines. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So why ask "who?" when that question is answered at the end of the statement? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Im pushing for using something like the Sun example in Citing_sources where we can use weasel wording summary for readability, but potentially still have a dump of quotes in the footnote backing it. We are already doing something in that vein in Shooting_of_Michael_Brown where we say "The witness accounts have been widely described as conflicting on various points" and then just dump all the sources that say that. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV really breaks down when you have the number of opinions that we do, and WP:RS/AC sources have not come out yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * you presented an argument with faulty metaphor. Certainly, the discussion pre-discovery and calculation would have been under WP:FRINGE. Hypothetically, a debate over this would be based on arguments between sides with flat earth evidence being weighed against round earth notions. This requires a familiarity and much hypothetical framing and a little philosophy, but the fact that a "round earther" would have used line of sight on the ocean would be a clear argument even from 8th century B.C. and that at minimum the earth was not flat, but was curved. This is a basic test that can be done without any equipment and does not require more conjecture or rare observational evidence like on a lunar eclipse. So no... given the ability to test it and the arguments existence... it is an argument which can be tested and repeatedly found to not be proven false. That's part of the scientific process - this here is unsupported accusation and not comparable. Since no one will indulge... I'll highlight the logical fallacies in my test case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Chris, that would be an excellent argument on a discussion about scientific process. But Wikipedia has a much wider scope than science. We have articles on porn stars, serious subjects, and crazy shit, just because there are significant sources that attest to the notability of the subject. And on mainstream subjects, we relay on reliable sources to describe opinions, even if these opinions are crazy shit. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is why we have an article about the Black Knight satellite. Proponents are bat-shit-crazy IMO, but we report their viewpoints nonetheless. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a clear difference between reporting opinion and fact about the handling of a case and an article which can survive because reliable sources report hoaxes or fringe theories to an extent that they are included. This is a matter considering the accusations against a living person which is unsupported by facts. I am tiring of your inability to understand the difference. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I patrol BLP/N and I am very well informed on WP:BLP. Accusations leveled against a living person are permissible, if the source is reliable, if the author is notable, and if it is not a minority viewpoint. I am also tiring from your inability to make these distinctions. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Test case
Basically every part of this is highly contentious as a logical fallacy and unsupported allegation. I will go through this, word by word and refer to a "reliable source" for argument's sake since BLP enters play here.
 * "Joe Schmo" - The assumption of a name or otherwise reflected by a source is typically accurate.
 * "senior Wikipedia editor" - is a title to get authority. There are many issues which should immediately become clear. "Senior" implies authority, title or authority, but Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit and is not a job. Suspect "puffery" to give weight to the incoming opinion. As a whole "senior Wikipedia editor" implies a relevant credential for the opinion which is going to be given - an attribution which inverts the role of attribution to give the air of authority.
 * "says Jimbo Wales does not care about Wikipedia" - This is an accusation that the founder does not care about Wikipedia. This is already a serious issue because it is "Joe Schmo"'s opinion which is framed as if it is fact. Schmoe is advancing this "false fact" with an argument to back it up.
 * "because he allows anonymous users to vandalize articles" - This is completely illogical and contradictory to standard process. This is actually stating "[Jimbo Wales] allows anonymous users to vandalize articles." Jimbo Wales does not over see or control other people much less "allow" them to do anything. "anonymous users" is vague it could be IP addresses or users with pseudonyms - it is not specific even it is criticism. While "vandalize articles" is supposed to be clear, it is not. What you call vandalism is not what I call vandalism.

The critic is not making an argument for the sake of making an argument - it is an attack on Jimbo Wales as a person. It suggests that Jimbo Wales has control or can exert control to stop people from doing something bad. By that reasoning Jimbo Wales must not care about Wikipedia otherwise he would have done something. Even without any "facts" the argument's structure is completely unsupported and its nature discerned.

