User talk:Tarl N./Archive 3

List of brightest stars
Regarding the 3RR complaint. How about this addition of a reference for the contested statement about magnitudes of variable stars. Doesn't this take away part of your reason for the 3RR filing? An admin may not take action anyway, since 3RR was not technically broken. Unless you think there is a long-term pattern of edits which in your view is still problematic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly the edit as it now stands is better. It no longer makes a blanket assertion, and it has a citation (even if I can't follow up on the citation, google books says that page is unavailable). But it wasn't until this edit warring complaint got filed that Arianewiki1 did anything other than revert with varyingly shrill comments. The response to a comment that sanctions were available with As for the silly threats of "administrative sanctions" – well go ahead.  makes me feel there is a behavioural problem which must be addressed. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 13:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That citation is a joke - if its the best that could be found after a year then it doesn't say much for the claim. The referenced book contains the phrase "average maximum apparent magnitude" referring to a single variable star, not included in the list, of a type that does not appear in the list. It in no way makes a general statement about photometry of that type of variable star, let alone all types. I have now rewritten the entire section in an attempt to describe the general situation without making unfounded claims. I expect abuse, but hey what's new. Lithopsian (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably, I can't check it out - I don't have access to a copy of that book. But the statement now at least says "some" rather than the previous blanket statement, making the statement effectively meaningless. More importantly, I've remembered an old lesson about on-line communities. Avoid getting into a pissing contest with a skunk, whether you win or not, you end up getting pissed on by a skunk. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 02:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)




 * Plain Warning. Continuing to make false statements about other Users, like some of these comments above, is WP:PA and is also actionable. I.e. This divisive statement "...makes me feel there is a behavioural problem which must be addressed." is certainly WP:PA and WP:HARASSMENT. Having statements by some administrator call me out for not being diplomatic enough, then another using claiming it is due to "a behavioural problem" (before then after the fact) is tantamount to bullying. Where is the direct evidence for this? Either state your case to support this slight or formally withdraw it.


 * Also within to my statement "you're silly threats of "administrative sanctions"" were actually true, because: 1) You could not and were unable to prove the alleged violation, nor; 2) been involved in debating nor supporting the argument in why variable star magnitudes as they were given were somehow wrong. (If you had doubts, you should have just added ). Instead you just deleted it!)


 * Worst, there is a seemingly systematic failing to understanding what citations are supposed to be and when or when not they are appropriate. You said here: to 103.9.40.129 "Please read wikipedia policies, in particular WP:CITE. Specifically, content without citation may be removed immediately. The way Wikipedia works is not that you allow people to add whatever opinions they like and hope they are correct and someone eventually adds citations, but that any content added MUST be backed with citations. Calling me disruptive for requiring adherence to that guideline is not productive."


 * This is not actually correct, and insisting anyone who disagrees is also disruptive. Saying, for instance, "the Earth is a sphere" needs no citation to verify the statement is true, nor does reinforcing most indisputable logical assumptions. I.e. "The sky is blue" or "water is wet." (If we followed your own twisted logic to the letter there would be thousands of citations for every bit of minor trivia - which makes it only unreadable.) It is really clear from your copious reverts of others pages based on some citation requirement shows an incorrect approach to this.


 * Frankly, the only logical reason you wanted to put in the WP:3RR was the hope of trapping me into being banned for a while by using User:Lithopsian comment "remove uncited original research)" and his slight "no ref, no cigar" . You then thought, knowing of the opportunity to "sink the boot in" with saying I "didn't see any such proof on the talk page. And we still need a reference for the statement about which magnitude is used."  knowing full well I did explain it all within the Talk page the previous year. This exposes the true motive here towards your seemingly deliberate revert. Saying above: "For me sanctions were available with As for the silly threats of "administrative sanctions" – well go ahead."" is ultimately naïve to think some administrator would fall for such deliberate gaming. Without bothering to engage in solving the problem nor the attempted claim by you under "Adding new report for Arianewiki1." "...because of previous run-ins with you, which is why I brought this here."  further exposes to attempt to veil the real reason for the WP:3RR submission.


 * Now as I've actually said several times, the only reason this particular questioned text in the article was added was to remove the confusion by novices editing this page, which was causing lots of unnecessary reverts. The issue is that the data is subject to some interpretation, and I showed via legitimate argument, how results are presented with adequate references on the necessary Talk page. (If this were made to the nth degree, the simple explanation would be longer than the intended list!)


 * As for "Certainly the edit as it now stands is better." Glad to see you want to share it with everyone - and yet others can openly complain of the lack of MY own diplomatic skills!! At least my alleged "behavioural problem" is neither blantent excessive vanity or willfulness.


