User talk:NickCT/Archive VIII

Android Media Players
Please tell me what you think constitutes to Original Research in the article. WP:synth as a reason for deletion seems a bit too industrious. I state specifically that neutrality is a goal here. Moreover, it's a TABLE on objectively determinable features. Also, imho, it's kind of rude to slap an AfD without saying why, especially when I asked to use the article Talkpage. CrashTestSmartie (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please answer my questions. It would be helpful to refrain from slapping REPETITIVE boiler plate policies at me.
 * - Hey CrashTest. Thanks for your note! Do you have a reliable secondary source establishing the notability of the subject you created an article for? Wikipedia is not for creating pages with random comparison of softwares unless that comparison is notable.
 * Thanks again for your message. Next time, please consider posting at the bottom of my talk page as is the general custom. NickCT (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @NickCT Hi Nick, glad you are communicating instead of "issueing decrees" ;) I urge you to reconsider your basic assumptions. This is a listing of features, not an article with scientific pretension. The article is indeed a combination of previous data, but, unlike WP:Synth states, it does not draw any conclusion based on that. The conclusion is explicitly left up to the readers. Please tell me how this differs from other comparison tables on Wikipedia, which combine old data into a table. CrashTestSmartie (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your message. CrashTestSmartie (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * - Creating random comparison's between things is synthesis. I could for instance compare Penguins to Ostrich's or Dolphins to Whales. I don't because those comparisons would be non-notable and synthetic.
 * Unless you've got reason to believe the comparison is notable, you shouldn't make an article for it. NickCT (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The comparison is useful, because a neutral comparison did not previously exist. Moreover, it is useful, because a stark majority of mobile phone users use this type of software. You didn't address my remark regarding your inconsistency. There are other comparison tables out there, like these ones:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mobile_phone_standards
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_e-book_formats
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_HTML_editors
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Unicode_encodings
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions
 * None of these are under scrutiny for notability NOR for synthesis, since comparing stuff is NOT drawing new conclusions. Tables don't do that, hence wp:synth does not apply. And, I'd wager that far less people use far less Linux distros than that they use music players on their smartphones, however unfair that is. (Yes, an argument could be made that Android users ARE using linux distros, however that'd be facetious.) Same goes for Html editors, Nvidia_graphics_processing_units and Unicode_encodings.
 * I get that you're trying to make a point, but if you're gonna use arguments to convince me, it's helpful not to use exaggeration. Music Players have pretty much the same function, unlike your humorous animal example. CrashTestSmartie (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Whales and dolphins have pretty much the same function. They both swim and feed Japanese people.
 * But seriously, re "There are other comparison tables out there, like these ones" - Well, 1) that's obviously an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, 2) to take one of your examples Comparison of HTML editors, there are a lot of sources and references which talk about similar comparisons (see ,,). The fact it's covered in so much RS means that it's notable.
 * And by the way, "It's useful" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.
 * Actually, glancing over this again, I'm not sure I'd want to delete a List of Android Media Players. NickCT (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @NickCT if you don't want to delete it, can you then please remove the notice? Thanks!
 * @NickCT You threw in the pinguins, which made your arguments look a tat fallacious, and silly. But seriously: you're kinda twisting my words here (and isn't that against WP:Straw_Man? ;)
 * @NickCT I did not say "accept my table BECAUSE it's useful", I said it's useful because it's about something which a majority of people use on a daily basis. Perhaps I should have used the word "notable". It has inherent notability. I get that some people (you?) don't have smartphones or listen to music on them, but these are in minority.
 * And my argument is not OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS THAT IS FAR LESS NOTABLE, so your argument is "inconsistent with tendencies of hypocrisy", as the expression goes.
 * Also, indulging in your somewhat flawed use of the htmleditors example: Is your argument that there aren't enough articles about Android Music Players on the internet? because you'd lose that argument https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Android+media+player%22 vs https://www.google.com/search?num=100&safe=off&gbv=2&q=%22html+editors%22 But feel free showing that my other examples like Unicode_encodings, Nvidia_graphics_processing_units and AMD_graphics_processing_units are more notable on the internet than media players.
 * Picking the only example out of my very limited list is a flawed argument in itself, but even more so when it doesn't support your argument.
 * - re "Is your argument that there aren't enough articles about Android Music Players" - No. My argument is that there aren't enough articles about comparisons between Android Music players. The htmleditor links I gave specifically compared html editors to each other.
 * Regardless, why don't we just let the deletion discussion run its course? NickCT (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @NickCT Fine. What is the next step, and when does it occur? Returning to the discussion: It would behoove you to not use the one convenient example, html editor, but (only for starters) also address the OTHER examples. Because you don't really address then, I will repeat my arguments: there aren't enough articles about comparisons between Unicode encodings, Nvidia graphics processing units and AMD graphics processing units. My other argument is that only talking about the comparisons is limited, you've got to take the underlying subject into account. My subject has far more notability than all of these examples, including html editors. I would suggest that your argument is (politely put) a tat selfserving, or if you will cherrypicking in two respects.
 * I hold that WP:GNG does not apply, neither does WP:synth, which you |tacitly agree with. CrashTestSmartie (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * - I think we've already covered WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS right? Why are you asking me to "address the OTHER examples"? NickCT (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Because your reasoning is seriously flawed. I've answered you, do me the courtesy and show that you've actually READ my replies to you.
 * - Ok. So you understand that point to OTHER examples of pages which might fit your logic is not a way to support your argument, right? I mean you have read the policy? And yet, for some reason your still asking me to look at these other pages. I really don't understand. NickCT (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but have YOU read it?

"These comparisons may or may not be valid, but the invalid ones are generally so painfully invalid" In other words, that policy is not a law set in stone, that says: "Any time someone brings up that there are similar articles, that is always flawed reasoning." Furthermore, "Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. (Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone;)  " In other words, do the work Nick, and show WHY you think that me pointing out that there are other comparison tables is a seriously flawed argument ... IN THIS CASE. It's not as if I am comparing ridiculous things, as you were suggesting that I did with your animal example (nice straw man, btw). Also, you can't have it both ways: If you want me to stop asking you to consider other comparison tables, then don't bring up HTML-editors. Also from the policy: "In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article." It would be nice if you could do that. I'll take that you agree that WP:SYNT and WP:GNG don't apply here. It would be good to confirm that. FINALLY: I've noticed that you've hardly said anything about the article itself. It would behoove you as well to show that you've read it, and give arguments on the substance.CrashTestSmartie (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * - Your continuing to post to my talkpage is getting obsessive. There is a deletion discussion underway. You may want to contain your comments to that discussion.
 * re "I've noticed that you've hardly said anything about the article itself." - If I created an article entitled "Why I like Santa Clause", would you have to read it to know it's not encyclopedic?
 * re "disregarded without thought or consideration" - I don't really have time to go through the list of OTHERSTUFF you presented and explain to you one-by-one why each isn't valid. I've already explained one, which you apparently have conceded. As a courtesy, if you point to one more that you think is particularly applicable, I'll address that.
 * P.S. Please sign your comments using ~ . It makes things easier to read. NickCT (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the only arguments you can come up with are insults. The fact that you feel the need to KEEP insulting me doesn't really help your case. You've done it twice now, first with the animal reference, and now with Santa Clause. What's worse, both are fallacious reasons. Quite a feat.