Now... we move to fact checking. Is there evidence to suggest Jimbo Wales does not care about Wikipedia? Clearly, Wales does care about Wikipedia given the continual and persistent involvement in its operation, but the conclusion was never intended to be fair. Which means that this should be removed. Leaving the "supporting argument": "[Jimbo Wales] allows anonymous users to vandalize articles." Given that Jimbo Wales has a known administrative role, this requires a factual check. Does he "allow users" - Wikipedia certainly allows IP editing, but this is not subject to personal oversight by Jimbo for each action by said user. So while Jimbo Wales is open to the idea that "anyone can edit" he is not personally responsible for the actions of others. The other two parts are purposefully vague and relies on the reader to "fill in the blanks". Lastly, is "Joe Schmoe a "senior Wikipedia editor"? Considering it isn't a job title, no. "Wikipedia editor" suffices. Still... what is the qualification of a Wikipedia editor? Has the editor even interacted with others, with Wales, with anyone of any importance? Is the user in good standing or was blocked numerous times for fringe beliefs? In real cases - the latter is most often correct. The end result is a complete fabrication of ideas by a false authority which essentially has an axe to grind and is using the publisher or is being used by the publisher to advance something which no proper editorial process should have allowed. Even if it is published, the mere inclusion of such information doubts the integrity of the whole. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Great material for a Wikipedia essay. But what you are arguing is contrary to our core content policies. Now, I understand why we have so much trouble understanding each other.... -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I could deconstruct Sanger's criticism of Wikipedia, and prove that his assertions are false. And yet, we report Sanger's criticism, right? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Policies already cover both my and your cases. Sanger, who is a co-Founder of Wikipedia is qualified and likely reliable for many statements as a person of direct authority. In December 2004, Wikipedia did have a Featured Article Review, but it was [|completely different] and there was no GA process. Even still, Sanger's criticism that there is no formal review holds weight because FAC is still informal and does not require experts to fact check and verify the article's content. So under analysis, while nuance could be an issue - Sanger's comments were not only correct when they were made, but still are. You seem to have trouble analyzing and reading the material. WP:NPOVT offers help. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problems analyzing sources, but you seem to have a problem with a too narrow interpretation of our policies (basically, if the source fits your POV, then is fine, but if it does not, then you bring a cavalry of arguments, long windded discussions and unparalleled stubbornness to the discussions). If your view and behavior was pervasive in Wikipedia, it would be a disaster for the project. Thank god that is not the case. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Using the U.S. justice system as a metaphor, you should be one lawyer among many. Instead, you have not only appointed yourself judge and jury but Supreme Court as well. You are applying specific interpretations to general items of policy and declaring all other interpretations invalid. That will never work in my book, so the best you can hope for is to argue me to exhaustion, which appears to be your strategy. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Scott Card racist?
(Note: Per wp:CANVASSING I am "non-biasedly" advertising a topic for discussion by posting a notice on the ten most recent users who commented on the page in question's talkpage and also the ten most recent users who edited the article in question.) Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card"? (Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.) See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card  --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Eric Carmen
It looks as if an IP address from what looks like Crimea wants to edit war regarding the twice cited DUI arrest of Eric Carmen. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll keep an eye. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another Crimean IP address reverted it. I mentioned it in the noticeboard. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Both IP addresses are now blocked. Feel free to revert. I cannot revert right now for risk of going 3RR. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another IP address, this one from Japan reverted it. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess a rebuttal is in order in Talk:Eric Carmen. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Amy Pascal
Hello. Can you please look at this? I find it extremely concerning that an editor who may have a close connection is trying to censor the page so that only glowing reactions to Pascal's remarks appear in the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Federalist (website), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Lee. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of edit to "Text Messaging"
I believe you made a mistake in reverting my edit.