 * As for "long-term pattern of edits" EdJohnston should be looking at you instead. Between 16 July and 27 September, among 500 submissions more than 249 reverts exist, with even 45 between 19th September and 27th September in a two week period. There seems a real distinct pattern of targeting newbees, especially with provocative threats of blocking. I.e.


 * Here 97.102.238.1 made this edit  stating "Reverted 1 edit by 97.102.238.1 (talk): Vandalism. (TW))"


 * Another is this on the "Phoenix Universe" by User:174.198.7.65. You admonished him with "(Reverted 1 edit by 174.198.7.65 (talk): Vandalism. (TW))" here  threatening them "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ultimate fate of the universe." They wrote "However, observations are not conclusive, and alternative models are still not possible." Clumsy, perhaps, but modern cosmology show there is little possibility of the Big Crunch being right, and the various alternative possibilities examined in the last few years ARE impossible. I.e. The behaviour of black holes from current knowledge makes the appearance of another universe from the old impossible.


 * Another is the revert on Chronology of the universe by User:201.131.210.246, who used the European method of using commas instead of decimal points claiming "WP:DECIMAL. Keeping the corrected values."


 * There are a quite few others. This is demonstrable proof of a "long-term pattern of edits" are being incorrectly and brutally/ruthlessly being applied - especially toward newbees. Why?


 * Singular warning. Get you facts straight, back it up with appropriate evidence and not just hearsay, or further actions maybe instead turned on you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * When you become an administrator, you can make meaningful threats. In the meantime, I don't even bother to read them. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 02:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey there
Noticed you'd been reverting fresh edits. Removing new content (even if it is without citation) can be disruptive. Unless the content is blatantly incorrect (for example such claim as that the United States of America was invaded by Austria in August 2016), then it is more productive to leave content and allow it's natural evolution through expansion and minor word changes or the later inclusion of citation and provision of information from other sources.

Nobody can fix an essentially informative edit if the new information has been entirely removed. But... a new edit left to mature can often be improved later.

Remember to be neutral in your approach, and treat each new edit in good faith.

There's something to learn from everyone. Please remember that other editors might have more knowledge than yourself, and be open to learning from what they have to share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read wikipedia policies, in particular WP:CITE. Specifically, content without citation may be removed immediately. The way Wikipedia works is not that you allow people to add whatever opinions they like and hope they are correct and someone eventually adds citations, but that any content added MUST be backed with citations. Calling me disruptive for requiring adherence to that guideline is not productive.


 * As secondary issues, when you add sections to talk pages, please add them at the bottom (I just moved it here), so sections are in chronological order. And lastly, if you read the top notice on this talk page, you would have seen that the proper place to answer my comment was on your own talk page. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 19:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Evidence from the above says that 103.9.40.129 is actually partially right, and you are to a certain extent being somewhat disruptive. You have misinterpreted how cites are applied, and it is clear more careful scrutiny must be applied to newbees. You are supposed to help new editors so that more will contribute to the project instead of acting a jury and executioner. It is clear from your almost singular history of reverts against other editors (and me) that you are acting quite inappropriately. Please consider changing your approach in this regard, and contribute to the process and not act as some vigilante policeman. Thanks.Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read the changes 103.9.40.129 made? It's somewhere between revisionism and denialism. The fact that the IP, like you, prefers to ignore the need for citations and write what he believes without recourse to what has been published is what leans it towards denialism.
 * Ed, by any chance are you noticing a similarity in the walls of text from this editor and that IP? I may be paranoid, but even paranoids have enemies. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 15:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course I read the other changes, but the one in question here was in principle quite correct. Each edit is measured on its merits and not against individual globally contributions. As again for this slight: "like you, prefers to ignore the need for citations and write what he believes without recourse to what has been published is what leans it towards denialism." you are again avoiding WP:GF and are using WP:PA. Rethink your wayward strategies here, else someone less forgiving takes you to task for such repeated appalling behaviours.Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Evidently you didn't read the specific edit. It was denialism, uncited, and borderline racist. Good faith doesn't mean break the rules, good faith means assume the editor didn't mean harm and tell him the mistake he made. Which I did. Now, go away, I've wasted enough bits on you. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 02:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Now, go away, I've wasted enough bits on you." Coward's way out, then using falsehoods just weakens your position further. Bullying newbees for the sake of it and not adding to the actual project kills anything to useful to say. Your loss. Pity.Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Real life has gotten in the way. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 00:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-retired
Tarl N. ( discuss ) 16:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

J. J. Watt
what are you saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by William biggs (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this edit which I reverted. If you look at the changes you made, they were clearly a mistake - you garbaged a number a places throughout the article. Click on the link, and then scroll through the changes displayed, which show what you did. They were clearly not meaningful. By WP:AGF, I assume this was a test edit which went awry. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 20:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Johan Harmenburg
Hello I do not know what a talk page is or how to work it, so sorry that this appears as a new message. I edit only what I know to be true from personal experience.

