User talk:RAN1

Policeman
It's sweet that you monitor so many things, but please be a little more alert to nuance. Calling someone a heroic lanky marmot is hardly a personal attack, more a response to someone calling the same person a miserable little weasel. Just so you know, when I call you an oaf it's not meant to be abusive (just so you know!). Regards, Ericoides (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I caught the lanky marmot part as sarcasm and considering those other two guys were making PAs I erred on the side of RPA. I'll be a bit more reserved about removing comments in the future. Thanks, RAN1 (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for replying. Ericoides (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shooting of John Crawford III


The article Shooting of John Crawford III has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable event. Brief bursts of coverage when it happened and when the guy wasn't indicted, but Wikipedia is not a news site.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. I'll pass, maybe someone else will contest it. --RAN1 (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually notice that you'd already suspected in your edit summary that it might not be notable, glad you're taking the proposed deletion with good will. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Why I collapsed it
From ANI: I did not collapse this because I was ignoring it, I collapsed it because Jbarta was right.

This... this was why I collapsed it. I could not do as I am used to and I cannot review it and expect something this complex to be replaced with my private draft either. He's right, I am not above you - we may mis-communicate, but you are working to correct the article and make it better. I halted my review of all the sources, and picked the low hanging fruit, but Vox is fine (I erred by calling it unreliable). Jbarta gave me some perspective. I haven't axed anything major, your opinion on Knafo may differ, but I added 3 sources (using 2 now) and started to put perspective on the Grand Jury matter. I mean, how was it missed that Ferguson is 2/3rds black and the St. Louis county is 70% white. Or that the sitting grand jury was not sequestered. We are still missing how they would have to vote to indict. Context, perspective and plain disinterested details - that is what policy states and its what I strive for. Here's a bit of a tip, Cwobeel thinks I am "defending" McCulloch because I rebuke the arguments - but doesn't realize that my criticism cuts deeper and to an indisputable core issue without attacking the person. Oh gosh, McCulloch may have a few new angles of criticism with the sourcing I referenced - it just won't be lengthy POV-pushing quotes. Disinterested facts do the job without getting nasty. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On a related note, check out Jamilah Nasheed. This is par for the course on some BLPs. The "2011 Lil' Wayne concert" is a section I'll let you handle if you want, but that is some Jerry Springer-type drama going on a biography. It may have happened, there is no real place for things like that or in such a way. It may be extreme, but that is why it tripped the BLP warning filter. I see the Michael Brown page exactly like you probably see that section - its embarrassing to have that on Wikipedia. Claiming it is reliably sourced doesn't change what it is and does - what if [Jamilah Nasheed read that and that this given more attention than anything else in office? It is shameful and it makes Wikipedia look bad - especially since it is all over mirror sites and comes up as the first result on Google when you search for her name. My choice - axe first, question later. But I'll let you get a chance at it so we can hypothetically play WP:BRD from the other side of the table. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Shooting of John Crawford III for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shooting of John Crawford III is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Shooting of John Crawford III until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL
The above named policy does not say "cops are weasels so we don't report their claims". Is that what you thought it said? If not, I am having trouble understanding your removal of the words "allegedly blocking traffic" which were based on Wilson's sworn grand jury testimony in which he said Brown and Dorian were blocking traffic, forcing both lanes of traffic into a single lane, meaning the cars had to pass around them one at a time, when Wilson stopped them. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 21:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That has BLP implications against Brown and Johnson and as far as I could tell, was not sourced. --RAN1 (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Q
Shooting of Tamir Rice and Shooting of Akai Gurley also haven't concluded... I didn't want blow open your assertion after checking two cases I wasn't aware of... because, well... you made a point, but I shouldn't come down hard on you for every fault. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought that the fact they haven't concluded effectively means the same thing. --RAN1 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "All of those shootings' grand jury results happened after the grand jury investigation on Wilson concluded no true bill..." this states they concluded. I know your intention, but your words stated they all had returned results. Harmless here, but the wordings do represent issues in articles. Funny, how it slips in. Right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Hello, I'm ChamithN. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Shooting of Michael Brown without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Chamith  (talk)  22:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a non-issue - the removal was the result of a reinsertion of material under a BLP discussion. This notification is an error. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. But I issued this notification because he failed to mention about BLP discussion in his last reversion. He just used sigh, here we go again as his edit summary. As it wasn't a good explanation I had to issue this notification. But I'm going to strike out this as he later explained it on my talk page. Regards.-- Chamith  (talk)  07:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI
Please weigh it at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning per Discretionary Sanctions
Please stop removing sourced content from the articles. Continuing to do so in violation of consensus and continuing to grossly mislabel and misrepresent edits will result in sanctions per the Discretionary Sanctions you are already aware of. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. --RAN1 (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You should revert your edit and stop making accusations against user contributions as being under WP:FRINGE and falsely claiming a law professor or U.S District Court judge's statement as being within that realm. This "opinion" as you call it, is in a textbook and in case law - please stop disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding
"...for that last source, who is the decision maker in a regular grand jury?" - Read the source again because it is spelled out and very obvious. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the source implies the prosecutor has legal responsibility for the decision. That isn't the case. --RAN1 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You did not read the source very well then. Please, read it again because the same source makes the explanation three times, including spelling it out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I read it, but I see no reason to comment further on it here. --RAN1 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Enlighten me, who decision maker is on the charge in a regular grand jury? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Explanation
You asked for my explanation of the facepalm. Are you familiar with Kantian ethics? Aside from being a great example of WP:NPOV, it is also very much true to this situation for a number of reasons. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. You have no idea how sorry I am... but I don't think I can provide any better explanation then that under the circumstances. I hope you understand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with Kantian ethics, but I believe where you and I differ is that while you believe it is a great example of NPOV, I believe it is a good reason to follow NPOV. Take that as you will. --RAN1 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You must not be familiar with it if you gave me that answer. The mere mention under this circumstances usually provokes a very specific response. I am sorry, but your response has told me everything that I need to know now. If you were aware you would know Kant's maxim and the basis of Kant's morality arguments - and where that leads. Kant is layered and so was this response, the impenetrability of the logic behind it means what I feared. It is because I hold Kant's flawed logic in high regard that I hoped to show a transitive relation without actually spelling it out and leading into a perceived negativity spiral. To be concise and frank - we will not be able to work together. I'm so sorry. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, considering it's Wikipedia, that's a big load of crap. But nice try anyways. See ya around. --RAN1 (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you misunderstand and in essence revealed that you do not know what you think you know. According to Kant, the source of morality is intentionalism and lying is immoral regardless of whether the intent was good because of the Universality Test - but Kant's logic breaks down in these circumstances. However, your response clearly demonstrates - by itself - that you do not understand my words. And instead of clarifying the unknown you instead assert your impression in stark contrast to what was actually said. Furthermore, you knew you were in the wrong and continued to edit war anyways and you continued to advance knowingly false claims at BLPN. I facepalmed in the talk page because I saw you failed to understand what was even being discussed and you completely took the opposite meaning from even small documents. You do not understand. You do not understand and I cannot help you understand - a week of that prompted the facepalm. We cannot work together when you cannot understand the material or the words of others - it is a communication issue that cannot be resolved by anything I or any other editor can do. You are the reason we cannot work together - because you do not understand and do not listen. If you were to just listen and clarify what you do not understand then everything would be just peachy and you would not be calling Cassell's source WP:OR, WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLPSPS, or WP:FRINGE. Absolutely none of these policies are in any way relevant, at all, to the arguments you continue to advance and defend even after this point is made perfectly clear by multiple parties. That is why. Before you get mad, I said I do apologize because of what it meant and what it means. But do you understand what this means now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I ask that if an AE case is filed against me that you do not comment as an uninvolved admin because of this notification and your collapsing of the offending section. --RAN1 (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * N.B. I wrote the above only having seen the DS notif, sorry if it seems out of context. --RAN1 (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My involvement has been very intentionally in purely an administrative capacity so as far as imposing DS sanctions I am an uninvolved admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when I wrote that I was only aware of my being alerted and wasn't aware you were considering all parties. Feel free to disregard my statement, I don't intend to ask for recusal based on this anymore. --RAN1 (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the closure of the ANI regarding the IBAN between Baseball Bugs and The Rambling Man
