User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2017/April

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Ayup
Alerted by a discussion at user talk:BSmith821 I was looking at. That set off a lot of alarm bells. For example,, promoting the "Fleischmann-Pons effect" (which doesn't actually exist), and this which is based on sources spruiking Rossi's fraudulent e-cat. I have dropped a DS-notice, I hope that we can persuade this gent to drop the cold fusion advocacy because otherwise he may be in for a turbulent time. Cold fusionism and e-cattery plus support for a Lamarckian suggests a rather worrying predilection for crank ideas. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All a couple of days old. I am already keeping an eye on that page. I have no doubt he has a "predilection for crank ideas", I am not sure that is worrying, as long as he can make sure his edits are properly sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Bravo
made me laugh, and is also a perfect summary of policy. Well played, sir! Guy (Help!) 12:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Disappearance of Dorothy Forstein sources
Hi, I was just using whatever sources that I could find. Also the newspaper clip from YouTube video is real. I am unable to find any better sources, can you find any?
 * The newspaper clip maybe, YouTube is not, thus we have no way of verifying if the newspaper clip is a fake or not. If these are the best sources you can find then it might be best not to edit an article when your sources do not pass mister. By the way others (including me) have tried to find better sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The newspaper clip maybe, YouTube is not, thus we have no way of verifying if the newspaper clip is a fake or not. If these are the best sources you can find then it might be best not to edit an article when your sources do not pass mister. By the way others (including me) have tried to find better sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I will look for better sources, and thank you for looking for sources as well.
 * It might be an idea to run any sources you find by the talk page first.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be an idea to run any sources you find by the talk page first.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Please post diffs of "dishonesty" or strike the claim through
Fact checker _ at your service 16:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I said your debating style was dishonest, I will leave the diffs I have placed to make the point. I will let other edds comment before I post any more diffs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a clue...where have I asked you to be blocked?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't have any basis for the accusation then you are engaging in dishonesty.
 * And if you do have a basis for the accusation, you should say what it is.
 * And... what does ANI do other than block people? Fact checker _ at your service  16:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I did, you just cannot see it (and I did not accuse you of dishonesty, read it again)), as to your second point. ANI has a number of options available one of which (the most severe) is a block.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think if you want to act in good faith you will at least help me understand what you mean. Otherwise I can't respond.
 * You said I contradicted myself, but I simply don't see how. You also said I engaged in some "gotcha" technique but that wasn't my intention.  You see that I did go to the other article after you asked me to?  Because I realized you were right that the discussion did belong there.  However before I started editing there I wanted to know what you thought about the question of using SPLC's selfpub claims (despite their specialization) vs. using secondary sources.  I didn't want to do a bunch of editing and only then discover you had a strong view on the subject.  I totally acknowledge I was snippy, but it wasn't because I was executing the final stage of some cunning plan, it was because I was annoyed at our exchange, and already annoyed at TFD for saying baldface that a WaPo opinion article would be undue.  Fact checker _ at your service  16:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I did not call you dishonest. So that is an example of what I mean, now think about what you did there and see if you can figure what what I am saying. As to you understanding is it is explained to you, in the same way you "understood" my explanation as to what talk pages are for?


 * As to your addition, well as I see it you contradicted yourself with this edit where you say it we should not quote SPLCv as it breached policy,   wher eyou say you are not sure if it breaches policy, here  where you still seem ambivalent, here (where you seem toc go back to saying it is not RS . It (looks to me) like your argument is all over ht eplace veering from "we should not include is as it's not RS" to "Well I am not sure".
 * Now maybe it is as you say "annoyed at our exchange, and already annoyed at TFD", that is also irrelevant. That is why "take a step back" is one of the "sanctions" that an ANI can impose. Also date stamp of my request 15:35, 25 March 2017, date stamp of your response on CIS talk page 18:22, 24 March 2017 (5 hours) date stamp of your last comment on SPLC talk page about the CIS page 17:47, 24 March 2017 (4 hours after I told you there was a discussion on CIS). Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Before I respond further, you're saying it's not "calling me dishonest" to say I have a dishonest debating style? Fact checker _ at your service  17:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like hair-splitting TBH. Fact checker _ at your service  17:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really you see you can be factually honest and yet still use dishonest tactics "ahh well we know what you REALLY MEAN". An example would be putting words into someones mouth and then agreeing with it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The four edits you identify as "contradictory" in fact describe a grey area in the way current WP policies are written, and do not contradict themselves. They all suggesting using secondary sources though they suggested it wouldn't be necessary if the claim weren't contentious.
 * Getting annoyed at something isn't evidence of a need to "take a step back". TFD's position was downright insane, and you weren't exactly being friendly with your dogged insistence in getting me to leave & refusal to respond to simple questions.
 * Where did I use the "dishonest tactics" you describe? Fact checker _ at your service  17:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Err yes, that is exactly what it is I have not the time now, but there is even a page about cooling down when in dispute that is getting too heated. As to my lack of response, to what questions? As to dishonest tactics, how about saying that "this is not the place to discus this" is portrayed by you as "saying no"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Which questions? How can you even ask that?  The ones I was asking about CIS when you started complaining about me being on the wrong talk page.  Utterly reasonable, utterly relevant questions, and when I responded to your pointless refusal to answer with a sarcastic I'll take that as a no, that was not an effort to mislead anybody so I question you characterizing it as a "dishonest debate tactic".  Fact checker _ at your service  18:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Also you've just done painfully bad misreading of timestamps above. There was no "4 hour" or "5 hour period" during our dispute. As I said, I made two posts about CIS, 7 minutes apart. Your first complaint came 15 minutes after my first comment about CIS, and I made no further comments about CIS, although, as noted before, we bickered a bit more over whether my question had been appropriate. So in other words I complied instantly with your Talk page demand, and your post to my user talk didn't come until I had already stopped posting at SPLC Talk. As I already pointed out to you. Fact checker _ at your service  19:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC) .So yes, you said I had said something you knew I had not said, that is a dishonest tactic. .Dishonesty implies some intent to mislead or at least the possibility somebody would be misled. Neither condition present here.
 * Do you understand I did not just talk you about not discussing CIS on the SPLC page but other issues as well (in fact I make it c;ear I ask you not to do a number of things on any other talk page, not just SPLC). I asked you not to discus users, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Center_for_Immigration_Studies&diff=772313582&oldid=772311666 (Insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it). for example were posted after I told you that insulting and mocking other users (well I directed you to the policy) was unacceptable. I have not looked at your interactions with other users, should I?Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What nonsense. That's not a personal attack.  Is there anything you've said that wasn't wrong?  I also don't recall insulting other users or being warned for it; is the diff you post "proving" it going to turn out to be yet another nothingburger?
 * As for discussing "other issues" at the SPLC Talk page—can you identify a single comment that was improper? No, no you can't.  All you can point to is a hypertechnical demand by you, which I instantly honored despite complaining that it was hypertechnical.  Fact checker _ at your service  15:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well if you do not see that as a PA then anything else I link to will be just as airley dismissed. As I said early on when you have poor actions pointed out to you ignore it and go into attack mode I have pointed out to you talk page policy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack, and you can't "link" to any because I didn't make any, so it's no use suggesting you have other diffs. Fact checker _ at your service  15:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk page polices
Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. If you want to discuss the subject of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal. No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace. Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of biographies of living people. However, if you feel something is wrong, but are not sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others. Insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it