Johan and I were classmates and friends. We entered MIT together with the class of 1977 in September 1973. He left after two years and returned only to visit...perhaps The Tech interviewed him when he was back in the states for a visit in about 1976. I think he may have come back to spend a semester with his fraternity - but he did not finish a degree. He was a member of our MIT class of 1977; he went back to Sweden to study to become a doctor rather than an engineer. He joined the Swedish army when he returned home and served as an athlete (fencer). He went on to compete internationally, but never returned to MIT as a full time student. He may have been 'put' into a different graduating class during his semester as a visitor, but as he did not complete his program of studies there. He appears in the MIT alumni register as a member of the class of 1981, but I never considered him not a member of the class he entered with.

He won the MIT Varsity Club award his freshman year (1974) as the outstanding Freshman Athlete.  under the name he entered MIT under: Johan Ackerman. I attended the award ceremony with him as well as the luncheon, along with the fencing master Maestro Silvio Vitale. 

(He changed his name to Harmenburg after he left MIT I believe) LaceAce (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)LaceAce


 * That's exactly the information we need, thank you. I'll restore your changes and add the citation. The only thing that's missing is documenting that Johan Akerman was Johan Harmenberg. Do you know of any documentation that mentions the name change? I did find another reference, now knowing about that earlier name,, mentioning he was drafted into the Swedish army. I'll add that as well, but would like to be able to add a more specific mention of his name change. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 01:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, I am planning to attend the MIT class of 1977 reunion in June 2017. I will try to interview Johan's friends and fraternity brothers. He may have left MIT after one year...I will try to learn as much as possible. I do know that our Freshman picture book has a photo of him under the name 'Ackerman'. I will try to find a copy. LaceAce — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaceAce (talk • contribs) 23:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * : Please do, and if you can find published sources (meeting WP:RS) which we can reference, that would be even better. Knowing the sequence of events is good, but being able to reference a source for the discussion is what's required for inclusion. If there's a published interview anywhere that connects Ackerman to Harmenberg, that's the main thing. It's pretty obvious it's the same person (how many other top-level Swedish fencers named Johan went to MIT in the late 70s?), but to avoid later maintenance problems, we need to point to something published elsewhere. Thanks, Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 00:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Adam Vinatari
You seem confused by my edit. Allow me to clarify. The Oilers were a team that existed from 1960 until 1996 in Houston. They spent two years in Tennessee before finally becoming the Titans in the '99 Season. Overtime vestiges to the Oilers franchise in the NFL began to go away as players connected to the Franchise retired. Eventually in 2009 John Runyan an Offensive Tackle retired destroying the last player from the Houston Oilers. On June 11, 2012 the last Oiler player from either Tennessee or Houston, Derrick Mason, retired. Now all that remains is players that have played the Oilers. It has dwindled to just one, Adam Vinatari, I felt it deserving to note under the information for that game on the page for the 1998 Patriots that Vinatari participation makes him the only active player to have faced the Oilers in any form (Houston or Tennessee) and also by virtue of three extra points and two field goals the last to score on them. (I Dan tha Man I (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Ah, yes. I was confused by the edit. I'm aware of the history of the Oilers, what I couldn't figure out is what you meant by "last player to play the Oilers". Presumably that could have been phrased "last player still active to have played", although I don't know that deserves a mention in the 1998 Patriots season page. That page is about the 1998 Patriots, not specifically the Oilers or Vinateri. That trivia might belong on a page about the Oilers or about Vinateri, although since he is the oldest player in the league, he's the "last active" in any number of categories. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 05:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Penthouse Magazine
I made the change because I was the assistant to Philip O. Stearns and knew many people at the magazine, the art editor Joe Brooks was in my class at school, I also met Bob, who was far too busy getting the magazine running to have time for the photography. JRinPV (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We need a reliable source (see WP:RS) to base this on. In other words, it takes experts to build the articles, but we must leave them in shape such that a librarian with minimal knowledge of the field can maintain the article - if someone comes by later and change the name of Stearns to Stirns (or something else entirely), we have to have a reference we can verify the change against. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 23:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"who also worked for some time as a photographer for Penthouse magazine." http://www.boxdioramas.com/philip-o-stearns/