Hi Ran, good to meet you. Concerning your good-faith suggestion to close the thread referenced, I'm wondering if I might presume upon you for a small favour, if you find any value in my reason. Specifically I'm wondering if I can get you to retract your cue for closure, if only for another day. I know the chances are beyond slim, but I'm still hoping that there might be an opportunity here to help Medeis and TRM come to a gentleman's agreement that will help them stay out of each-other's way. I know the thread started concerning the interaction between Bugs and TRM, but it quickly became more about the dynamic between the other pairing, the bulk of the comments concern them, and (most crucially) Medeis is engaged there. Neither of them has responded to specific proposal and I rather sense reluctance on Medeis part (and there's really no guessing how TRM might respond to it), but long-shot or no, I think it's worth the try. If this has to come back to ANI again, surely one or more of the three ends up with a TBAN or a block and I think that (for the moment) the two who have most doggedly gone at it are aware of this fact and as receptive to a compromise solution as they are ever going to be. Which still may not prove to be enough, but there's potentially much to be gained and nothing to be lost in making the attempt.  S n o w  talk 05:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was just about to post a comment on ANI regarding that. I took a second look at it, and it seems Medeis started a second thread under that section on 04:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC). Considering that you have Medeis engaged there, I'm thinking refactoring all posts including and after that into its own section (or own subsection under the TRM IBAN section) would be best, since (as far as I can tell in a quick skim) that thread doesn't depend on the discussion of TRM/Bugs's IBAN. What do you think? --RAN1 (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC).
 * Yes, that does indeed seem to be the most elegant solution. Thank you kindly for your assistance in this; as I said, I'm dubious about the outcome of this line of discussion, but if it has even a chance of disentangling this mess, I feel compelled to pursue it at least a little bit longer. Cheers!  S n o w  talk 06:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and feel free to remove my most recent post in the thread (concerning the cue itself) if you refactor the section yourself, seeing as it will no longer be germane.  S n o w  talk 06:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What I'm planning on doing is refactoring the Medeis/TRM discussion into its own subsection and leaving the rest unaltered for reference. How's that sound? --RAN1 (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds about right to me; I believe you're suggesting Medeis' post at 04:11, 4 January as the severing-point? With your cue and Bugs' endorsement also tagged on to the end? Will you place the Medeis/TRM discussion as a subsection of the above thread, specifically? That would work pretty well, I think, though it will create one monumental thread when they are fused -- but with the subsection linking on the TOC, it's really no more of a navigation issue/eye sore than the two discussions are individually at present, and it will keep like-discussions together.  That would allow you to leave Bugs' request (and the handful of posts that relate to it) as its own thread, with cue intact.   Indeed, given Bugs has given his blessing to the closure of the request, you could probably archive that section and the comments without issue, though I would do that in a separate edit in the (highly unlikely) event that someone wants to reverse the closure.   S n o w  talk 06:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That was my thought. I'm going to go ahead and do the refactoring now. --RAN1 (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks just right to me -- thanks again!  S n o w  talk 07:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Incivility at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown
This comment (first sentence) is very incivil. I'm not going to log this warning or take any further action given it's around 24 hours old and you weren't officially aware of the discretionary sanctions, but you need to be more careful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though per my reporting of FCAYS at AE, I was officially aware at the time of that edit. I'll be more careful about how I phrase my disagreements. --RAN1 (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

THX
I was wondering about McCulloch's role in the matter since the other pieces were all jumbled and I knew something was being lost by Sorkin's 2014 piece. It makes sense now. You might not agree with me, but I don't exactly hold McCulloch in high or low regards. Sorkin's 2014 piece makes numerous issues and Sorkin has a clear slant to the writings. McCulloch doesn't seem to lie - but he has made several comments easily seen as misleading, whether or not they needed the assistance is irrelevant. A high-quality BLP needs such nuance and you've helped provide that nuance. Now, Kinkogate can return with appropriate context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad that works out. Sorkin seems to be quite the expert, considering he did a decent chunk of the reporting in 97, but referencing the original news publications rather than his personal take is easier to handle for WP's purposes. I'd recommend you add the relevant articles to your current Highbeam request so you can get your hands on them ASAP. --RAN1 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I got sent a few articles, but I do intend to stay away from that article for the time being. I still see the 2014 source as being an issue and the previous articles far more nuanced. You may not realize this, but I usually end up sifting through a fair amount of hoax material and other junk without raising any "fuss" because its just easier to do so. Few editors will get hinged up about word choice or the implications of certain sentences, but I do. When I am researching and finding material in the archives, a lot of claims and reports are