User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2023/June

The Signpost: 5 June 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library
Just a heads up, an RfC a while back declared this source unreliable, in particular because it sometimes cites Wikipedia.

Thanks for your help at the Armenian genocide article; as I recall that statement is uncited but I hadn't quite gotten there. I was checking the references for the claim that the Armenian genocide caused the Holocaust, which are to a non-existent chapter title and to page 333, which in the Google Books version is something completely different. I still haven't checked into the ISBN numbers for various versions. Given the level of nastiness I'm encountering I'm having to take the page in small doses. Also I was outside most of the day and have been coughing wildfire smoke since I got home, so I am just reading text at the moment Elinruby (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up ... I wasn't planning to cite it, it just happened to come up in a Google search on the debate. I'm new to the topic area on WP, so if you see me making a mis-step, do tell me! Hope the air quality gets back to normal soon for you. (I'm over on the other side of the pond.) Best, Andreas JN 466 11:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

e-mail
Hi, sorry for answering here, but I answer per e-mail only when it's strictly necessary. Thank you very much for clarifying the issue about the e-mail. Yes, I agree that the publication of that e-mail does not represent a diffusion of personal data. In fact, I don't think that that e-mail has a particular importance whatsoever, it's just background noise. I'm frankly not convinced by your interpretation of the BLP guideline, because it implies that the admin must control EVERY aspect of an article about a BLP before protecting it, which, especially for long articles, is unfeasible. The protection is an emergency measure to be taken to stop vandalism or edit wars, you simply don't have the time to fix everything before using it. Note also that the article about Orsini was never restricted to the admins only: it was protected to the not-AC users for some periods, and to the not-AV users only between 23 May 2023 and 12 June 2023. Was the article ok then? Well certainly it was not so bad as depicted by the Fatto Quotidiano, which is not and independent source in this case, since Orsini is one of their leading editors. There were some things about it which personally did not convince me, but I expected the final outcome, that is, that sooner or later there would have been legal threats against some editors of the article (not necessarily against those who wrote derogatory info, but also against those who may have corrected them, which did in fact happen) and that the article would have been redacted by the team VRT. So I consciously decided not to edit it. I know, I may appear a coward, but I quite frankly don't want that wikipedia becomes a problem in my RL. I think that the same applies for many people on it.wiki. In fact, that the article had been at the centre of a flattering campaign is an understatement. In March 2022 it was written for the first time with a blatant copyright violation. When it was cancelled it started an extremely violent campaign on social media (most probably started by Orsini himself or by people near to him) that brought to the creation of articles about orsini with all the possible titles (it was necessary to create a filter in order to arrest this wave of CV, copyviols, etc) and that lasted for two months. Since when the article was finally published in an acceptable fashion, in May 2022, there have been constant edit wars, with users on both sides (but mostly on Orsini's side, coming from the social media) who repeatedly tried to modify the article (a stat alone proves it: there were in total 548 edits in a year, for an article about an academic professor on it.wikipedia is an extremely huge number). In those conditions to write an objective and not-flattering article was not only dangerous, but extremely difficult. Friniate talk 06:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for giving me a "flavour" of the prior history, which does help to add some perspective. Regards, --Andreas JN 466 08:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a quick addition: the en.wiki article about Orsini contains much more critical aspects towards him than the redacted it.wiki article did. That proves what I said before: it was not an attack piece, but a perfectly normal article (that doesn't mean that it was perfect, of course), that for an year was defended by admins against an external POV-pushing campaign, until Orsini decided to intimidate them by legal threats. Friniate talk 19:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * }

Point-scoring
That I am explicit about the Jeffrey Herf section being stray — as evidenced by the section remaining blank for a day —, what's your point? Maybe, entertain me with a new round of wikilawyering after the Poland case. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * And who challenged Tobias Hof's DUEness or reliability? All I see is bad faith in your choice to keep a few strawmans. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)