User talk:Sportfan5000/Archive 1

Copying from one article to another
Hi Sportfan, could I ask you please not to copy material word-for-word from one article to another, as you did here? This constitutes both a copyright violation and plagiarism, because you didn't acknowledge the source and so it looks as though you wrote it yourself.

When moving material from one article to another, the source (the Wikipedia article) has to be added to the edit summary. Copying material word-for-word (rather than moving it) is rarely appropriate, partly because what's written for one article may not be entirely appropriate for another, and partly because it means if readers click on the other article to learn more, they're confronted with exactly the same text.

If you want to summarize sources, it's best to do it in your own words. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try my best to ensure I attribute correctly. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions
In case you didn't know, there was a remedy at the Sexology arbitration case that resulted in discretionary sanctions being authorized. You are hereby notified that should you fail to abide by the standards normally expected of editors while making edits on any articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification, sanctions can be levied against you by any uninvolved administrator, including but not limited to blocks, topic bans, as well as any other device that is needed to ensure the project can run smoothly. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 08:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A follow up: Someone has opened a clarification request about my action, so feel free to comment at that page. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 22:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this means? Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The discretionary sanction basically means that any uninvolved administrator can levy appropriate sanctions without having to go through certain processes that otherwise must be used. For example, suppose the IP editor I also warned this way starts throwing unsubstantiated accusations at you on the Reich talk page. Without having to go to WP:ANI or arbitration enforcement, I could topic ban him from making edits that relate to Reich at all. (It is, obviously, an example.) That being said, someone has challenged whether it is appropriate for the DS to be levied, and you should comment at the clarification request I linked if you desire to. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 09:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction
Per WP:AC/DS and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute, I am restricting you to WP:0RR on all edits or pages related to the Manning case, subject to the usual 3RR exceptions, as you have edit warred on quite a few pages related to the topic area within the last week (Template:WikiLeaks and Chelsea Manning. Such restrictions can be appealed to WP:AE or WP:AN. --Rschen7754 01:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive
User talk:Sportfan5000/Archive 1

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

LGBT sportspeople
Just a couple of quick notes for you about LGBT sports categories...while it's true that most of the relevant categories are at the "sportspeople" wording due to their gender neutrality, the one that's specific to gay men is at instead of "gay sportspeople", and the one that's specific to lesbian women is at  instead of "lesbian sportspeople". As well, a person shouldn't generally be added directly to in most cases; rather, they should be subcatted into "gay sportsmen", "lesbian sportswomen", "bisexual sportspeople" or "transgender and transsexual sportspeople" as appropriate, and into the relevant national subcategory of  if one exists (but don't add one as a redlink if the category doesn't already exist, though.) Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll try to remember all that, I usually rely on the auto-filled-in categories. BTW, how to you categorize intersex sportspeople? Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't a dedicated category for intersex sportspeople right now; you're stuck with just the general at the present time, but I'll review it to see if there are enough people to warrant a separate subcategory yet. (Update: there is one for, but that's not appropriate for all sportspeople, as Wikipedia follows the convention of restricting the "athletes" terminology to people who compete in athletics, rather than as a synonym for all sports — so now what I need to do is review that to see if it needs to be renamed or not.)
 * I should have added, by the way, that I've already fixed the handful people to whom you added the "gay/lesbian sportspeople" wording, so don't worry about going back to find them again.
 * And by the way, thank you for the source on Greg Duhaime. I've had him listed at WP:CANQUEER for months as a person who turned up in some unannotated lists of LGBT sportspeople, but seemed to evade being identified as gay in any properly citable sources that I was able to find. So much thanks to you for finally finding one. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Final update...I am going to rename the "athletes" category, as it contains a few people who aren't athletes in the strict sense of the term but doesn't contain enough people to justify having separate categories for "athletes" and "sportspeople in non-athletic sports". So if you come across any others, the correct category will now be . Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The ones I ran across all seem to be tied to gender verification in sports, there was at least two or three Olympians, or folks tied to the Olympics who ultimately should get some coverage in the article, but that's after other work takes place. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Different kind of followup, just wanted to let you know: I'd already had Scott Cranham identified as a future article topic on the Canadian LGBT workgroup list, so I just finished a quick stubby article about him, and I've gone ahead and added to everybody else in  and/or  to whom it applied. And on your own sandbox worklist I took the liberty of correcting the spelling of one person for whom we did have an article already at Marion Lay instead of Marian. Other than that, keep up the good work and please feel free to let me know if there's anything else you need some assistance with. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Though
The reference to "minors" is included on the other articles you've edited that relate to the controversy (i.e. Olympic protests of Russian anti-gay laws and LGBT rights in Russia, so why do you have a problem mentioning it on the Olympic page? ViperSnake151   Talk  06:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with it on any page but 2014 Winter Olympics is one of the most highly-visible and edited so when we get it sorted out there, it will most likely be a workable solution elsewhere. I think this version comes pretty close to something that is an acceptable compromise. The sources still widely call this a ban on "gay propaganda" but referring to it as effective bans on the distribution of LGBT "propaganda" works fine. I see "Prominent campaigns, such as Principle 6, have been held in protest of effective bans on the distribution of LGBT "propaganda". The laws, stated for the protection of children, were widely criticized for being so vague that they effectively prevent most forms of LGBT culture, while the legislation has been attributed to an increase in hate crimes against LGBT people in Russia."


