User talk:Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney/Archives/2017/February

CANCEL REQUEST I need your help with Cannabis Canada articles
HELP! I created a new topic, Legal history of Cannabis in Canada as you suggested. It seemed to get published. But when I do a Search Wikipedia for that topic, it goes to Cannabis in Canada. Why??

I had previously created an article with an incorrect title Legal history of cannabis in the Canada. The word the in that title is an error!! That one DOES contain all the content that should be in Legal history of Cannabis in Canada but the title is incorrect.

No idea how to proceed from here. If there were a method to remove the word the from Legal history of cannabis in the Canada that would solve the problem, but there is no such method, as far as I know. HELP!

P.S. Cannabis in Canada is now the page with the content mostly about 2016: legalization process. The Legal history article is the long one with all the old history and old court cases.Peter K Burian (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who solved it or how, but suddenly the page Legal history of cannabis in Canada does exist. (So does Legal history of cannabis in the Canada ...Strange but true. PROBLEM SOLVED. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Warning
Do not edit war like you did on Chaim Kanievsky. Even if you think you are right, you should first discuss the merits of your edit on the talkpage. Please read WP:BRD and WP:EDIT WAR. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not "edit warring". I added a cited fact, you deleted, so I added much clearer citations of Notability. You claim we shouldn't include it because it's just one of many of his rulings, but how many of his rulings have been covered by major international news sources like this one has? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * the cites I used are still stronger than any of the cites on the rest of the page. I'm trying to AGF here, but it's hard not to feel that you just personally don't like cannabis being mentioned on the subject's page. Please see my post on the Talk, but lack of Notability clearly isn't an argument since this ruling was covered by the Independent, NPR, and JPost, among many others. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should definitely work on the AGF aspect of this. :) Debresser (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to get the point, which simply is that you should first get consensus and edit only afterwards, even if you think you have convincing arguments that prove you right, you are now warned for the last time:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I don't think you have the high ground to template others, when you yourself break WP:3RR. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Which edits are you refering to? I don't remember me breaking 3RR in any context that you are related to. Debresser (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, you do notice that the issue you were so sure of is actually something many other editors disagree with on the talkpage. That is why when reverted you must always talk it over. Debresser (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 28.6 hours is close enough to 24hrs, WP:3RR says it's about intent, not a precise 24hr window. But since we're both being more chill and talking it out now, we'll not get into a template tit-for-tat. Re the Talk page, there's a plurality of opinions, but I'm slightly annoyed that editors have said "not enough coverage" in Rulings after you removed the most-cited Ruling he has. I see by your first comment that we're not totally dissimilar in our views. I do think that the rulings of someone who's entire claim-to-fame is making rulings are important, and the kosher cannabis ruling has gotten a lot of press, as I've added in cites. So let's see how more editors respond. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The rule of the law is 24 hours, and in an area where there are no discretionary sanctions, not many admins will bend that limit by more than up to an hour. In any case, 3 reverts is still allowed. It is the 4th revert that would constitute a violation.
 * Yes, I agree with your argument, but still disagree with the conclusion because of the other arguments I mentioned. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop editing
Goonsquad, who are you and why do you keep editing Jimmy's page as an authority on him? The posting you keep taking down is Jimmy's book and we do not appreciate your actions. Jimmy has requested the posting remain on wikipedia as originally posted. This is a real book with a real publisher that is already sold and currently being written in coordination with Jimmy. Please remove your objection and put the post back post-haste. Thank you. OEGolden (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Dude, you can hit my Contributions button if you're curious, I'm just a guy that writes/improves a lot of cannabis articles on Wikipedia. I've explained in detail on your talk page precisely why your edits are inappropriately promotional. Sorry, but the fact that you and Jimmy want to promote a book isn't germane to the discussion, Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise. If the book gets serious, neutral media coverage we can definitely include that coverage, but we will not include a list of shout-outs to Amazon, the publisher, the promoter, and a press release. If the NYT or High Times or US Weekly or whoever discusses the book, then that would be outside expert coverage worth including, see WP:Notability (books). Sorry if you're not happy with the fact that Wikipedia doesn't allow advertising, but that's the system here. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your latest edit on Chaim Kanievsky
First of all, you again edit war. You should really stop this, or somebody will have you blocked in the end. Secondly, the Published works section is for all purposes an external links section, since it refers to works outside Wikipedia. As an afterthought, I find it highly suspicious that you suddenly leave your sole area of interest, to make a destructive edit to an article I reverted you on before. Sounds a bit like revenge, or stalking. Debresser (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Where to even begin
 * You're throwing terms around, it is not "stalking" to continue to improve the same article, it's not as though I'm following you to some different article to somehow oppose your method. And it's not "destructive editing" to bring a page into WP:MOS compliance. If you want to accuse me of anything, accuse me of being curious as to what edits you would tolerate, since you're ignoring WP:N and WP:MOS when I make constructive edits.
 * For someone who's awfully pedantic on the letter of the law when it suits you, claiming that Works is "for all purposes an external links section" is pretty silly. No, no it's not, that's why it doesn't say "External links". And listing multiple links to individual books to make sure everyone gets the right volume clearly steps over the line to promoting a given publisher and creating a directory (as I said, WP:NOTDIR) on the page. If you want readers to be able to find his works, add it to the EL section like all the other author pages do.
 * I'm under no obligation to only edit cannabis articles, and I do edit non-cannabis articles other than just this as my Contribs shows.
 * Despite your diligence in undoing my edits, you've shown zero interest in fixing actual problems on the page, like the broken "ibid" (I fixed it), missing clarifications, missing citations, etc. and the aforementioned improper inline ELs. Odd, you don't seem concerned at the lack of Notable cites on the page, but you're all upset when I add Notable material, and your removing of the most-attested mention of his ruling caused people on the Talk page to call into question the point of a Ruling section, which was my entire point that that section was under-cited (and you're keeping it under-cited).
 * I'm going to go look for more halakhic rulings he's made that are worth adding, I'll put them on the Talk page for consideration. Making rulings is his entire claim to fame, without actual content on his rulings, what's the point of having an article on him? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * None of this gives you the right to edit war. Establish consensus first.
 * I explained my position regarding WP:MOS above. You may disagree with it, but that only brings us back to...? Do not edit war, rather discuss and establish consensus first.
 * I am under no obligation to fix issues. "Issues" does not give you the right to do bad things to the article. Debresser (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't "bad things", those in-line links are inappropriate. Also, I don't need to establish "consensus" for non-controversial changes like fixing a broken ibid, etc. And I *shouldn't* need consensus for non-controversial things like adding rulings with multiple (*12* at this point) citations to serious media sources. It's almost 7 days now since I tried to add properly cited materials, that you're blocking from being added. You're creating controversy and demanding consensus over completely legitimate changes.