often inaccurate or contradictory. Sometimes material is plain wrong and its by my doing that the record is set straight. I submit corrections and work in the background on most things. You won't believe the sort of vandalism and garbage that clutters some articles. I might fix Froggy's page up, but ugh... even not under BLP I shudder at the implications of doing so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I know how wording and implication issues can be extremely aggravating even if they seem silly sometimes. I hope those articles will let you clear up those vagueness issues, the intros provided far better context than some of the modern articles we've been citing. --RAN1 (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, your source was actually among the best - I just don't know McCulloch too well to really proceed and I am not exactly supportive of his actions. Despite this, I'm likely to get Braff's work in the few days and I'll be thoroughly busy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Following up re COI
Hi RAN1 -- I appreciated your comments at the AE I filed, although I'm sorry I filed it: I was upset. Just wanted to follow up on our brief exchange about COI. I wrote: "Note: In the "real world", practicing acupuncturists study and write MEDRS's about its effectiveness and are not generally considered conflicted," to which you replied "Regarding COI, Wikipedia does not apply that standard to COIs since Wikipedia's aims are markedly different than most MEDRS's." But we do apply that standard, insofar as WP:COI has said for years (in one way or another) that simply having a profession does not, in itself, create a COI. And Wikipedia does share, with e.g. Cochrane Reviews, the aim of writing a good tertiary source. Obviously WP differs from Cochrane, e.g., anyone can edit, and it's not necessarily reliable.

My thinking is: Practicing acupuncturists write Cochrane reviews, which we consider unsurpassed as MEDRS's.  Do we presume to be somehow more "exclusive" than Cochrane? Of all the editors we could be discouraging, why does it have to be topic-area experts, especially when arguably our single worst problem is a shrinking pool of editors? (MastCell is sadly correct in his WP:CGTW #4, including the footnote.) As long as expert editors respect WP:5P and WP:ADVOCACY, I think they should be treated like everyone else, plus maybe an extra "thank-you".

AFAIK, Wikipedia has never told an entire profession that they automatically have a COI, even though many professionals would benefit from somehow having their profession look better. Also, in my experience the COI argument has been raised cynically, in an attempt to win content disputes: I've seen this more and more lately, where editors comment on the contributor instead of content. Very much the young male demographic, aggressive, more "skeptic" than scientist. Just my thoughts, FWIW. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 10:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

AE request closed
I've closed this AE request, which you filed against Factchecker atyourservice. The cosensus of uninvolved administrators was that the diffs cited represented legitimate, albeit heated, discussion of a content matter and did not violate BLP or any other conduct policy. Please ensure that any future enforcement requests you make are related to a genuine conduct issue, rather than to force an end to a content dispute. Thank you, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reword at Sacheen Littlefeather
I'm trying not to get into fights where I'm not 100% sure I'm right with respect to the article in question, so I wanted to note for the record that if you think I'm wrong about I welcome your reverting it and would not for a second think you (or anyone) reverting it would in any way be contribution to edit warring. I appreciate the edit you made, just thought that the writer/publisher and type of article needed a bit of clarity. Hipocrite (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me, The early life section was getting turned into a coatrack, so I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the wording: I got columnist from the title of the Hollywood Reporter piece. RAN1 (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Help with Vladislav Doronin edit request
Hello RAN1. Thanks for your recent edit reinserting the One Hyde Park mention in Vladislav Doronin's article, it was both thoughtful and helpful. Given your experience with BLPs, I'd appreciate your assistance on my most recent edit request as well. Thanks again. CharlotteAman (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi RAN1, following up on that latest edit request- thanks for coming to look. Although it was partially addressed by another editor, I'm looking for a second opinion. While most of the information mentioned in the open edit request is factual, it seems to be excessive and/or redundant. I've addressed each point on the Talk page, and would greatly appreciate additional input; the responding editor has been heavily engaged on the page thus far and I'm hoping to widen the discussion. Thanks again for your time, CharlotteAman (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Checking in to see if you've had a chance to review my expanded request on the Talk page. For your convenience, I've also created a   version of this article in my userspace, with a clear breakdown of the content that is unencyclopedic (yellow) and/or not relevant to this BLP (blue). I'd be grateful for your input and opinion. With thanks, CharlotteAman (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing the redlinked names from the lede section of the article and for creating a subsection about Doronin's art collection and interests. I appreciate your ongoing intervention and assistance; your edits are facilitating the page's improvement and clarity. At this time, I'd ask that you consider making two additional edits, specifically:
 * Removal of the extraneous details in the third paragraph of the OKO Group subsection, relating to the March 2022 Aspen Mountain acquisition. The extensive information about the owners of Norway Island LLC is not relevant to Doronin's BLP.