 * As a fair summation. What remains is alluding to that this is used to also shut down all LGBT websites, but I'm not sure if that should go in here. Thank you for your understanding! Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering
For consistency with the rest of the article, would you mind using Cite web? ViperSnake151  Talk  22:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I will try but no guarantees as I'm in the middle of several projects. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

WTF?
Start an RfC is you insist on your way or the highway -- right now I suggest you are verging on edit war territory without seeking a consensus for you position on Duck Dynasty - and I fear that an RfC will be quite disappointing for you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your removing sources is troubling, but possibly only more so is you claiming content has been discussed when it hasn't, and removing entire episodes of a national controversy to suit your way. If you seriously think the black comments don't belong then start an RfC, that content has been there the entire time. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The stub I created yesterday with the Murphy allegations
I am not naming the article and thanks for deleting it. The logic is thus: someone comes to RfD with a redirect that has been recently created to Murphy saying "I don't understand why". I find some online sources, two of which are newspapers, and I decided to create a stub and list the facts that are reported elsewhere on the Internet and in print. I didn't think this person was notable or deserved an article, but the only way other editors can get to see the facts (unless they did the research I did) is to see the article in the research that I did to create the stub. I said from the outset it was not notable in my opinion, but I think it is wise once something is up at an XfD for discussion that it gets discussed, and to come with clean hands and present the facts in my view is the best way to do it. In the day or so it existed I deliberately didn't even look at the Murphy article.

I was very careful in my language to say "alleged" and so on, those things were alleged. Perhaps that is just a British thing but the UK is renowned for libel tourism and doesn't have a 1st amendment right to free speech, so we tend to say "alleged" a lot when referring to someone else pointing the finger.

But it is quite right to speedy delete it, and in my opinion it should be salted if you can do that? Si Trew (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's been deleted and salted. I understand the concerns, and maybe just doing a delete of the redirect would be enough if it comes up again. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes it is a new editor I think just created an account about two weeks ago so understandably just hits Twinkle etc quite rightly to express his concern because he or she doesn't know the wily ways of WP:AFD or WP:RFD etc (although since that editor pointed me at the link for gender-neutral language at WP:SHE, something is a little amiss there and perhaps it is a sockpuppet account but that's another matter). I did what I thought best, take it through the proper channels, and thanks for salting it. Si Trew (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing etc
You said you "weren't sure if this belongs" about a bit in the lead of the article. Just to say the reason it is in there is to satisfy the notability requirements of WP:LISTN since the article is contentious and has been up at AfD a few times. There's more on the talk page but the last AfD had a request by the closing admin for something like that. Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would work on that a bit then as those parties all seem quite invested in one side, which I suppose would be true of most sources. I suggest creating a separate section like a "background," that specifically speaks to who created lists like those, why, and when. It might make sense to have it as part of a greatly abbreviated history of climate change debates. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Murry Salby
I already posted it to BLP board. It's a violation of WP:ATTACK to have an otherwise notable person that only has negative information about him posted. His notability in the AfD discussion is all about academics, papers and references. Many have commented that it's a BLP issue "as is". You have not improved it, so it should remain a stub as it is a BLP violation to have such an unbalanced article. --DHeyward (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The obvious solution is to add content you feel is missing. Since you have made clear your desire to delete the entire article i think others, like myself, will end up doing the work. but let's get more people to take a look. That should help. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have that information so the policy is to stub it. If I had the info, I wouldn't have nominated it.  Policy doesn't say wait until you have more information, it says "stub it" (and delete the other version).  As the article appeared immediately before being listed on a sceptics list and only had negative info, it's improper to keep it. --DHeyward (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is clear, as I think is mine, let's see what others have to say. Meanwhile I'm working on improving the article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, and request
Thanks for your thanks and your advice on trolls.