Philip O. Stearns - Philip Olcott Stearns was another well known fashion and glamour photographer of the 50s whose work seems to have been forgotten in recent years, so I decided to write this profile on him. Philip Stearns was born in Detroit, Michigan on Feb. 9, 1917. He attended the private Brooks School in North Andover, Massachusetts and attended Princeton University where he became a successful rower. At Princeton, he developed an interest in sculpting and later graduated with a degree in art and archaeology. After graduation, Stearns served in WWII as a Captain in the OSS (precursor of the CIA) and was stationed in England, where he worked with the French Resistance. While in the UK, he became a collector of model soldiers. Later in life, he took photographs for many books on model soldiers and even wrote one of his own. In addition to being a photographer Stearns was the Photographic Director of Penthouse. http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=292044

Also mentioned in this book Lynn Barber Penguin UK, Jun 25, 2009 - Biography & Autobiography - 208 pages

In the mid to late 60s, Philip returned to England where he had been stationed during WWII, and became a photographer for Penthouse magazine, and for a time, the photographic director for the magazine. He also shot for other British men's magazines, such as Mayfair. http://glamourphotographers.yolasite.com/more-photogs-page-2.php

I could go on, but I think this enough, if you can not accept a 1st hand report? JRinPV (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is those references don't say what you added - that he was the photographer for Penthouse before Guiccione. This isn't an uncommon problem, it's quite frequent that people want to add their personal knowledge to articles here. Unfortunately, we can't accept edits from 1st hand recollection. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 17:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum - I should rephrase that. We can't accept edit solely from 1st hand recollection. The fact that you have direct knowledge should make it considerably easier for you to find documentation that meets WP:RS. Please do. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Chris Hogan (American football)
Hi. I was wondering what was your purpose in removing and then immediately re-adding the PP template? Your edit summary was not clear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored the page from many dozens of edits earlier, and by restoring it, it removed the pp-protected template. There wasn't an easy way to restore the page and yet keep your edit, so I re-added it. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 14:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Response to your "reverting vs deleting"
Coming to my page to tell me your offended by a revert is a waste of your time and mine. And considering the changes we're discussing has strictly between me and you, telling me I need to convince others, which my point has been echoed time again in the discussion page is a waste of breath. Clearly your being stubborn on this and you've provided no logical reason for me to see otherwise and your comments prove your off base on the entire point of why it should not be there User:Bigtrade 23 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Waste of breath or not, you are new to Wikipedia and I have to assume you don't understand the issues I mentioned. I can't simply assume you are doing them just to be obnoxious. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 03:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm talking to you back and forth because I'm trying to be obnoxious....not because I want to get Brady's page actually correct and not inaccurate as you currently have it. Good one bud... User:Bigtrade 23 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the policies at WP:TALK, and please preview your edits before you save them. In particular, when you make an edit to a talk page, if you think of something to add to it later, please do so by adding a new paragraph, not by changing a paragraph that someone may have already read. I've twice noticed unexpectedly that what I'd previously read in one of your comments had changed - that's not good. Both because I might not notice what you added, and because people can end up talking at cross-purposes not realizing that the comment they were responding to isn't the same comment they read. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 03:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As per WP:TALK "So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely. But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes."

So in other words, nothing I did was wrong and perhaps you yourself should see the polices at WP:TALK ? User:Bigtrade 23 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "for a short while". At least some of your text additions came late enough that I'd read the earlier version and was surprised by the new version. Either way, we're not getting anywhere useful with this discussion. I pointed out things that I felt were necessary to mention to an obvious newbie (you had fewer than 100 edits when you started this conversation), but evidently this isn't your first Wikipedia account. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 04:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering most comments you've made to me has been replied to in a matter of minutes, that clearly constitutes as a "short while". I don't know how time is perceived to you, but a day, week or month has not passed since any changes I made to any of my previous comments. (unsigned - adding signature --Bigtrade 23 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 24 January 2017‎ (UTC) ))

1 on 1 advice sought on deflategate issues
Hi -- I'm hoping that the "take a break" was needed more due to Ebw/me than you/me. I felt I was getting much value from your responses and wanted even more detailed feedback from you. I want to do a major improvement of the proposed section that I hope you'll like. Would you be willing to have some 1:1 feedback session somehow, where Ebw would not feel a need to post. I hope you're interested and that there's a good way to do that.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

From your PV=nRT related comment I got the impression that your comment would open up an opportunity for me to change your view of how weight-worthy the opinions were of Times, Post, Yahoo about the science reality differing from how it was conveyed in Wells/Exponent. I hope it can snowball into seeing more weight on counter-allegations besides just insufficient data or sloppy work. I'd really like it (I'm not just saying that) if you would give me some signficantly detailed reaction to the various things I offered.