Nick, if you can't argue why the rules apply, you have no case. Again, don't be so intellectually lazy, and do the work. If you feel it's "beneath" you to read this article, then drop it already. About posting here, I keep getting linked to this page, I thought it was the place to do that. I will go to the other page.CrashTestSmartie (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * - Wait a sec. Where's the insult? I was simply asking whether you felt one really has to read an article to know that it's not encyclopedic. Providing hypotheticals to make your point is not insulting.
 * To reiterate (for the third or fourth time now) I'm not saying the article is "not useful". I'm not saying the article is "bad" or "stupid". It might be a really great and useful article. That's besides the point. The point is that "great and useful" are not by themselves sufficient criteria for inclusion in WP. NickCT (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification per WP:CANVASS
Regarding the MR, you will, I trust, notify all of the participants in the discussion? You can find the list, including editors who chimed in on the discussion that followed the RM closure, at User:BD2412/sandbox1. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - *grumble* - Yeah.... I got ALL day to shoot out notifications. (sarc mark)
 * Do I have to go to their talkpages or can I ping them? NickCT (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * With BD2142's list, you can probably set up AWB to append everyone's page with the notice.--v/r - TP 19:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Ummmm..... If I haven't done AWB before? I can probably figure it out. It might take me an hour or so.
 * I can't just ping everyone? That would be easy. NickCT (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I'll do it. Cheers! bd2412  T 19:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Ok thanks. I'll have to familiarize myself with AWB. NickCT (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You really should - it's a fantastic tool for handling high-volume tasks. Cheers! bd2412  T 19:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification
Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Canvassing that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: HRC move review
Regarding this edit. I am not going to clutter up the move review with further discussion concerning this topic. I will save further diffs and contradictions for any RFC/U or ArbCom case that may arise. I am not referring to you as an editor directly, although I do believe you are part of that clique. I do not assign motives lightly, but if I see a pattern I do tend to look deeper. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2014
 * Ok. Well giving you the benefit of the doubt for a second, i'll assume you do have good evidence to believe that some of the folks arguing for a move are doing so purely out of spite. Would you be willing to share that evidence? I'd be interested to hear it.
 * Glad you brought this to my talk page. We were definitely cluttering the move review page. NickCT (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would much rather not do more research or provide any sort of 'evidence'. Ever. I don't come to Wikipedia to get into ideological battles, or arguments with other editors. I find for the most part there are very good editors on this project. Everyone has their own opinions, and we have policies to help solve issues that arise from disagreements. Except for certain sectors of the project, where there seems to always be problems, with problematic editors. Where policies are used to bend and manipulate articles/discussions in order to push certain undesirable outcomes. But I won't be producing any sort of 'evidence' unless there is a good reason to. I do not want to get into long drawn out discussions, that turn into battles. Which is why I tend to stay away from ANI and ArbCom unless I find it absolutely necessary. I will say that I found that the IP who started the move request is probably an editor who also !voted there under their username, and has multiple issues concerning women on this project. A long history of constant battles regarding that issue. If you feel my opinions on this are a problem without producing evidence, you are welcome to disregard my comments or even ask for sanctions against me. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - I'm not a wikilawyer. I don't "ask for sanctions", except in extreme cases, which this is clearly not.
 * I'll just point out that if you say something like "my opponents have ulterior motives", then you don't offer any proof, it seems a little like you aren't assuming good faith. It will also make people who don't ulterior motives a little upset at being accused.
 * Agree "certain sectors" of the project are more problematic than others. NickCT (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I do understand that those who do not have ulterior motives would be upset by some of those types of accusations, which is why I do not question the motives of editors lightly, and don't wish to keep engaging in that type of discussion, unless it's absolutely necessary. But I also believe that most unbiased editors can look at certain comments and actions in the request and review and see the obvious. That is not to say that those who cannot see it, or do not agree with me are either biased or have ulterior motives. There are many other reasons one would not, and one of those is the systemic bias of the project. Which doesn't have to be a purposeful action to an underrepresented group, but just the life experience of people. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dave those are slanderous remarks and you should strike them at the move review. Focus on content not motivation. The IP was likely Kauffner and is now blocked as a sock of same I believe.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a 0% chance I strike my comments. If you feel I have violated some policy, I encourage you to take it to the appropriate venue. Dave Dial (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh come on Obi-Wan Kenobi. We were having a productive discussion. Let's not get all hoitey toitey and ask people to strike things. This is my talkpage. People are free to question motivations here without anyone getting upset. Let's assume that Dave Dial does have some good reason to doubt the motives of some of our fellow editors. You never know. He might be right.
 * @Dave Dial - If, as you say, there are "obvious" indications that editors seeking to "move" are doing so for reasons other than policy, then it should be really easy for you to point to those indications.
 * You've already invested a couple paragraphs in asserting that there is a bias. Why not back it up? NickCT (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (I was assuming that the accusation was leveled at B2C, who has had some... interesting... views about page moves; but I can't see B2C using an IP account to propose a move). bd2412  T 18:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - re "some... interesting... views" - Ok. And pray tell.... What might those views be, or where can I find them? I thought B2C's rationales were relatively clear and cogent in the context of this HRC discussion. NickCT (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In the HRC discussion, B2C consistently argued that the evidence of common name was basically a wash, and the only thing that mattered was conciseness. Conciseness matters, but not to the point of ignoring the common name evidence from a wide variety of sources. He has expressed the same view in a number of other move request discussions. bd2412  T 18:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - I saw Obi-Wan Kenobi make the "wash" comment, but not B2C. Regardless, though I might not agree with the COMMONNAME analysis or the interpretation of policy you've just attributed to B2C, I'm not sure I'd call them "outlandish" or "unreasonable" either. When you said "interesting...", I thought for a