You left two comments on the Ronan page that led me to believe that you did not read the recommendations that you requested I write. My humble request is that you tell me on the talk page that you stand behind the text that is on the page so that I can go away. I know you have skills to get past the bad behavior, but I do not want to walk away until someone I respect tells me my analysis is wrong. In the context of the Woody article the information has different meaning. Two quotes in an article are being questioned, one for conflict of interest as stated by a judge in a related case, and the other an actual misquote from the same judge. I can go away, or fix this without making Woody look guilty. Or I can read more articles on how to move the ball forward on my own. Thx for your kind words and outreach. 3 sentences on the talk page will get me to leave (or any other variation that says my concerns are not shared by you): "The Yale medical report looks legit, and accusations against it seem unfounded." "The paraphrase of the judges summary about the Woody case is substantially similar to what he actually wrote." "There is balance between the accusation being explained and the need to be sure that Wikipedia does not seem to imply any guilt. "Bob the goodwin (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well first off, please don't give up or go away, you'll just be letting the bullies win. Instead take a breath and try to envision how everything we do will be largely reworked by someone else an might even be unrecognizable within a short time. The goal is to get it right but not at the expense of your sanity. I will take a look but i have some other things I need to attend to first so it may be a day or so, but we're in no rush here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a personality flaw that does not allow me to let the bullies win. I was hoping you would tell me I was wrong so I would know  that I backed off for being wrong, instead of being bullied.  I can work on more articles, but I get hit in a meat grinder every time, and I want to master it once before I branch out.  When I am skilled I can return to medical where I can add value.  I really don't care about Woody, care slightly more about respecting the target of the biography page (Ronan), but I mostly care about being both intellectually honest and playing by the rules.  I take honest direction very well.  I really, really do not mind being wrong.Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in the midst of comparing the various proposals now. In the U.S., especially, people get very passionate about sexuality issues, any issues. So it's worth going cautiously. From an outsiders perspective I suggest just watching Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, as they seem quite able and can give excellent examples of behaviors just by being in the room. Medical articles also have a much higher standard of sourcing, so that's always a good route to get content added that is more likely to last a while. I have to run an errand or two but am still reading through the whole Ronan entries. I think I can safely ignore the RfC about his being Sinatra's son, so only have the abuse allegations to work through. It likely will be a few hours though, sorry for that delay. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The same problem exists in medicine as in pop culture. There are people who are protecting pages, and even if you bring a ton of research to the table you are accused of POV, just for changing an article.  The tone in MEDRS I would categorize as NEJM, and pro-insurance company.  Both entities have significant opposition, which is violently opposed.  I am not interested in setting the record straight, but as a patient I have discovered that the dishonesty has a high cost to patients, and do not want to be telling people that doctors should never make clinical judgment, or that faulty diagnostics are perfect, which is where I was getting hit by meat grinders.  I found a case where steroids were being cited as standard treatments to patients who very possibly had a major infection, and there were studies, and I don't even think it was controversial.  That can be life threatening.  I discussed it with the head of a department at a teaching hospital, and he agreed.  But I don't have the skills yet. Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I went to the medicine page you suggested. 3 of the editors there I have interacted with and I respect.  One I talked to on the phone as he was encouraging me (he said online that a lot of my research was very high quality and very much needed), but watching the debate got my blood boiling again, as the argument over MEDRS vs. RS seems to be getting other editors into a meat grinder like it did for me.   The good editors agree with me, so it is not a fringe view.  But to help, I need skills.  I don't want to break rules either.Bob the goodwin (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it may make sense, to help build skills, to avoid more contentious subjects and focus on areas that do interest you and articles that are largely neglected. You might pick something you know, and follow the category links at the bottom of that page to find similar subjects in the same area. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it may make sense, to help build skills, to avoid more contentious subjects and focus on areas that do interest you and articles that are largely neglected. You might pick something you know, and follow the category links at the bottom of that page to find similar subjects in the same area. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, some feedback:
 * Someone calling you a WP:SPA is a bit rude and confrontational, they do have a point, that being focussed solely in one area suggests a lack of NPOV, because that suggests the user is not familiar with variety of subject, at least on Wikipedia.
 * Your comments, and I also tend to be lengthy, are often WP:TLDR, so may be demised out of hand, it all leads to a perception, well-founded or not, that a person is obsessed with certain ideas, especially compared to other brief statements from multiple other editors.
 * The three surveys discussion was derailed from the start, and much of theta was formatting/presentation. I suggest keeping this a bit more simple and direct.
 * This is a fresh controversy that will very likely have another wave of attention after one of the involved parties, of a news article whips up another round. Likely it's best to leave it until at least then, and still defer to the Allen article on how to address the accusations of molestation. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando
Aloha. I recently noticed that you reverted when he added a maintenance tag to Dallas Buyers Club. Orlando has been misusing maintenance tags like this for almost four years now, disrupting many articles and discussions with his strange, misinterpretations of guidelines and policies. I'm wondering if you will support an ANI or RFC on him to stop this behavior. He very rarely adds anything useful, nor does he do any research and write articles. What he does do is disrupt articles, remove relevant content and sources, and argue endlessly on talk pages to prevent editors from getting anything done. He also stalks editors who disagree with him, so you should watch your contributions. He recently stalked me to Abby Martin (journalist) just to make trouble, and he added the same disruptive tags as he did on the DBC. In my mind, it's a disruption-only account and I would like to put a stop to it. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Anytime. It has been a drain dealing with explaining the plainly obvious. The only benefit was that I got to read, and then re-read each page of guidelines and instructions to make sure I wasn't mistaken. I wasn't. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Should we just go straight to ANI now? If you agree, I'll put something together, but they will likely tell us to file an RFC.  What do you think?  He really does seem to use the account to prevent people from getting anything done. If you can find anything useful or constructive he's done in the last several years, I would love to see it. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen ANI is about stopping blindingly obvious, and active cases. Also, and I bet it's documented somewhere, anything much more than 6 months is considered old news. I'll have a look. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Links
 * Binksternet documents Orlando's history of obstructionist, tendentious editing against consensus on Tea Party movement, and his reversion of well-cited material and reliable sources
 * Keithbob documents Orlando's wholesale removal of sources on Media Matters for America
 * North8000 documents Orlando editing against consensus of single-payer/USNHCA and misusing POV tags