I like to argue - in the positive sense of the word . I hope that my style is not making the interaction unpleasant for you. I'll work on it and try to type less in the wee hours of the morning. :-) Please accept my apologyRob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The issue is "wall of text". When having discussions, keep any given discussion on point, and keep it short. If you write a dissertation, you will get "TL;DR" (Too Long; didn't read). That aspect was very much in evidence in this last discussion. You may like to argue, but others don't - most of us actively monitor a thousand pages or more, and simply don't have time for more than a minute or two on any given talk page.
 * One thing that Wkipedians are very much aware of is the "winning through exhaustion" syndrome, and will actively obstruct anyone who looks to be trying to do that. If you have a dozen points you want to make, save 10 of them for another time. If someone posts a list of a dozen points, don't refute them one-by-one - just respond to the most prominent, being aware that other editors are not looking for a huge discussion. And once you've gone through 3 or 4 responses, let it drop for a while.
 * As for opening up a discussion on validity, that's not what Wikipedia Talk is for. We recognize sources as reliable or not, and we recognize biased writing. Other than unusual cases where it's clear an obvious mistake was made, Wikipedia talk is not really the place to analyze published work. If you want to analyze, write an article and get it published - elsewhere.
 * As for Deflategate itself, the issue isn't science - it's forensics. They were sloppy. We don't know exactly what they did, they didn't maintain controls, and they didn't properly log what they did do. So it's not entirely clear what happened - and it never can be. Regards, Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 00:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

VERY helpful. 1000 pages, wow!Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: “Both articles come across as biased”
Hi

Your comment conflicts with my understanding of what are the proper guidelines for editorial discussion.

WP:V does not call for a reliable source to be rejected on the basis that it conflicts with editors' views. The remedy indicated is to find other reliable sources opposing the view, and not merely passing references but current articles focused on the topic.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:V does not specifically mention bias, but I’m pretty sure it is against the principles of Wikipedia discussion to infer bias of the source solely on the basis that you find the sources’ conclusions unconscionable or solely on the basis that you believe most other people also find the conclusions unconscionable. It seems to me that the proper wikipedian way to establish a bias claim is to provide citations substantiating that the articles' authors have a motivation for and history of slanting their coverage of all things about the Patriots to favor the Patriots.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It sounds as if you are implying that those Times, Post, and Yahoo Sports are promulgating a fringe theory. If that is your point please apply the Wikipedia guidelines on how to identify fringe theories to make your point, rather than just your disagreement.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Your response seems to be aimed more to the question of whether you think the points made by Times, Post, and Yahoo Sports have merit – which is a different topic than the question of whether part of what inflames the controversy is that others, perhaps Patriots fans, believe them. That was the question posed, not whether the claims had merit -- that's a different discussion that may be needed later.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you please withdraw your comments or revise them to follow the guidelines as noted above, or explain to me why I'm mistaken about the guidelines?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See my comments above about "wall of text". That said, in response to five separate comments on my talk page:


 * I'm not concluding they are biased based on their conclusions. I'm concluding that by the fact that they make unsubstantiated comments which are at variance with reality (e.g., Tom won in court of public opinion - that's at variance with the large contingent who believe the correct name for the team is "Cheatriots").
 * Second comment seems to be the same as the first, same answer.
 * I don't know if I'd call them fringe theories, they don't even rise to the level of theories. They're simply biased reporting to come out with a particular conclusion. They cherry-pick their facts and mix with falsehoods.
 * I don't believe the claims have merit. They offer no supporting evidence for them ("A scientific consensus..." is simply bullshit.)
 * I will not withdraw my comments. You can object to them, and if you find them sufficiently offensive or obstructive, you can go to WP:ANI and request administrator intervention (or request it from Lizard the Wizard or Garchy, both of whom I recall are administrators and are familiar with the discussion) . Just beware of WP:BOOMERANG.
 * The underlying point, however, is that attempts to revise the article with cherry picked facts won't hold up - it will simply start edit wars with people who believe otherwise. E.g., an article which was cited a couple of days ago: I flagged that one as biased too, although it appears to reflect a larger majority view than the articles you cite.  Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 01:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Please take a step back from the particulars of the deflategate page and consider my process concerns more abstractly. Hopefully after you consider the below you’ll address the concerns I have and an ANI will not be required. I’m trying to first make the discussion process work in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines so that then the discussion and then article can evolve to better reflect the net information provided by reliable sources, even if that results in an article different from the editors current opinions about the scandal.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Below is what an ANI could say:


