User talk:Eclipsoid

Wikiproject Feminism & Wikiproject Gender Studies
When you add Wikiproject links to an article's talk page, the only thing that happens is that people who are participants in those projects are alerted to the article's existence. Do you believe A Rape on Campus will be significantly improved by the influx of a large number of gender studies and feminism wikiproject editors? If you really think it will be, please feel free to go ahead and add those Wikiproject links back. BlueSalix (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Presidential Election - Carly Fiorina
Vandalism???? You are accusing me of vandalism? I switched a portrait photo to one without a microphone in front of the candidate's face, and you think that is vandalism? I call it constructive editing. See, the photo I put there was put there by me originally, and no discussion or consensus was reached to remove it, but it was removed in favor of what I believe is an inferior portrait, one with poor coloration and a microphone in Mrs. Fiorina's face. That isn't vandalism, what is vandalism is editing candidate's bios to make political statements, and even in those cases, it is often referred to as 'potential vandalism'. I would classify myself as indignant to such an accusation.  Spartan 7W  §  17:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That photo is cross-eyed and ridiculous. There is now a consensus on the article talk page to use a different one.  Enough with the vandalism.  Eclipsoid (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey hey hey. This isn't vandalism. I wouldn't call it ridiculous. That photo was used on the major 2016 articles for over a month with no protest. I neglected to check the talk page prior to my revision of the Fiorina page. However, this isn't vandalism. I understand the complaints of those who objected to it, and it has been resolved in the talk page for Carly Fiorina; I'm not starting an edit war, it was a misunderstanding. However this photo isn't vandalism.  Spartan 7W  §  17:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

HERE: Vandalism Maybe I was stubborn or disruptive due to a misunderstanding, but it isn't vandalism.  Spartan 7W  §  17:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll accept that at face value but I remain notably unimpressed with the editorial judgment of one who would insist on using that photo over the multitude of obviously superior alternatives. I do hope this is the last I see of it.  Eclipsoid (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Your (unfounded) deletion of Donald Trump's possible comment about black people
Hello Eclipsoid,

you deleted a well-sourced, arguably relevant section about Donald Trump from the article about him. I have explained to you at the respective talk page, why this deletion should not have happened. If you fail to argue why this explanation is flawed within one day, I will revert the respective edit of yours, since elections are inching closer and the American people needs to know if a presidential candidate makes statements of such nature. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "... Donald Trump's possible comment..."
 * I see that you are continuing to argue against your own edit. If you can't see why that is so, perhaps the community should consider your WP:COMPETENCE. Eclipsoid (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not continuing to argue against my own edit; I even think you failed to prove that I did at any time. I will post a further reply to that on the talk page and do not regard your argument as valid. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Your repeated deletion of the section in the Donald Trump article
Hello Eclipsoid,

Core content policies: 'The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.' --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 08:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no idea WTF you are talking about.   Eclipsoid (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Follow the link in the title and read your comment justifying the deletion. --Mathmensch's talk (They are innocent!) 11:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion of my addition to the Donald Trump article
Hello Eclipsoid,

I disagree with your deletion of my addition to the Donald Trump article regarding his selective service / military status during the Vietnam conflict

1) He is a declared Presidential candidate and any and all information regarding his US military service (or lack thereof) is certainly of interest to all readers and significant information. This information has become particularly significant in light of Mr. Trump's recent statements regarding John McCain's Vietnam service.

2) I find no reference to his selective service status or military status in the preceding paragraph (or anyplace in the article). The only possible reference is the mention of his college attendance which does not touch at all on his medical disqualification from service

3) I do not consider this material "partisan muckraking." The references quoted represent a fairly wide range (political right to middle) of respected publications from The National Review to CBS news, all of which still have active links to their articles four years later.  There are, of course, numerous additional references which could be cited but I felt that some of these might be questioned for bias being further left.

Gaas99 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Declared Presidential candidate" encompasses quite an assortment of people: Joe Walsh, Pat Paulsen, Christopher Walken, Stephen Colbert and Vermin Supreme come to mind. Are we pretending that readers actually care about the military records of these individuals?  No, merely being a declared candidate would not seem to be the appropriate test for this.
 * Should Trump survive into the primary season and emerge as a serious contender for the nomination, then it would be something to add to the article. Or were it to become a topic in the campaign, for some reason.  Then it would acquire weight.  But at this point, no, it is undue weight to mention this kind of trivia in his biography. Eclipsoid (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Fox news recently found Trump leading in their poll of Republican voters "Friday's Fox News poll found Trump leading with support from 18% of Republican primary voters nationwide"

Unless you dispute the accuracy and impartiality of Fox, I think that the seriousness of his campaign is established. Must we wait until November 1, 2016 before mentioning the (undisputed) facts of his selective service status and his response when questioned about that status? He has quite publicly stated his opinion of John McCain's service during the Vietnam Conflict. Are we not entitled to question the qualifications of the speaker (Trump) to make such statements?

In any case, that is not the question here. The question is "is the information I presented factual, is it impartial and is it adequately sourced". You felt compelled to make a wholesale deletion of the information I presented but did not dispute the facts. You stated it was adequately discussed in the previous paragraph but it was not. You dismissed my addition as "partisan muckraking" but one of my sources was from a respected conservative political journal. IMHO my additions belong in the article and with your permission I will restore them as edited by "Professor JR".