 * Yes I get it, and as soon as you requested I stop, I stopped. It is also highly questionable that there was anything improper about my brief comments.  I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by posting the policy here days later.  Fact checker _ at your service  15:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No you do not get it, asking me if I would remove material form another page is still talking about other pages, yhou may have made it more general (rather hen about CIS) but you were still talking about how I would edit another page, also you are still talking about how discussion about page A on page B's talk page is acceptable. So, no you do not seem to get it, if you did you would not have continued to justify it. Ohh and I posted a link to policy on your talk page, before I launched the ANI, when you continued to make Sarcy comments about me, and before you continued to talk about users (an not the subject of the article) on the CIS talk page (as well as still defending off topic discussions). So (again) no you did not seem to get it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I stopped talking about CIS instantly when you demanded it. I did not make a single additional comment about it after your complaint.
 * And even though you prolonged the argument about whether my previous comments were appropriate, even that part of the discussion was over 33 minutes after you said "Take that to the appropriate page."
 * And then you warning templated my talk page after it was all over. Of course I was "sarcy" in response.  That doesn't have anything to do with CIS or the SPLC talk page, it has to do with you hounding me for emotional reasons.
 * Yes, your demands were questionable, but I honored them anyway. You could have said, I agree but take it to the CIS article or I disagree but let's discuss it at the CIS article, instead of essentially telling me to pound sand while deliberately ignoring my question.


 * Moreover I was actually trying to improve both articles by discussing the sourcing issues, whereas all you accomplished was ordering others around, attempting to shut down discussion at both pages, and filing a pointless admin case over nothing. Fact checker _ at your service  16:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sarcasm
sarcasm ˈsɑːkaz(ə)m noun the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

What Wikipedia says These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

So a sarcastic comment about a user is mocking (thus disparaging) them, that is a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Accusing others of having malicious intent is a little closer to what most people mean when they say "personal attack".


 * "All right, wise guy" is pretty innocuous and harmless language that you should have just shrugged off. Fact checker _ at your service  16:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is against the rules, as it mocks another user. Also this was not just about this, but a raft of rules breaches of which this was one example. If this had been an isolated incident I might have shrugged it off, but taking into account your other actions it looked like a user more interested in having an argument then actually contributing to improving pages. You edit by obeying the rules, not by breaking them (but as it appears that admins disagree it would appear you did not breach the rules).Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not against the rules, I was talking about sourcing concerns that were relevant to both articles, and I stopped talking about CIS when you demanded it. You are inventing rules that don't exist.
 * Accusing another editor of malicious motives as a way of avoiding policy discussion is against the rules, and it's actually a serious breach.
 * The "raft" you describe is nothing more than a series of quibbles by you in an effort to make hay out of a Talk page disagreement that was over in less than an hour, and was prompted by very reasonable questions which you pointlessly objected to. Fact checker _ at your service  17:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said it appears that the admins agree with you. This is my last reply on the matter, if they are going to take no notice why the hell should I?Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Slater I think I at least understand your perspective although I think you are going about this all wrong.
 * Do you think maybe, just maybe, I am a diligent good faith editor and our disagreement was actually not very serious? Fact checker _ at your service  17:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Slater. Judging by your own edit history, I'd say you have worked harder and more diligently on this project than I have.  Cheers.  Fact checker _ at your service  17:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I apologize for my sarcastic responses and I don't think any apology from you is necessary at this point. Fact checker _ at your service  17:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)