 * In general, at least with respect to a controversial article about a scandal, is blocking the proper evolution of a Wikipedia article, and blocking evolution of the supporting talk page discussion, by asserting his/her opinion of the facts, perhaps shared by many other editors, but without referencing reliable sources to support the opinion or to rebut the proposed new sources.  Blocking this evolution prevents the Wikipedia article from evolving to reflect the information best supported by reliable sources even as that many differ from public opinion and from the personal beliefs of the editors.  If the editor(s) are unhappy with what is evident from reliable sources, they should work to get reliable sources to support the editor(s)’ view rather than block the wikpedia page from reflecting the best information currently available from such sources.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The editor currently blocking the article improvement process by rejecting verifiable sources on the grounds that the editor (and possibly other editors) disagrees with the core assertions of the sources, without providing verifiable sources in rebuttal.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In a variation of that, the editor dismisses reliable, nationally followed, prestigious newspapers as being biased to the detriment of the sources’ home town teams and in favor of a team outside their primary circulation area -- a claim that would seem to require a very high burden of proof. The editor claims one reliable source article says “comes across as biased”.  The editor cited no direct evidence that the authors have a motive to favor out-of-town teams over their own teams and no evidence of such favoritism being applied in other matters outside of the scandal in question.  The fact that the source had a point of view is not evidence that bias is the source of that point of view.  The editor cited no evidence that the bias is the cause of the point of view that the editor disagrees with.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The editor is making direct or implicit “weighting arguments” without providing verifiable sources to support higher weighting of the editors preferred content or lower weighting of the proposed new content, thus failing to properly discuss weighting to have the discussion be accordance with this Wikipedia guidance:  [|wikipedia policy on weighting discussions]: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". (emphasis added)


 * The editor continues to accuse the work of the reliable sources as “fringe theory” or equivalent without applying the Wikipedia [|guidelines for identifying fringe theories], including this opening definition: A fringe theory is an idea or viewpoint which differs from the accepted scholarship in its field” and “and A fringe theory is neither a majority opinion nor that of a respected minority.”  (emphasis added) The editor failed to provide citations to support his/her claim that 21 scientists from 10 universities (who submitted an amicus brief to a court on the topic), and other scientists referenced by the 21 are not a respected minority.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the editor is preventing orderly discussion by repeatedly addressing a question different from the one put on the table. The question on the table was whether counter-allegations against the accusing party were deserving of a section to understand the controversy.  In short, if a controversy were to remain heated because large numbers of people on one side believe in an alleged-to-be fringe theory of wrong-doing by the originally accusing party, to understand what all the fuss is about you’d have to be aware of that belief and the crux of the alleged-to-be-fringe theory.  The editor ignored that question and instead focused on his or her belief that the alleged fringe theory is in fact a fringe theory.  The editor did not properly apply the definition of fringe theories, but here the larger point is that whether it was a fringe theory or not was irrelevant to the question on the table.  Without structure to the discussion, the editorial process gets dragged into rat holes.  With structure, one step at a time the discussion can evolve beyond pre-conceived notions.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * For the most concise examples, consider this [|talk section] and this diff of a [| talk page].


 * By posting material that causes these process problems, declining to remove it, and not assisting in helping other contributors to stop causing the same problems, the editor is blocking the discussion required to ensure that, if the article is not in conformance with the information available from reliable sources, the article can properly evolve.Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you feel you need to take this to WP:ANI, by all means do so. I don't think I have a behaviour problem, but I'm obviously not an objective judge of that, which is why I pointed out ANI as a remedy of last resort. There are less drastic options, such as WP:DR (Dispute Resolution: I'd forgotten about that one) and WP:3PO (Third Party Opinion). Both of those will get a more experienced editor involved who can offer opinions.