The correct word in the sentence should be "genera", as in the plural of "Genus", as in Kingdom, Phylum, Clade, Order, Family, Genus, Species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.55.99.33 (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing this out. It was a false positive, wrongly identified as vandalism by me. My apologies. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Arab Winter
You withdrew from mediation, so I don't know what to do with the draft. And what about the tags that you added at Arab Winter? Perhaps Arena situation will be resolved in no time without your help. It will be considered compliant with existing policies and guidelines, so I hope you will not do similar actions in the future. Otherwise, one of us will go to WP:arbitration/Requests. --George Ho (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We can continue discussions in the talk page. That is unless a different mediator is assigned. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a reply at Requests for mediation/Arab Winter. --George Ho (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw your comment. At this time I am very concerned about the way the mediator has engaged (both the amount of time he has invested, which is very minimal, and the lack of process), so I have withdrawn unless a new mediator is appointed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that the mediation case is closed, what about the draft that I created for you to work on? --George Ho (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * . Where is it? I'll take a look. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Either click heading above or here: Draft:Arab Winter. --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your draft is good. If you replace the current article with your draft, I will join you there to improve upon it. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not yet until we have found a suitable replacement for the table. --George Ho (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't know what you meant. You mean scrap out the table immediate or write a prose of events? --George Ho (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Scrap the table, and use the See also section to bring attention to related incidents. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  23:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Have we gone through this already? I was hoping you have ideas. After AFD, merge discussion, and mediation, you still want me to boldly remove the table from the mainspace version, not the draft namespace version. Am I correct? --George Ho (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, because the content there is OR. As we have articles almost for every item in that list, I could live with having a list of articles in See also, rather than pick and choose based on editor's own research to create a table. Makes sense? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to remove the table. However, work on the draft please. Otherwise, I'll find someone else competent enough to do the draft. I added the hatnote of access to the draft at the mainspace version. WP:Requests for mediation/Arab Winter is already closed. You want me to request arbitration if you repeatedly persist? --George Ho (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Arbitration does not deal with content disputes. So, the only way forward is to find some compromise. Any suggestions? -  Cwobeel   (talk)
 * Work on the draft obviously. Research the term. Search for events related to Arab Winter. Use Google or Bing. Go to library or buy books. Leave the mainspace version alone for a long while. --George Ho (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah, not interested. The draft you have is more than enough to illustrate the concept of a purported "Arab Winter". -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope the table is not removed again without consensus. Got it? --George Ho (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If the table stays, the NOR tag stays as well. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how long the tag will have stayed. I'll request closure at WP:ANRFC. --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