second you were going to tell me that B2C had said women didn't deserve 3 names or something comparable. That would have been an "interesting..." viewpoint. NickCT (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I was not saying B2C started the request using an IP. Although I think a certain bias of his shines through in many of his posts on move requests. We all have our biases, but if it becomes so much of a problem that it turns into disruption, then other steps have to be taken. I'm not sure we're there yet, but I do not frequent move requests, move reviews, AfDs or those types of discussions very frequently. I think perhaps 5 or 6 combined? A few more recently. So while being surprised at some comments, and some contradictions in when and when not to emphasize certain policies, a pattern develops. I think that much is pretty obvious without presenting any 'evidence'. Dave Dial (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Dave, I love you dude and I'm really happy to hear your opinions, but at the same time, you keep going on about "patterns" and "motives" and "certain comments" without expanding on what those patterns/motives or comments actually are. Honestly, it's beginning to sound a little paranoid. I'd love to discuss with you further, but you're going to have to give me specifics. NickCT (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I was talking about this:"It offends some people that she didn't take her husbands family name right away, and still uses her own family name. That is what is going on here. That's the elephant in the room. We have a group of editors dedicated to remove Rodham from her name just for spite. There is no other reason to dedicate so much time and energy to subtracting 6 characters from a Title of an article." And then ongoing bullshit hand waving conspiracy theories above. It's lame Dave, especially to make scurrilous accusations about secret identities - that are wrong by the way - and of course you can chatter on about it here but leveling such accusations against a vast supermajority of good faith editors who !voted to move this article to what is considered by them to be a more common title - something any obvious research will demonstrate - and ascribing it to spite is offensive. If you want to talk about POV pushing, the thinly veiled feminist rhetoric that suggests the title of this article is somehow the front line of women's rights on Wikipedia is a great demonstration of POV editing - it's incredibly daft and lazy when there are so many other systemic bias issues none of the outraged objectors have even bothered to look at - this title is irrelevant to systemic bias - remember, she ran for president of these United States under this name!! I'll give one example of a sort of systemic bias which is the ghettoization of women in women's categories, something that caused an uproar a year ago, I've done a lot of deghettoize room work to fix it but I've seen only one or two editors alongside helping, most people who expressed outrage a year ago are doing nothing, even though the fix is relatively easy, it's a bit boring - but instead people will spend 10k byes of discussion inventing new ways of interpreting very basic policies like concise and criteria and commonname and defending to their last breath those famous 6 characters. I'm not going to lose sleep if the Rodham stays forever but I get the feeling the oppose side will feel a great moral battle has been lost. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for defending my post on the move review. That is exactly the point I was making, and I'm glad that you get it.  - WPGA2345 -    ☛   20:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreement to mediation
Would you be able to signify your agreement (or not) to the Oscar Lopez Rivera mediation on the mediation page here? Sunray (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux RFC
At Talk:Stefan Molyneux, you wrote that you "Glanced at the references". I hope to express the importance that everyone participating look more deeply into the issue (since, if it was solvable "at a a glance" no RfC would be needed). I've compiled a page at User:Netoholic/Molyneux that compiles some citations and quotes about him that could be helpful, allowing you to both be thorough but not take too long in looking them over. If you're not able to (I know it can be complex), then maybe you'll rescind your vote until you get a chance. -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Sorry. I don't want to read through that entire thing. But I'll tell you what; if you can point to just two high quality RS (e.g. major news outlets - BBC, NBC, NYT or mainstream magazine, Time, Economist or major philosophy texts) which directly call Molyneux a "philosopher" in an unqualified manner, in the same sense that the sources below do, I'll happily change my position.
 * PorcFest speaker page (libertarian gathering)- "Molyneux is a Canadian philosopher and author"
 * Joe Rogan Experience (podcast descriptions) - "#396. Stefan Molyneux is a Canadian philosopher", "#436. Stefan Molyneux is a Canadian philosopher"
 * Seem reasonable? NickCT (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think what you're asking is a tall order. Virtually no living philosophers ever see their names on mainstream media, and if they do, its probably not in a context that makes the unqualified use of the term in the exact way you want. I took a look at probably the most famous living philosopher, Michael Sandel.  His references section includes mainstream media sources like you're asking (2 BBC, 1 Japan Times, 1 Guardian, 1 The Times, 1 Economist), and none of the ones I could read make the "unqualified" use of "philosopher Michael Sandel".
 * The Times - (dead link)
 * Japan Times - "Few philosophers are compared to rock stars or TV celebrities, but that's the kind of popularity Michael Sandel enjoys in Japan. The "Justice" course that Sandel teaches at Harvard University, where he is a professor of political philosophy"
 * BBC 4 - "Professor Michael Sandel presents a series of lectures from his Harvard undergraduate course in Political Philosophy"
 * BBC Radio 4 - "His guests include Harvard politics professor Michael Sandel, who gives this year's Reith Lectures on A New Citizenship, addressing the 'prospect for a new politics of the common good'.
 * The Guardian - "This year's Reith Lectures on BBC Radio 4 will be delivered by political philosopher and Harvard University professor, Michael Sandel".
 * The Economist - "Michael Sandel, a Harvard political philosopher"
 * Now, Sandel is strictly a "political philosopher", but you can see the variation in the sources. Molyneux on the other hand has produced political, ethical, and theistic philosophy - the sources are equally varied in how they describe him. Plus, while he is notable, he's hardly famous so the pool of sources is smaller. I hope you can see why this is a complex issue and can't be solved "at a glance". Context matters, and when sources discuss his published philosophy, it makes sense that he is a "philosopher". -- Netoholic @ 18:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Netoholic - I appreciate your position. I think it's important to remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth. I'm not asking whether Molyneux is or isn't a philosopher. He may well be. He may be a great philosopher. I don't know. I don't care.
 * The only thing I really care about in the context of this discussion is; "Are there high quality RSs that call Milyneux a philosopher". By your own admission, the answer to that seems to be no.