 * If I had just one cite for the cannabis ruling, or "I read it on a blog but I'm not sure serious media has covered it", then *that* would be a great time to gain consensus on talk. It's not WP procedure to ask for consensus for minor changes that are totally in-line with policy. If it were, making any change on any page would take forever.Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As you can see from my edits on that page, I have no problem with a lot of good and uncontroversial edits you made. But once an edit of yours is reverted, you must understand that that fact means, almost per definition, that that edit was not uncontroversial and not good according to all. Your failure to do so is what earned you already several edit war warnings. Debresser (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on some things, but I'm simply not seeing an argument for excluding the cannabis ruling. Halakhically and practically significant is not a Wikipedia policy, WP:Notability is, so if you're opposed to it you need to have some kind of argument that starts with "despite having 12+ serious media articles covering the decision..." If you remain adamant on it, I'll file the issue at WP:NPOVN. Not in a hostile way, it's just that we're at a somewhat of an impasse for a week+ now and I'm quite sure that outside editors would support inclusion. Just to make sure I'm not missing something, can you clarify your position on the Talk page in terms of actual Wikipedia policies, and how those dozen sources fail to meet it? If I file it at NPOVN I'll also ask for input on the linking of individual volumes of books in a Works section too, since I'm pretty dang sure that violates WP:MOS and again I'm really unclear why you're against it on any policy level. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)