 * Removal of the excessive detail in the fourth paragraph of the Personal life section. The Forbes source used does not state that Doronin "frequently travels to Moscow where he owns a business and to visit friends." This is not only an unsubstantiated claim, it is also trivial for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Similarly, the last two sentences of that paragraph, detailing the design, features, and ownership of that property, also seem irrelevant to this BLP.
 * Thank you again for your help with these changes. CharlotteAman (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @CharlotteAman: You'll have to thank DrDavidLivesay for the art section, he posted that. I'll work through the OKO and personal life sections tomorrow. RAN1 (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Closure at RFC on WP:NOTDIRECTORY and notability
Hi. I have some issues with the closure at: RFC on WP:NOTDIRECTORY and notability.

The first, and most important thing is that WP:NACD says, Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. so I think the controversial nature of the discussion, and the little dispute at the close request require an admin closure.

Also, NACD says, Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion, or for a page in which you have a vested interest..., but it appears to me that you have simultaneously offered your own personal opinion to the discussion along with the close by saying, "Ideally, the policy would discuss notability and navigation." If it is then your opinion that the policy "ideally would discuss notability and navigation", then it seems clear you have a vested interest in the outcome since many supporters were saying the policy was not the place for discussions about notability. If it is not your opinion, then it seems like the wrong read of consensus. Either way, I think an admin closure is required. Huggums537 (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I undid my closure because I don't know that I phrased what I was trying to say well, but many of the supports agreed with the current DAB guideline. That is, if a person is going to show up in a DAB, they have to be notable or connected to something that is. RAN1 (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for undoing your closure. I agree with Huggums537's concerns as it seems like you have < 1000 edits over 10 years of sporadic editing. Natg 19 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , I think you mean to say the opposite. The supports do agree with the DAB guideline, but it was the opposition saying that if a person is going to show up in a DAB, they have to be notable or connected to something that is. This was a very confusing discussion, and that was part of my complaint with the way BilledMammal presented it, and why I think it needed an admin review. Honestly, I think even some admins might have trouble unless they review it very carefully. Huggums537 (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Huggums537: I don't see how that's different from MOS:DABMENTION: Somebody's connected to an article if they're mentioned in it. By the way, I take issue with the idea that I have a vested interest in this RfC for trying to apply WP:POLCON here, even if I didn't cite it. RAN1 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand your position much better now. I think you were right that maybe you didn't explain yourself as well as you meant to on the closing. Huggums537 (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Huggums537: Does this hypothetical close result have any issues?
 * RAN1 (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You did really great on the first part by neutrally presenting the views of both the supporters, and the opposers. The issue I have is the last parts that still seems to favor one side over the other. Many voters think the proposed changes actually do accomplish the goal of revising the policy so that there is no conflict between it and the accurate reflection of community practices at the DAB guidelines. For you to say that the proposed change does not accomplish that makes it appear that you are siding your view with only the opposers who were saying really the exact same thing - the proposal doesn't accomplish that, while omitting the views of the supporters on the subject. I understand that might not be your intention, I'm just telling you how it looks. Huggums537 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Huggums537: Ok, then, just changing the summary and last sentence, how about the following?