 * Now I understand your point that few "living philosophers ever see their names on mainstream media", but my response to that would be that WP should probably be calling few living people "philosophers". NickCT (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the same case could be made a lot of professions that aren't very "sexy" for mainstream media. But we have to work with the context of the sources we have and choose the best words. There is no better in this case than "philosopher", and that agrees with his own self-description... anything else could be considered contentious. -- Netoholic @ 19:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there's also the fact that "philosopher" is a sorta nebulous term in the way that other professions are not. It's fairly easy to define what a professional golfer is. It's not easy to define what a "philosopher" is. I think the fact that mainstream media doesn't apply a label to a lot of professions is that for a lot of professions it's hard to apply. WP should probably reflect the RS there and apply those labels sparingly.
 * re "There is no better in this case than "philosopher"" - But the RfC was presenting a choice between calling him a philosopher or nothing, right? In this case I think nothing is a better choice. Not calling him anything can't be contentious. NickCT (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the RfC is just about whether it should be "philosopher (without qualification)", as opposed to something like "libertarian philosopher"/"libertarian"/"political philosopher" or something else. Check this quote that wasn't on my compiled page before, I found it after you were asking:
 * The mother and son torn apart by web 'cult' that destroys families (The Times newspaper) - "A teenage follower of a controversial internet philosopher tells Tom Whipple how he walked out on his family and why he now despises them"
 * Its a fairly straightforward use of the word "philosopher" to describe him, at least. -- Netoholic @ 20:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * re "as opposed to something like "libertarian philosopher"/"libertarian"/"political philosopher"" - The RfC question is misstated then. The RfC question seems to be asking whether we should use the word "philosopher" at all. Reading through the responses, this is how most people seem to have taken the question.
 * Ok. I see and accept your Times reference. I'll count that as 1 out of 2. One more and I'll support unqualified use of "philosopher". NickCT (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah the RfC was kind of not fully thought-out by the editor that started it (he's been an opposed to the article subject for a long while). Anyway, not sure if it works for you, but Toronto's Globe & Mail used a somewhat sensationalized version in their headline, How a cyberphilosopher convinced followers to cut off family, not sure if that works for you. I also have a published book reference that uses the term plainly as "Being humble has made him one of the most trusted philosophers of our time" (page 26 of link). I've updated the lead line on Stefan Molyneux... all 6 refs there at the top have quotes from the sources if you hover over them. I personally think there's plenty of direct and indirect references to his philosophy career now. Appreciate your time looking into this no matter what decision you come to. I'll always keep looking for better sources. -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd call Globe and Mail "high quality" RS, but there they actually are qualifying "philosopher" with "cyber", right? So I'm not sure that supports your point. I'm having difficulty assessing the quality of the book you've pointed to. I think I'm still leaning towards "no" here, but I'll shift my position to neutral given your cogent argument. NickCT (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to take another look. It seems like every RS we find uses qualification to "philosopher" but none uses the same qualification consistently either so if the RfC goes through we're going to have just as hard a time deciding what qualifier to use. For example, The Globe & Mail did a followup article where the same writer (who used "cyberphilosopher" before) now uses "self-described Internet philosopher", so they aren't even consistent on the qualifiers between his own articles.  It feels like all the good RS's "dance" around philosopher a lot but none hit that bullseye enough times either. --Netoholic @ 07:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Yeah. Recognize your point there. Again, my sentiment is that "philosopher" is a hard label to apply, so it gets applied inconsistently. It's like calling someone an "artist". To do so, you've got to be able to explain what art is. And when you start trying to explain what art is the conversation can start becoming very..... well.... philosophical. NickCT (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstar! Its easy and enjoyable to have civil discussion with someone who wants to look at this from the impartial "verifiability, not truth" angle and has reasonable standards that he states up front and is willing to stick with if I can deliver. Makes that challenge a pleasure to attempt, even a pleasure not to fully surmount. Happy editing! -- Netoholic @ 07:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, its me. I found another news source, this one is a local paper, not top-shelf mainstream, but does make use of "philosopher" without qualifiers. Also I wanted run a thought by you if you don't mind. In my view, a source is either wholly reliable, or it is not - we cannot say a source is reliable for one statement, but not reliable for another. Imagine if we treated RS like this. Is The New York Times reliable for news items related to one topic, but unreliable for stories on other topics? Which? Who decides? That can get really ugly. I get that some sources are more "authoritative", and we like to use the most authoritative reliable source we can find, but we work with what we have. So, basically, if we are using a RS article for some statements (Molyneux is an author - Molyneux hosts a show - Molyneux is a speaker), isn't the same article an equally RS for "Molyneux is a philosopher"? Like you said, we're about verifiability, not truth, so am I right in thinking we shouldn't debate about whether the article is right on that specific point, only establish them as a RS and then cite that they said it? -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - re "another news source" - Yeah. That's not a bad source, but again, not hugely convincing. Publications with a national audience are better.
 * re "we cannot say a source is reliable for one statement, but not reliable for another" - Sure. Absolutely. But I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that there are other statements in the Molyneux article, which are only supported by passing mentions in the Times? Can you point to them?
 * re "on that specific point" - One isn't trusting any one RS to verify things. If the Economist, the Times and History of Political Philosophy all pointed Molyneux and used the term "philosopher", then you'd be pretty safe in using "philosopher" as an adjective. Not because any one of those sources is the ultimate authority on who is or is not a "philosopher", but because there seems to be agreement among sources that "philosopher" is right.
 * Again, given that the subject of this BLP isn't a highly notable figure, it's a little tough to verify things by that high bar (i.e. multiple high quality RS). In such cases, I prefer to err on the side of caution, and simply not make statements which aren't easily verified. NickCT (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, some of the same sources that mention "philosopher" are also used for other details in the article (view points, appearances, his show, etc). The problem is that in the votes section of the RfC, several people are saying things like "The cited references are not RS to call him a philosopher". What I don't get is how a source can be uncontroversially reliable for some things, but unreliable for other statements like "philosopher".  I don't believe that's a valid vote reason. -- Netoholic @ 01:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * - re "are also used for other details in the article" - Ok. Highlight the "details" in question you're disputing on the talk page, and we can remove those too. NickCT (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Washington, DC meetups in June