SMB to FA?
As you probably knew, yes, I am planning on getting the Shooting of Michael Brown to Featured Article level. I'd like the article to be almost of textbook quality. This a very different standard then you see for the article, right? You may not like the process and the amount of condensing, summarizing, tweaking, and refining which begets yet more refining. I hope we can get this to FA quality in 8-9 passes through the article. This will rely on statements of facts and the near-removal of quotations. The article is already too long, but working off what we have should get it to manageable and proper size. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * FA is a long way, you may want to start with a peer review in a few months, and GA in a year from now, followed by FA in a couple of years. Attempting FA at this stage is not a good idea, as the incident is too recent and there article will develop further as new information emerges from the Federal probes -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I got bad news for you then. The probe into Trayvon Martin is still ongoing. Most of the time, these reports are not released and they have all the evidence from the grand jury. McCulloch has said that he does not expect a further release of documents from the grand jury. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the status of the Trayvon Martin articles? There is a reason why these have not gone through peer review, GA or let alone FA processes. You need time before attempting that, maybe a few years from now. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The Trayvon Martin article is a different article - the FA criteria does not require the conclusion of the probe, a peer review or any intermediate steps. Nevertheless, you are making excuses for the article's poor form and the fact is overly long and does not conform to NPOV. I'll likely be contacting some FAC editors to assist in the process. I'm a novice when it compares to the skills of some of these writers, but the scope of the article is defined and it is time to polish it up now that the events have concluded. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am making no such excuses. The article is still work in progress and we have a lot of work to do yet to bring it to a stage that could be considered stable. I am basically lowering your expectations for achieving FA in the foreseeable future. Having said that, once we have achieved a modicum of stability, I would not oppose a peer review as a first step. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing all the primary sources would be a starting point to get it to that level. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geopolitical entities not recognised as states
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geopolitical entities not recognised as states. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Oh sweet, you made that? Nice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The result of a collaborative effort over a week, with very useful feedback from fellow editors. Just see the file history -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Confused
Why do you continue to defend the belief that if a source says something it immediately deserves to be included, even if it is proven false? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given sources A and B, both referenced to a reliable source, and both from experts or notable people:
 * Source A says "X and Y happened" or "X is Y, because of Z". ChrisGualtieri, does some original research and decides that Source A is false. Source A can and should be included.
 * Source A says "X and Y happened" or "X is Y, because of Z". Source B says "Source A got that wrong.". We include both source A and Source B, and let the reader decide.
 * Source A says "X and Y happened" or "X is Y, because of Z". Source B says " X and Y did not happened, what happened is P and Q". We include both source A and Source B, and let the reader decide.
 * That is, my friend, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR 101. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not original research when its in a source. It does not need to be the same source or be used in the article. You think this source is reliable? How about this one? Or this one? Or Huffington Post? You might be thinking - oh gosh, Chris is surely off his rocker, but Daily Mail is a farce like Huffington Post and none of them should be used at all. They fail WP:IRS and that's WP:TRUTH. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argumentation is fallacious, because it has nothing to do with the articles we are editing. Listen to other editor's comments in talk page, and maybe you will understand that your position on sources is incorrect as it relates to criticism reported in reliable sources by experts in the field. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It has everything to do with this case. Are those sources reliable? Would you insert them into an article because of what they say? I am serious. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph and other media outlets are not monolithic. Some of what they carry is trivia and entertainment news, but that does not make them unreliable sources for other type of material they publish. Same applies to the HuffPo. So to answer your questions, it depends on the context. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  22:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OTTO is worth a read because it shows the problem with media. Thanks for clarifying the issue in the article space, sorry to be an ass. I saw both Ferguson reports in the paragraph and went stupid. You learned from the Huffington Post source and I fell for it as well. Clarification to the arguments is something that I should ask as well - because I clearly didn't parse both. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OTTO does not come close to the articles we edit, but I see your point. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not the article - its the sources which made the whole thing up. And yes, this whole August 15 thing with Jackson is conspiracy talk and completely false. A single statement misheard and misapplied resulted in confusion. Jackson answered truthfully, but people read anything they want into words. Jackson confirmed that Wilson stopped them for blocking traffic and then identified them as suspects right afterwards because of the box of cigars - there was no "conspiracy" to come up with something like that on August 15. It is already in the record that Wilson was aware of the robbery to begin with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is your interpretation, mine is completely different than yours (which I will keep to myself). So, we just report what sources say and let the readers decide if Jackson was conspiring, incompetent, or doing an excellent job. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  16:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Fact: in press conference Jackson says that the stop was unrelated to the robbery
 * Fact: in press conference jackson says that the only reason for releasing the robbery tape, was because of FOIA ( I suggest you take a few ninutes and watch the press conference in its entirety. It is an eye opener, in particular the Q&A session he did later that day)
 * Fact: In press conference, Jackson said that the investigation has been passed to county police
 * Fact: FPD did not file an incident report, because investigation was in the hands of county police
 * Fact: Jackson releases tape of robbery, despite the fact that it was not his investigation anymore, so either it was unrelated to shooting and it was OK to release, or it was related to the shooting in which case he should not have released it
 * Fact: hours later Jackson said that Wilson made an ID
 * Fact: Release of video tape triggered riots and unrest

So, read into it what you want, in my opinion: a fuckup of enormous proportions by FPD. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's clarify this then with two statements using documents prior and during the event.
 * Fact - Transcripts from the August 10 interview contains the original reason for the interaction and the specifically includes the details about the cigarillos. Even the reason for Wilson backing up to question them again was given on page 14.
 * Note - Huffington Post has this article containing the Q&A section relevant to this.
 * Female Reporter - So the officer involved in the shooting... was he aware of the robbery call?
 * Tom Jackson - I don't know. I don't know what came out in his interview. I know his initial contact was not related to the robbery. It was related to... blocking road.
 * Male reporter - You're telling us... You're telling us that when the officer stopped Michael Brown for the first time... he was not aware Brown was a suspect in the robbery?
 * Tom Jackson - No. He was just coming off of a sick case, which is why the ambulance was there so quickly.
 * From there the interview goes largely as reported. However, Huffington Post which contains the link to the video ignores that part of the context. Jackson does not know and confirms it with "I don't know. I don't know what came out in his interview. I know his initial contact was not related to the robbery." This whole conspiracy is twisting and ignoring that Jackson did not know if Wilson was aware. The article - even linking to the source makes an assumption:
 * This is a false assumption because Jackson did not know and confirmed he did not know if Wilson knew. A lovely farce which is proven upon listening to the actual Q&A with additional knowledge of the situation. I'll create a note because it seems confusing. But unless I am grossly mistaken it is clear that Jackson was responding to something he did not know the full details of and records show a full five days prior that Wilson had already gave a recorded interview giving it exactly as Jackson would clarify in the following hours. There was no conspiracy created on August 15, it was Jackson's ignorance used to advance a striking accusation in the media which was corrected and clarified, but used to further the claim of "conspiracy" by an upset public. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that is you who is using the word "conspiracy", not me. So rather to attempt to make me look like I am saying there was a conspiracy, just focus on the facts as reported in the sources we have.I think we are done with this discussion here, let's focus on presenting the sources in the most neutral way possible and without judging them in the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we clear that Huffington Post is wrong and Jackson's words were taken out of context or are you saying that we still need to keep this farce in the article? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we clear that Huffington Post is wrong and Jackson's words were taken out of context or are you saying that we still need to keep this farce in the article? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