I think a 1RR might be a part of the solution, I'm also troubled by the volume of reasonable source that are unfortunately left in the external links section which they just delete under WP:ELNO, while technically allowed it goes against a collaborative ethos. I was going to mention that sometimes a topic ban is done but they seem to edit a lot of subject areas. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe User:Binksternet can add some insight into how to deal with this. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My "document" of T.O.'s behavior is somewhat overstated above. I documented his obstructionist style on the talk page of that article, with him always throwing "there's no consensus" at anyone who was making arguments he didn't like. I said he was playing the talk-page heavy.
 * If you are talking about [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dallas_Buyers_Club&diff=598687309&oldid=598641752 stuff like this], the removal of external links, I would agree with T.O., since Mojo and Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are already present in the article as refs, as is the Minutaglio news piece. Ideally, the Zeitchik news piece should be incorporated into the article. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The removing of the Els on that page weren't the problem, it was the saga of them trying to follow up the deletion with also removing the Further reading section under the same logic. Thanks for weighing in, not sure where this will go. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you link to a diff? I'll do the same when I'm able. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See saga. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice regarding Thargor Orlando thread
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ted Nugent
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ted Nugent. 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) 00:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox film
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox film. 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) 00:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

After closing
I shouldn't have made further comments on a closed thread at ANI. I noticed the other day that Liz did it so, since there were so many comments directed at me I felt compelled to reply. Please don't see my own refusal to just shut up as any reasoning to further a discussion there. I am just a Taurus. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was responding the also-posting-after-close comment that insinuated I was disingenuously posting in the first place. If I didn't think it was a violation, I wouldn't have brought it up. i find the entire commenting situation ironic. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Further reading section placement
Check out Manual of Style/Layout. I don't know if it is definitive. Have you seen a different guideline? It's likely that one exists. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the one! WP:Further is the quick link. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

MH370
Your reasoning for the 'bold closure' is way off-mark: at no point did I suggest the article should be moved. Also, why close an RfC before it's even been listed? The only people who responded were the same who were opposed to my suggestion right above. — Lfdder (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I felt the close was accurate and the article's title was already bolded. No one seemed to be persuaded that any other title was likely, and noted the current title was how similar articles were standardized on Wikipedia. I also weighed consideration that the subject was headline news, and the plane still has not been found, so will remain in the news for quite some time. Although the conversation has merits, it was unlikely to go anywhere, and the article has other pressing issues that should be addressed. If you feel the article should be represented differently you can start a new conversation, or even pull the old thread back up. I suggest waiting a few days and see what developes with the situation, and how anything should change. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've not said the title should be changed. My objection was the title was out of context in the first sentence. But nobody addressed my objection, so it's not surprising you didn't either. — Lfdder (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can try to broach the subject again, but likely will get the same results. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence has been changed since. — Lfdder (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)