Greetings!

Wikimedia DC has yet another busy month in June. Whether you're a newcomer to Wikipedia or have years of experience, we're happy to see you come. Here's what's coming up:


 * On Wednesday, June 11 from 7 to 9 PM come to the WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space. Hang out with Wikipedia enthusiasts!
 * Saturday, June 14 is the Frederick County History Edit-a-Thon from 11 AM to 4 PM. Help improve local history on Wikipedia.
 * The following Saturday, June 21, is the June Meetup. Dinner and drinks with Wikipedians!
 * Come on Tuesday, June 24 for the Wikipedia in Your Library edit-a-thon at GWU on local and LGBT history.
 * Last but not least, on Sunday, June 29 we have the Phillips Collection Edit-a-Thon in honor of the Made in America exhibit.

Wikipedia is better with friends, so why not come out to an event?

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:People with disabilities
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:People with disabilities. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Great American Wiknic and other events in July


I am pleased to announce our fourth annual picnic, the Great American Wiknic, will take place at Meridian Hill Park in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, July 13 from 1 to 5 PM (rain date: July 20). We will be hanging out by the statue of Dante Alighieri, a statue that was donated to the park in 1921 as a tribute to Italian Americans. Read more about the statue on Wikipedia. If you would like to sign up for the picnic, you can do so here. When signing up, say what you’re going to bring!

July will also feature the second annual Great American Wiknic in Frederick, Maryland. This year’s Frederick picnic will take place on Sunday, July 6 at Baker Park. Sign up here for the Frederick picnic.

What else is going on in July? We have the American Chemical Society Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, July 12, dedicated to notable chemists, and our monthly WikiSalon on Wednesday, July 16.

We hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gertrude Weaver
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gertrude Weaver. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon!




Greetings!

Sorry for the last minute update, but our friends at the DC Historical Society have scheduled a Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War battle fought in the District. The event will last from noon to 2 PM on Wednesday, July 30. Hope you can make it!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Somaly Mam
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Somaly Mam. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of nearest exoplanets
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of nearest exoplanets. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

DID YOU NOT SEE SOURCES CITED?!
Apparently you did not see the sources linked on those pages. Are the ref tags too small?! 121.97.218.242 (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * - Ah.... I'm sorry IP. I only saw one of your edits which looked uncited then accidentally reverted them all. NickCT (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

T.J. DIllashaw
Hello, I got your message about me changing T.J. Dillashaw's fighting style to include Monkey-Style and BANG Muay Thai. I don't really know how to cite this, but he is introduced in the UFC before each bout as one or the other (usually as a monkey-style fighter). I have UFC Fight Pass, so that's how I know. I found one written source that might work for the BANG Muay Thai part (which is different from regular Muay Thai) here: http://www.fightmagazine.com/mma-magazine/mma-101-the-bang-muay-thai-system-7403/. Anyways, I'll wait for your reply on this page. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.99.203 (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * - Yeah! That Fight Magazine source looks fine. Do you know how to cite sources? I'm heading to bed soon so I may not respond quickly. NickCT (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oooh, this page has some references to his monkey-style! http://www.ufc.tv/category/ufc-bantamweight-champion-tj-dillashaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.99.203 (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great User:66.190.99.203. Cite your sources and you're all set. NickCT (talk) 05:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I got it. Thanks.
 * No probs. Let me know if you have issues. I'd be happy to help you out. NickCT (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sarkozy mixed race
But the citations are already in the article. He is French, Hungarian, Jewish etc. 86.180.152.25 (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet
Come one and come all. To a presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history.
 * Show the Internet who is the better editor.
 * Be the creator of culture that you know you are.
 * Spread the knowledge of noteworthy people who no one but you cares about.
 * Lead the charge to a better Wikipedia --- eventually.

Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet
See you at the Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street, Laurel, MD on Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 7:00 PM EST. See http://www.meetup.com/Wikimedia-DC/events/205494212/ for more information. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites revolutionaries, free thinkers, and other sundry editors to a DC WikiSalon
The WikiSalon is a special meetup usually held during the first and third full weeks of every month, from 7 PM to 9 PM. It's an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss Wikimedia wikis and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own.

If you're coming by Metro, the closest station is Dupont Circle (on the Red Line). If you're driving, a lot of parking opens up downtown after 6:30 PM, so finding a parking space (even a free one) should be easy. Once you've found the building, go to Cove on the second floor. We will be in the conference room. When: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM

Where: The Cove, Dupont Circle, 1730 Connecticut Avenue NW, 2nd floor, 20009, DC

For more information, see http://www.meetup.com/Wikimedia-DC/events/205500822/

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC's Wonderful meetups
Wikimedia DC's Upcoming meetups My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thursday, September 11: “Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet, One Article at a Time!”
 * A presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history. Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street in Laurel, MD. 7 PM.
 * Wednesday, September 17: WikiSalon
 * Come for the pizza, stay for the conversation. 7 PM – 9 PM
 * Saturday, September 20: September Meetup
 * Get dinner and drinks with fellow Wikipedians! 6 PM
 * Sunday, September 21: Laurel History Edit-a-Thon
 * Local history for Wikipedia! 10:15 AM – 4 PM
 * Saturday, September 27 – Sunday, September 28: Please RSVP for the Open Government WikiHack at Eventbrite by clicking on the link. The National Archives and Records Administration and Wikimedia DC are teaming up to come up with solutions that help integrate government data into Wikipedia. 10:30 AM – 5 PM each day

Please comment on Talk:Ed Miliband
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ed Miliband. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New Israel Fund
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:New Israel Fund. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The wonderful annual meeting! And more!




Hello, fellow Wikipedian!

I am excited to announce our upcoming Annual Meeting at the National Archives! We'll have free lunch, an introduction by Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, and a discussion featuring Ed Summers, the creator of CongressEdits. Join your fellow DC-area Wikipedians on Saturday, October 18 from 12 to 4:30 PM. RSVP today!

Also coming up we have the Human Origins edit-a-thon on October 17 and the WikiSalon on October 22. Hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of deprogrammers
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of deprogrammers. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. 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) 00:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Clooney
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:George Clooney. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. 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) 00:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Imran Khan
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Imran Khan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. 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) 00:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Calcium
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Calcium. 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) 00:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Mayors
I don't "hate" small-town mayors — I have a couple of relatives who've been small-town mayors. But Wikipedia has a pretty basic policy that mayors are not all automatically notable just because they exist(ed). The lowest level of office at which a person becomes automatically eligible for an article on here, just because they existed, is the provincial or state legislature — but for mayors, our rule is that some mayors are sufficiently notable for Wikipedia articles while others are not.

The standards for distinguishing mayors into notable or non-notable camps include the size of the city (it has to be large enough that there's a reasonably broad level of reader interest in the topic), the quality and volume of sourcing that can be provided about them, and the amount of substance that can actually be written to make the article more than the kind of PR blurb they'd put out on their own campaign literature. For example, nobody would ever seriously question the notability of Bill de Blasio or Rob Ford or Boris Johnson — but the smaller a town gets, the smaller the potential reader and editor pools for an article about its mayor become, and the harder it becomes for us to properly maintain our editorial standards.