 * RAN1 (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering why you are asking these questions. Do you have plans at attempting another close of the discussion in spite of the concerns of myself and @Natg 19 about needing an admin closure? I only ask because I believe @Certes also expressed some concerns on the discussion page. Huggums537 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Huggums537: Do you mean this diff? I thought it was just a WP:POLCON concern. RAN1 (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the right diff, but I see now it was a reply to another editor and I don't know why I thought it was a notice to potential closers. My mistake.Huggums537 (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's POLCON. I was just emphasising that this would be a good opportunity to resolve two contradictory instructions to editors.  My comment wasn't particularly aimed at closers, except in the sense that every comment worth making potentially influences the close. Certes (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Huggums537, Natg 19: I'd like to attempt another close if your concerns are settled. This would be an involved close, so I won't post without affirmatives from both of you. RAN1 (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I will say on your behalf that I think the last example you provided above actually does alleviate all of the concerns I had about your original closure, but I still think this discussion is going to require an admin intervention because of the simple fact that we are going to be left with two sets of guidance that will remain in conflict with each other if something is not changed. Presumably, an experienced admin will be able to either intervene or otherwise intercede in a way that will direct the community on a forward path to resolve the issue. I'm editing on mobile right now, but as soon as I get a chance to figure out how to do it, I'm going to put in a formal closure request explaining the reason why on the closure request statement unless someone else beats me to it first. Huggums537 (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

SpaceX orbital test - original research
“We can't evaluate primary sources because it would be unverifiable original research, otherwise we would just source it to a time link.” Thanks for this concise and informative reply, as I still am trying to learn WP subtleties. But verifiability seems like a blurry line; what does “evaluation” include? What I proposed in the Talk would be independently “verifiable” by anyone who can count a.) frames of a video, and b.) lit circles per frame. As I said, the results seem like digital facts outside of any possible dispute. In other words, is “evaluation” a slippery slope away from “obvious observation”? 67.185.21.25 (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea is that editors shouldn't be sources outside of the exceptions listed here because verification would be a mess. Adding frame-by-frame analysis to the list would need consensus in line with that. RAN1 (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok and thanks for that link. But the exceptions listed there seem far more dangerous than the (indeed, already listed exception) “routine calculation” I am proposing. For example as a graduate-level linguist I can attest that “Translations and Transcriptions” are subject to vast literature of disparity and dispute by expert academics. Seems like citing a a.) frame number with b.) a number of lit circles in that frame, hardly even rises to the level of a “calculation”, routine or otherwise. So would that be allowed here? 67.185.21.25 (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the translations, so I went searching and found this discussion from 2005, and it looks the reason that wasn't struck out is the issue was brought up in the last comment after everyone who cared stopped paying attention to it. I don't think it should be policy. As for the video, I wish it were easy to cite video frames, but it's not so it probably wouldn't pass. There are a lot of examples of no consensus at the policy village pump, which is where proposed changes to policy go. RAN1 (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the mentoring, it means a lot to me. Now off-topic just to finish on the translation thing, I was slightly corrupting the situation above to make my point. I think the reason that policy perhaps unfortunately must persist is that it would simply cut out way too much of the worlds accumulated knowledge to require a “peer-reviewed translation” (itself) of each/every otherwise-WP-ideal research you wanted to cite. Peer reviewed research papers on matters specific to the nuances of a translation proper are actually and obviously quite specialized, obscure, and few and far between. Here’s one such rare example, just in case you don’t follow what I’m trying to say: https://www.jstor.org/stable/311321 67.185.21.25 (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * …or have I missed the point of the translations exception? 67.185.21.25 (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sort of. I don't see it as a corruption, though. Wikipedia articles are patchworks of paraphrased sources, but translations are close paraphrases of quotes. It's less awkward to just paraphrase non-English sources just as with English sources, and in practice I rarely see editor translations in articles. Talk page discussions don't usually contend with puns in our sources like Brown does with Lucretius, and machine translation generally makes verification doable. I don't think editor translations are needed, and if allowing it as an OR exception were up for debate now, I'd probably oppose it. Anyways, glad to be of help. RAN1 (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)