 * I do strongly suggest several things:
 * Read WP:ANI advice.
 * Read the policies at WP:TALK, in particular WP:TALKNO. Make sure you know exactly which policy you want enforced. I obviously do not believe there is a serious violation, but again, I'm a biased judge of my own actions. If you think I'm engaged in WP:BULLY or WP:UNCIVIL, specify that.
 * Because of WP:BOOMERANG, I  strongly  recommend you discuss your intended request with another more experienced editor.
 * Use the preview function before adding anything to the admin pages - they are likely to get read almost immediately (although perhaps not acted on for a while), and changing or adding things while an admin is carrying out an investigation or communicating out-of-band with other administrators, will irritate them.
 * Your link to the deflategate page section above doesn't work, it's dropping to the top of the page. It needs to be either [URL text] or text . I'm guessing someone recently added code to make the double-bracket form accept a URL (it's a common mistake), but its ignoring the section link. Particularly on the admin page, you want to test any links before you save the page. The specific link you want is probably Talk:Deflategate ( Talk:Deflategate ), although I'd suggest a diff instead, see next item.
 * Admins generally prefer to have all the evidence in question laid out in the request ahead of time, rather than have to accumulate it or have a long drawn out discussion. Rather than giving a single example, present a list of diffs which you find objectionable (for example, diff - select the diffs in question and copy the URLs from the browser address bar to your editor). The reason for presenting diffs rather than pointers is that the text presented with diffs is immutable - but if you simply point to a live talk page section, the text could have been changed between when you read it and when the admin reads it.
 * I'm giving you the above details because I suspect you'll get hammered at ANI, but by at least getting the major pieces right, you won't also irritate them. Good luck. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 06:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, if I proceeded with an ANI, implementing the improvements you suggested, in what specific ways do you believe I would be "hammered?"Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect you would not meet with success. I mentioned WP:ANI because the conversation had shifted to stating that *I* am the problem. There are common stages that a frustrated editor goes through, and once it reaches that stage, there is little point in continuing the conversation. The people who deal with behavioural issues on Wikipedia are reached through that forum. All I can suggest is that you talk over the issue with more experienced editors. I've pointed out several options - including WP:DR and WP:3PO. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 20:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

links to AfD,
r.e. 'complicates the cleanup', isn't there a tool for bulk search replace of a link, if the page is deleted, couldn't we just redirect 'stellar explosion' to 

These people insist 'it isn't needed because stellar explosion = supernova' but it's clear there's other types. Fmadd (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is such a tool, it's certainly not common. More likely there would simply be a redirect placed at stellar explosion, leaving that as an easter-egg link. Either way, if there is an active debate on whether the page should even exist, what shape it should be, and what it's name should be, please don't go around inserting links to it while the debate is in progress. Regards, Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 18:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Your message to me
I was on the San Francisco 49ers Wikipedia page and that said he was number 7 so if I was incorrect on saying he is number 7 then the team page is wrong Nevillefan (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not according to http://www.49ers.com/team/roster.html . Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 22:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back I will check other sites that says the same thing before I edit it in the future Nevillefan (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Alex Mercado article
Hi Tarl! Thanks for such a quick response to my student's request. The articles are clearly only in the very early drafting phase, nowhere near ready for the main space. In fact, it is in a subpage off my user page so that I can easily go in and look at what they are doing. The stage they are in now (or should be) is to have all the information on hand and in the major sections, and for tomorrow start grouping that information into what will become paragraphs. Then we will worry about sentence structure then citation format. I asked the students to contact experienced Wikipedians who have an interest in their general topic area to get extra feedback. As Im their teacher, obviously Im primary. But talk pages are a great way to make real the idea that writing is a social activity, and any expertise in the content matter is especially welcome. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have in the future.--Thelmadatter (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

SN 1987A
Could not you just wait a day? Misib2 (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See my comments on Talk:SN 1987A. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 16:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry! You are not a source. Cynthia A. Steinke book is a source. So it is not your decision. Your opinion does not count !! Give me a source which support your opinion. Misib2 (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 you started an edit-war
Your recent editing history at SN 1987A shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Misib2 (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Gee, did you copy that directly from my the warning I put on your page? Please understand WP:BRD and WP:3RR before you attempt to cite policy to me. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 07:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Tom Brady
I don't know what's wrong with you, but stop messing with my edits. There is nothing wrong with putting an additional fact about Tom Brady's career. Him never having a losing season is a statistical fact just like everything else listed above. If you are going to try to police Wikipedia at least know what you're talking about. Save your meddling for unsubstantiated and irrelevant information added to articles. Honestly by reading your comments it seems like you're only doing this so people will talk to you. Find another way.

Previous unsigned comment from --Bmorrow151 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 31 March 2017‎ (UTC)