Vandalism to de Blasio's article, for example, would get caught almost instantly — but on the other hand, I've personally come across articles about small-town mayors where vandalism had stood uncaught for months because the article wasn't getting seen by enough people to detect it promptly. Wikipedia's model of allowing anybody to edit the article, and then relying on the oversight of other editors as our quality control mechanism, works extremely well for high-visibility topics, but falls down on its face very quickly once a person's level of public prominence falls below a certain threshhold of broadness. So our standards for distinguishing notable from non-notable mayors aren't about "punishing" or "hating" smaller towns, but about the fact that the smaller a town gets the less we can guarantee an adequate level of maintenance. It's actually got far more to do with protecting the small-town mayors from POV attacks and other inappropriate edits than it does with "hating" them. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - re "standards for distinguishing mayors into notable or non-notable camps include the size of the city" - Could you provide the policy page for this?
 * re "come across articles about small-town mayors where vandalism had stood uncaught for months because the article wasn't getting seen by enough people to detect it promptly" - I agree with the idea you're enunciating, but seems like they could apply to any biography, and not just necessarily small town mayors. Why are you looking specifically targeting small town mayors.
 * P.S. Attempted to use "hating" with some degree of humor, in case that didn't come across. NickCT (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not "going out of my way" to specifically target small-town mayors; that just happened to be the particular category of people I happened to be looking at on that particular day. If I'd been looking at a musicians category and found a bunch of articles that weren't satisfying our inclusion standards for musicians, then I'd have nominated a batch of musicians; if I'd been looking at a writers category and found a bunch of articles that weren't satisfying our inclusion standards for writers, then I'd have nominated a batch of writers. On that particular day, a batch of mayors who weren't satisfying our inclusion standards just happened to be the thing that came to my attention — but that doesn't mean I'm going out of my way to "target" them for anything except the same "satisfying our inclusion standards" test that I'd apply to any other batch of articles I happen to come across.
 * As for the size of the town, reading WP:POLOUTCOMES would help — but it's also necessary on here to be familiar with conventions and precedents that actually get applied in AFD discussions, even if they haven't already been explicitly codified into policy per se. There are years and years of AFD discussions, the vast majority of which were not initiated by me, establishing the principle that the size of the town or city that they're the mayor of is one of the criteria for distinguishing the notability or non-notability of the mayor — and established precedents are still relevant to the process whether they've been explicitly codified into a policy statement or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - re "haven't already been explicitly codified into policy per se" - Ok. So it's not policy. Bear, I love ya dude, so don't take this the wrong way, but you really shouldn't express or imply something is policy when it's not. That's naughty.
 * Regardless, thanks for satisfying my curiosity. I agree with most of your nominations by-the-way, but I think you might have been a little too critical on one of them. NickCT (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Worth note is that none of our notability requirements are policy, they are guidelines. The two are distinct (but frequently used interchangeably). In my experience, I have noticed that most "non notable" (and I am being broad with that term) BLPs are of:
 * Musicians
 * Businesspeople
 * Politicians
 * The first two items can generally be speedy deleted by way of A7, typically holding a political office may be seen as enough of an indication of importance to not be eligible, hence they show up at AfD rather than just being summarily deleted. (Saw thins on Bearcat's talk page_ --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am coming uninvited in on this conversation because I was distressed by Bearcat's assertion of a "rule" that turns out not to exist. Not cricket, really.  It is true that everybody who runs for office seems to put up a wikipedia page, as do way to many wanna-be musicians, not to mention authors of self-published books.  But I think that if you actually get elected to be mayor of a sizable town, and get some coverage beyond a very local paper - including awards, we ought to consider that there may be real notability, even if it is local.ShulMaven (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - re "I was distressed by Bearcat's assertion of a "rule" that turns out not to exist. Not cricket, really." - Hear hear! I hope Bearcat will offer a simple apology for this. NickCT (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A precedent established by multiple past AFDs most certainly is a rule that most certainly does exist, and I absolutely will not tolerate being accused of "making up" rules that simply reflect the established consensus. A raft of past AFD decisions established "minimum population of 50K" as one of the baseline standards for deeming a mayor to be sufficiently notable; I did not. It is possible, for that matter, for a mayor to get into Wikipedia with a population of less than 50K — but the way to make that happen is to write and source a genuinely substantive article, because one which just asserts that "So-and-so is a mayor" isn't enough by itself if the place doesn't satisfy the population test. My only action here was to apply an established consensus to a set of comparable cases, and I will not brook being accused of anything else. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok Bearcat. Well again, I'm not trying to be a hater, but it seems several people feel you misrepresented policy. Even if that wasn't the intent, perhaps a simple apology is in order? NickCT (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just added this to Bearcat's talk page. I really don't know what to make of it, but it seems to raise all sorts of red flags. here it is:  I weighed in on a series of AFDs about small city mayors being proposed or argued by you.   In one I noticed an IP making an argument, and it was odd because IPs usually make naive arguments, not arguments from  policy.  I clicked, and found this IP  which appears to edit only to opine on AFDs.   see [], [], [], and [], [].  Small-city mayors.  As you know, on some of the pages, that You began assert rules of thumb as policy (5 sources of a particular type required to pass AFD; city must have pop. of 50,000 for mayor to be automatically notable)  And I accepted your word that the 50,000 number was a policy or WP standard for notability of politicians, (like being elected to a national legislature) .  Another user called you on it, and I entered that discussion.  As I said, I was ticked.  Then I stumbled into this truly strange use of an IP address on the mayoral ones where I began to see a pattern.  I know that there is no rule against IP adresses weighing in at AfD, but it is unusual for them to make such rule-based arguments.  I continued to click on the IP's contributions.  The November 2014 votes of this IP are so very regularly voting to delete in the same discussions where you vote to delete, or nominate the page for deletion, sometimes as the only other delete vote, or one of only 1 or 2 comments before a topic is closed as delete.  Truly minor, presumably non-notable figures., , , , ,   But the frequency of the IP voting with you in so many very brief, uncontroversial, November 25, 2014 AfDs seems too odd for coincidence. I inquired of an administrator, and he suggested that I ask you about it.ShulMaven (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note - Conversation continues at User_talk:Bearcat. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