Gaas99 (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The question is "is the information I presented factual, is it impartial and is it adequately sourced".
 * Entirely wrong. Sourcing is but a threshold to inclusion, and only comes into play after criteria of due weight and relevance are met.  Here, I have already explained why this material fails those tests.  You're right--I'm not disputing any facts; I'm saying these particular facts don't belong in the article.
 * Do try to remember, we're discussing a biography. It's not a narrative account of his current political campaign or an exhaustive statement of his political stances. Eclipsoid (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

So am I to conclude that the exact date of his grandfather's wedding is more significant than his military service or lack thereof?

I fail to see the significance of your statement that "It's not a narrative account of his current political campaign or an exhaustive statement of his political stances." My edit did not refer in any way to his current campaign or his political stances. Your argument seems to be that the events are too insignificant to mention. If so, why are you going to such lengths to keep it out of the article?

I note that in addition to your deletion of my edit, you have deleted the subsequent insertion of the same material by "Calinus" and, as in my case you did not notify him/her of that deletion. In his case you did not even mention it in your explanation of the deletion. It is beginning to smell like an edit war.....

In any case, it is time to move this discussion to the article's talk page and see what others think..

Gaas99 (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Your attempts to whitewash Trump article and your veiled threats
Hi Eclipsoid. When you added a section to my page with the edit war template, you neglected to sign it. This seems like an attempt to intimidate me into not editing the Trump page any further, as without the signature, a less experienced user might think it was a Wikipedia admin issuing the warning. In addition, many of your edits to the Trump page have been deletions of material that is negative or critical of Trump, and it's all been well-sourced. Added to this, it appears that Thomas Paine1776 (talk) is somehow associated with you - I don't know if that's a sock-puppet, or just a person with a common goal of whitewashing the Trump page, but either way, somethin' ain't right. I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the editing of the Trump page to those that are interested in presenting a balanced NPOV page, and stop your white-washing. Also, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a "veiled threat"; that was due notification that further edit-warring on your part will result is escalation. (I note with great amusement that your complaint about purported "intimidation" concludes with... intimidation!) Eclipsoid (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Let's be clear about one thing - I'm against anyone whitewashing any page, any time, anywhere - regardless of political affiliation, ideology, or anything else. I noticed the whitewashing going on when I came to the Trump page, and now I'm seeing a pattern of a handful of users (two, so far for sure) that are making every attempt to wash the Trump page clean of any negative aspects. You, on the other hand, are whitewashing ONE topic - Donald Trump and his presidential campaign. I don't know the source of your motivation, but it's pretty clear you're not interested in WP:NPOV - you're interested in pushing an agenda. I'm interested in notable facts being preserved on Wikipedia. Do we have an understanding? Rockypedia (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are making some pretty serious allegations here, and I don't find that particularly civil or collegial. I'd appreciate it if you'd knock that off.  Eclipsoid (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be specific, as I don't feel I've made any "allegations" - I've stuck to stating facts. What part of my comment, specifically, do you have a problem with? Rockypedia (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you accuse Eclipsoid (talk) of whitewashing a political page, when you are equally guilty of whitewashing the page for Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. Your statement "You, on the other hand, are whitewashing ONE topic - [insert liberal politician]. I don't know the source of your motivation, but it's pretty clear you're not interested in WP:NPOV - you're interested in pushing an agenda." is entirely applicable to yourself as it pertains to liberal politicians. Clean up your act, Rockypedia (talk). Even the Wikipedia political compass tool calls you out for being a liberal whitewasher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.31.2 (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the political compass on my user page was inserted by me - after I took the political compass test. It's there in an effort to be as transparent as possible. I could easily enter whatever numbers I wanted to if I wanted to deceive people. But thanks for your input. I always take drive-by comments from anonymous IPs very seriously, especially completely uninformed ones. Rockypedia (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Alert
-- slakr \ talk / 03:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

PP article
I realize now I didn't really express my concerns properly. It was not that I anticipate increased violence, just that with the extra editing someone will hopefully come along. PP has been extensively targeted in the past. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 18:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopefully someone will come along and do... what? A bunch of constructive editing in response to your drive-by tag?  That's magical thinking, at best.  Eclipsoid (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My drive by tag? It's been there since 2012? It caused me to do some constructive editing. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 18:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina
How is this image not an improvement? It is a well-cropped headshot, that details the appearance of the subject quite well. It is better than the current picture, taken at a distance.  Spartan7W  &sect;   05:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like a snapshot. It has poor lighting and poor contrast.  No photo editor anywhere would choose it for use in a publication.  It is not an especially good photo, not encyclopedic, and is unworthy of inclusion.  Hope that helps.  Eclipsoid (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody would choose what's presently there either. Or many other candidates images. A portrait ought to primarily focus on the bust region of the individual, head + shoulders. The present image doesn't do that, it is aiming upward from below, its just as much a 'snapshot' as the new one. It also, in some ways, doesn't completely look like her, the coloration is off and the capture of in-motion action is awkward.   Spartan7W   &sect;   06:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * True enough, there is a case to be made for a tighter head shot. But not that one. Note that I didn't endorse the current image; I merely stated that the new one was not an improvement. Eclipsoid (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Assume good faith and don't start edit wars
For someone supposedly opposed to edit-warring, you ought not be deleting good-faith additions to articles, as you just did to the lede of the Shooting of Philando Castile, which you summarily dismissed with "This serves no purpose". That is not the way that WP works; it's WP policy to assume good faith. If you have an objection to an addition, it's not up to you to declare that it "serves no purpose". You should express your views in the "talk" page and strive to reach consensus. Bricology (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC
Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)