NBO
Hi, I'm not sure why you keep deleting this subsection header. Subsections exist to organize sections, and this particular section ("Medical career") has as almost half of its content a discussion of an entity that Rand Paul created. It makes sense, then, to have a subsection header that marks the transition from the discussion of his medical career in general to the description of the NBO in particular. (Among other things, it signals to the reader that the remainder of this section is no longer about his medical career in general.)

The redirect exists, as redirects do, to point to the content related to the name of the redirect. There's nothing to fix; it is pointing to the most appropriate location in the encyclopedia. Having the subsection title in place makes it obvious to someone following the redirect where the content they're looking for begins.

One reason you've given for deleting this header is that the NBO is not noteworthy. It's in the encyclopedia, which implies that it's noteworthy. (My own take is that it's noteworthy in politics, in regulatory law, and in medicine -- a doctor who is now a national legislator making a move like this is kind of unusual, right?)

If this content is in the encyclopedia at all (and I'm certainly not advocating removing it!), making it findable and making the article more readable are appropriate goals. Again, this is precisely what subsections within a section are for.

Sorry to make this so ridiculously long, but it seemed like the valid reasons for having this header in place were getting lost in the back-and-forth. If there's something I've missed behind why it shouldn't be in place, please let me know. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough explanation. My reasoning is that the "National Board of Ophthalmology" is not notable to have it's own article, even not a redirect page. I am considering bringing it to AFD. The latest incarnation of the NBO, was a made up organization. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree it's not notable enough for an article, but it is notable notable enough for inclusion in Rand Paul's article. As such, it makes perfect sense to have an appropriately-named redirect to that content, per WP:R.
 * But the question here isn't really about the redirect, or the content's notability as a separate article. It's whether the "Rand Paul" section is improved or degraded by marking the transition from a discussion of his general medical career to a discussion of the NBO and its surrounding elements. (Obviously, I think "improved", for the reasons outlined above.)  Regards,NapoliRoma (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


 * You seem to have taken it to be that the Ferguson Police's incident report does not exist. I pointed to the wrong source and was an ass about it - you caught that mistake and I apologized for the error. The fact the report exist still means it should be removed because it perpetuates a hoax, I just need to make sure that I am citing the correct source when pointing out that the source was false. As mentioned - I want you to refrain from editing the article for a bit (the talk page is fine) so we can figure out what needs to be done to get it to FA. Removing false information and such is a priority and I apologize for being an ass - I see I am being one again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. Don't give it a second thought. As I said, we all make mistakes from time to time. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor)
You participated in previous move discussion. I invite you to an ongoing new move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NaturalNews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit
This edit is very unusual and the edit summary even more so. Who is the first interview with? What was discussed? I'd like to know how you came to conclude that Wilson did not mention it on his first interview. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you dodging the direct question? You are implying that you know what is in that first interview again. How do you know that? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Legality of electronic cigarettes
Hi Cwobeel,

Per WP:VERIFY:
 * "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source."
 * "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution"
 * " In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:IRS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, this policy has priority."

I believe your good faith replacement of removed text violates core Wikipedia policy. All of this material is stored in the archived version of the article, and is easy enough to restore if suitable sources for their correctness become available.

Best,

Formerly 98 (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Michael Brown Jr.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Michael Brown Jr.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:9/11 Truth movement
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 Truth movement. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Mediation
Requests for mediation/Shooting of Michael brown. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)