note
you edit like such a guy - all snark and aggression. I am unwatching the fernandez article for my benefit, not yours. i'm really sick of editors who just wag their dicks around. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - I'm sorry. If you'll point out which comments you find offensive, I'll be happy to strike em.
 * For realz though, I was just trying to make a simple point, which was that you said there were "lots of sources" and it didn't appear as though there were lots of sources. If you find that "aggressive" or "snark", then I've got to apologize b/c it wasn't meant to be.
 * And what's wrong with the way guys edit? That just seems sexist. NickCT (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for replying. i am male and i try to just improve things, and i try to read and consider what other people write and try to respond directly and simply. its not about winning. the "like a guy" aspect is about winning - it is about not tryingto listen, and about responding with snark and sarcasm.  if you read the last three things you wrote to me I think the attitude you express is clear. i have my own issues; i am spending too much time here and the more time you spend, the more ick you experience.  time for me to back off in general and work on articles i care the most about, working with people who are really focused on content and getting things done, and don't feel the need to layer... attitude, on top of the work we are trying to do. thanks again, and good luck. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Intruding here because Jytdog has a point. There is a style of editing on Wikipedia, snarky, aggressive, combative, point-scoring....  You don't notice it at first, and I haven't followed NickCT#top| around enough to know whether he's guilty or not, but it is certainly unpleasant and probably makes consensus-oriented people (a category that skews female) and a lot of other people who could make constructive contributions back off and, you know, just go do something else.ShulMaven (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're always free to intrude ShulMaven! And you're right, there definitely is a "style of editing on Wikipedia, snarky, aggressive, combative, point-scoring". But there are also editors who are more quick to accuse others of being snarky/aggressive/combative, instead of simply saying something like "You know what. I was wrong". I'll let you be the judge of who's who here. NickCT (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - I am trying to listen, as evidenced by my asking you to clarify certain points you've made. Are you trying to listen to me, because again, you seem to have ignored the central point.
 * Look, if you were being a little hyperbolic when you said "lots of sources", that's Ok. I'm often a little hyperbolic at times too. But when people say, "Did you really mean to say X", the right response is "No. I'm sorry. That was inaccurate". Don't get all wound up about it.
 * Anyways, I hope you don't walk away, b/c I think you have valuable insight, and I enjoy hearing them. But if you must go, then I wish you luck. NickCT (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * look i appreciate your talking but i am really not interested in this. just try to be straightforward and leave off attitude/color ... it rarely translates well in written discussions. and doing things like pulling out deleted comments and quoting them (comments deleted with edit notes that are very clear like "remove negative reaction") is all about your need to win.  that is not the tiniest bit constructive.  sure it makes you feel all triumphant, but it doesn't help one single fucking thing go or improve anything.  except how you feel. that is again, the guy thing.   watch how people like Tryptofish edit.  Generally very very clean. What i aspire to. anyway,  good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * look i appreciate your talking but i am really not interested in this. just try to be straightforward and leave off attitude/color ... it rarely translates well in written discussions. and doing things like pulling out deleted comments and quoting them (comments deleted with edit notes that are very clear like "remove negative reaction") is all about your need to win.  that is not the tiniest bit constructive.  sure it makes you feel all triumphant, but it doesn't help one single fucking thing go or improve anything.  except how you feel. that is again, the guy thing. it's what i am most sick of here.  i do not have a thin skin - i have been called terrible things.  i am just sick of all the naked human ugliness - this place is a crazy laboratory of human behavior and it is so, so easy to see what motivates people. how much effort they spend tearing other people down or puffing themselves up; how much work they do to find really great sources and write NPOV content based on them, or how busy they are piling their POV into WP with whatever shit source pops onto their (too-often narrowly focused) radar.  sometimes it just gets to be "The horror, the horror" as old Kurtz said.  watch how people like Tryptofish edit.  Generally very very clean. What i aspire to and fail to reach too often. anyway,  good luck to you. (revised and  Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC))
 * - re " pulling out deleted comments and quoting them" - What does this mean exactly? Which deleted comments did I pull out? NickCT (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * so.. last reply. by the time you made this dif i had already deleted the comment about shoving your snark up your ass, 5 minutes before you wrote your comment and quoted it. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Woops. I actually genuinely didn't mean to do that. Edit conflict crash. Conversation is too rapid. ;-) I've deleted the offending material. I hope that satisfies?
 * And for the record, you're the one using terms "wag their dick" and cussing and what not, and you're saying that I'm being "aggressive". That doesn't seem odd to you? NickCT (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Quest Global
To help others in the discussion for possible removal of Quest Global could you mention some of the references you found that fulfill WP:ORGDEPTH? This would help the discussion move forward faster I am sure which would benefit all parties no matter what the outcome. - Marksterdam (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Replied at AfD. Best, NickCT (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Should save others time and hopefully attract others to the debate too.- Marksterdam (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - No problem. And by the by, I generally trend towards the "deletionist" side of these debates. So while we might not presently see eye-to-eye on this article, I definitely give you kudos for asking the question. NickCT (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * } - Thank you for the Kudos! It means a lot. Hopefully a view more opinions will be heard on this one as I would be interested to see what others in the Wikipedia community think. I do enjoy rational, reasoned debate. Fingers crossed the debate is now "enlivened" enough. :) Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - re "Hopefully a view more opinions" - Yes. The AfD will probably be relisted at which point hopefully a couple more folks will weigh-in. NickCT (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Microspace Communications Corporation
It fails WP:NCORP for a separate article, so how about we redirect this to Capitol Broadcasting Company, its parent company?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied at AfD. NickCT (talk) 13:19, 5 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) 09:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metacompiler
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metacompiler. 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) 00:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

End-of-the-year meetups


Hello,

You're invited to the end-of-the-year meetup at Busboys and Poets on Sunday, December 14 at 6 PM. There is Wi-Fi, so bring your computer if you want!

You are also invited to our WikiSalon on Thursday, December 18 at 7 PM.

Hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 02:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her. 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, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep. 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, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy. 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, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Chile world same-sex marriage map
Please join discussion for how Chile should be colored. Prcc27 (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Museum hacks and museum edits
 Hello there!

Upcoming events:


 * February 6–8: The third annual ArtBytes Hackathon at the Walters Art Museum! This year Wikimedia DC is partnering with the Walters for a hack-a-thon at the intersection of art and technology, and I would like to see Wikimedia well represented.
 * February 11: The monthly WikiSalon, same place as usual. RSVP on Meetup or just show up!
 * February 15: Wiki Loves Small Museums in Ocean City. Mary Mark Ockerbloom, with support from Wikimedia DC, will be leading a workshop at the Small Museum Association Conference on how they can contribute to Wikipedia. Tons of representatives from GLAM institutions will be present, and we are looking for volunteers. If you would like to help out, check out "Information for Volunteers".

I am also pleased to announce events for Wikimedia DC Black History Month with Howard University and NPR. Details on those events soon.

If you have any questions or have any requests, please email me at james.hare@undefinedwikimediadc.org.

See you there! – James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 03:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. 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) 00:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC celebrates Black History Month, and more!
 Hello again!

Not even a week ago I sent out a message talking about upcoming events in DC. Guess what? There are more events coming up in February.

First, as a reminder, there is a WikiSalon on February 11 (RSVP here or just show up) and Wiki Loves Small Museums at the Small Museum Association Conference on February 15 (more information here).

Now, I am very pleased to announce:


 * Tuesday, February 17 from 10 AM to 3 PM there will be #WikiTurgy at the University of Maryland. Join fellow theatre enthusiasts for a “mass act of public dramaturgy!”
 * Thursday, February 19 from 10 AM to 4 PM we are hosting the Howard University Black History Edit-a-Thon. We are working in partnership with the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of African-American and African diasporic history.
 * Tuesday, February 24 from 6 PM to 8 PM we have the Black History Month “First Edit” at NPR. Help improve Wikipedia and help others make their first edit to Wikipedia!
 * Finally, our monthly dinner meetup is on Saturday, February 28.

There is going to be a lot going on, and I hope you can come to some of the events!

If you have any questions or need any special accommodations, please let me know.

Regards,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015. 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 feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing for Women's History in March
 Hello,

I am very excited to announce this month’s events, focused on Women’s History Month:


 * Sunday, March 8: Women in the Arts 2015 Edit-a-thon – 10 AM to 4 PM
 * Women in the Arts and ArtAndFeminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Free coffee and lunch served!
 * More information • RSVP on Meetup
 * Wednesday, March 11: March WikiSalon – 7 PM to 9 PM
 * An evening gathering with free-flowing conversation and free pizza.
 * More information • RSVP on Meetup (or just show up!)
 * Friday, March 13: NIH Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon – 9 AM to 4 PM
 * In honor of Women’s History Month, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is organizing and hosting an edit-a-thon to improve coverage of women in science in Wikipedia. Free coffee and lunch served!
 * More information • RSVP on Meetup
 * Saturday, March 21: Women in STEM Edit-a-Thon at DCPL – 12 PM
 * Celebrate Women's History Month by building, editing, and expanding articles about women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields during DC Public Library's first full-day edit-a-thon.
 * More information • RSVP on Meetup
 * Friday, March 27: She Blinded Me with Science, Part III – 10 AM to 4 PM
 * Smithsonian Institution Archives Groundbreaking Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. Free lunch courtesy of Wikimedia DC!
 * More information • RSVP on Meetup
 * Saturday, March 28: March Dinner Meetup – 6 PM
 * Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!
 * More information • RSVP on Meetup

Hope you can make it to an event! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Thanks,

James Hare

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. 02:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the not everything schooling. Hugh (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - No probs mate. Looks like you've got some folks hounding you over this Singer thing. I think the best way out of this might simply be to RfC it and get some more eyes on the problem.... There seem to be a couple folks trying to take ownership of those pages. Perhaps not surprisingly those folks are involved on other pages with similar topics. Best not to debate too hard with POV warriors. Just RfC it and let the community override them. NickCT (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. Thank you for the advice. Prior to this I thought Hillary was the hardest article I ever tried to contribute to. I have been around for while and I'm sort of proud of my article page percentage but unfortunately my focus on article space has left me somewhat ill equipped for the level of gamesmanship in this little corner of WP. The owners have left us with some articles severely deficient in terms of balance with respect to RS. Spiking the NBC News article was rehearsed who knows how many times over in article talk space with editors before me before advancing to RSN. I very much appreciate your counsel. I don't think I've never done an RFC. Maybe we don't need it. Looping in citation talk and citing both sources was a good insight, thanks for that. Now our collaborators seem to be shifting to their noteworthiness tack, and I would very much appreciate your continued engagement. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - No need for thanks HughD. You may want to take a moment to learn about RfCs. In my experience they are great way to get around intractable debates if they are handled appropriately.
 * re "Hillary" - Were you around for the "Hillary Clinton" versus "Hillary Rodham Clinton" debate. That was one of my favorites for sure. NickCT (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeesh, no I missed that, thankfully. It's been a while, but if I recall correctly I heard something on TV about her thesis, jumped on WP to check the facts, and was annoyed to find the resident Hill heads had scrubbed all mention of her thesis from the main HRC article, no link, no see also, no nothing. So I guess I was the partisan hater on that one. Hugh (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hugh, I agree that RFC would be a good approach for your efforts in this area. However you should expect that you'll win some, and you'll lose some. When you lose, don't fight the consensus or get snarky or nasty. Just move on to the next one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * DrFleischman - I think you mean to say, "When you win, don't gloat". And don't worry. I'm sure no one will gloat. We're all adults after all. NickCT (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, yes, I mean that too. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See HughD/draftrfc, how specific/general do we want to be? where do we want to post, Singer talk, DT talk, other? link to/excerpt sources? Hugh (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - Played in your box. Let me know which one you think is more Neutral/Clear. After that, we should give DrFleischman/Champaigne etc time to review. NickCT (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - I did think your version was a good start BTW. A little formatting can go a long way in terms of making things clearer. It's also a good idea to try to force people to adopt a certain format when replying so that consensus is easier to read. NickCT (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. Please ping our collaborators and invite them to review or edit my sandbox as well. Hugh (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. NickCT (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick note
You don't have to ping me during an ongoing discussion that I'm already participating in. I watch everything I contribute to, at least for a few days. Cheers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. That's fine. I'll try not to. Apologies in advance if I forget. Different folks have different preferences on getting pinged. NickCT (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And PS, sorry for being such a sourpuss, but I actually don't love the snark. This topic has seen an awful lot of friction and nastiness lately, and it certainly doesn't need any more, even if in jest. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. But remember, humor can grease the wheels of a good debate when there is friction. NickCT (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm all for humor. Your comment about gloating made me laugh. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Apologies again for the earlier ping. I do it almost automatically. NickCT (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Robert Califf) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Robert Califf, NickCT!

Wikipedia editor Capitalismojo just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Looks good."

To reply, leave a comment on Capitalismojo's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Los Angeles City Attorney
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Los Angeles City Attorney. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)