 * We've been around the barn many, many times on the puffery people want to add to the lead of Tom Brady's article. Please see Talk:Tom Brady for many such discussions, the latest of which is at Talk:Tom_Brady. There is a distinction between objective statements and "rah rah" flag-waving, which is what you were doing. I'll note that at least three different editors reverted your changes, and you are vulnerable to administrative action for edit warring - five reverts in a day.
 * Please read WP:BRD. This describes the edit process at Wikipedia - it does not consist in someone deciding to make an edit and then defending it against all comers. It consists of discussing controversial edits and achieving a consensus as to what the correct way to handle an issue is. You are hardly the first to want to add a statement in some form that Brady is the greatest of all time. We have a consensus on the approach we think is workable, and you should read the discussion and participate - rather than simply asserting your right to put anything you want in the article.
 * On a separate note, the general standard in Wikipedia is that comments are answered in the same location - since I commented on your talk page, you in general should have answered there. I'll answer here and put a talkbalk on your page to notify you about this response. Regards, Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 03:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Tom Brady
Just because you are some kind of Brady hater don't mess with me. I didn't say Brady was the greatest of all time. I said that many have stated that and there are sources of them doing so. Why is it okay to put that many feel Brady is one of the greatest of all time, but it's not okay that many feel he is the greatest? Try being consistent in your criticisms. There are also many facts and highlights that are listed at the top of the page and included in the body. It is like that with thousands of Wikipedia articles so stop singling me out. Once again if you want to spend your life harassing people on Wikipedia at least do it on the things that really deserve it. Oh yeah you've reverted me three times. Be careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmorrow151 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Penthouse
Hi there,

we use Penthouse.website for our company internal tracking purposes. Please do not remove.

Rhonda Kratz, Digital Business Manager, Penthouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.46.177.134 (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Rhonda, several things:


 * Please create an account, and declare yourself as an employee of Penthouse.
 * Please read WP:COI to understand Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies. In particular, there are restrictions on editing pages directly related to your business.
 * Please read WP:EASTEREGG. Do not create links which appear with a different text than specified. If it says www.penthouse.com, it should go to www.penthouse.com not penthouse.website.
 * Wikipedia is an independent entity. It does not adhere to your internal tracking purposes.
 * Please read WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR. When you are reverted, please discuss the issue before reinstating your edit.
 * Lastly, are you really Ms. Kratz? I notice you are editing from Portugal, while Ms. Kratz seems to be located in the Los Angeles area. On vacation perhaps?
 * Regards, Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 05:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Your message to me
Hi,

I just wanted to explain that unusual does not fit the mark for the 2 catches - they are miracle catches, so that is why I put them in there.

The HS Analyst (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a Patriots fan - I know that those catches were astounding, unbelievable, amazing, incredible, ... every superlative you can come up with in the dictionary. But "miracle" explicitly cites divine intervention. I didn't see God's hand descending from Heaven, and I watched. So "miracle" is out. All the other superlatives are just that, superlatives - and per WP:PEACOCK neither necessary nor desirable. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan publication. We don't need to polish and and hype-up articles to make fans jump up and down in outrage. So please leave those catches described as "unusual". Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 23:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Tommy Hodson
Hi Tarl N., apologies for my Tommy Hodson edits… I have sausage fingers. Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

removing deflategate
the terms i used for roger Goodell are not deconstructive or whatever. they are facts, if you ask people about his nicknames, these come up.. they are not my opinion, they ARE FACTS.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rydeflam (talk • contribs) 01:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your edit here speaks for itself. Do that again, and an administrator is likely to ban you from making edits.  Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 01:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is there something? article ; Keep or Delete?
Hi Tarl please could you review Why is there something rather than nothing?, and give a 'Keep' or otherwise view? All best User:JCJC777

Previous unsigned by --JCJC777 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 May 2017‎ (UTC)
 * I'll look at it later today, I'm in finals right now. By the way, when signing, please use the quadruple tilde ( ~ ). This dates the comment you made, which makes it possible for archivers to work properly. Regards, Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 13:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Get Out
Then why can't it be suggested that there isn't a consensus on how the movie is labelled genre-wise? Suggesting that this movie is comedic is misleading

Previous unsigned by --24.53.51.129 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 May 2017‎ (UTC)
 * There are ways to obtain a consensus, but simply changing the article and demanding that your change stick isn't one of them. Engage the discussion on the talk page. However, you probably won't get very far with that, since the issue is not what you think about the movie, but what the reliable sources have published about the movie.
 * In the meantime, I suggest you create an account and start learning about Wikipedia and its policies. Regards, Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 02:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I cited my sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.51.129 (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that you have so for gotten three separate editors (myself, L3XI, and TriiipleThreat) involved in your attempt to make a change contrary to a consensus already established on the talk page for the article. Perhaps it's time you discuss this on that talk page (in this case Talk:Get Out (film)), rather than going to individual editors. As for citing your sources, please read WP:CITE. Then read WP:RS. These policies are crucial to documenting Wikipedia, and any significant change requires understanding them in detail.
 * When you have determined that your opinion contradicts what is in an article and has been discussed before, you need to also determine the structures to allow overcoming an existing consensus - perhaps you'll find that your opinion isn't so correct, perhaps you'll find that you convince others. But you must first persuade other people that the change is correct, before making the change. Please read the policy WP:BRD, which describes how to handle making changes other people object to. Regards, Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 03:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Kelvin vs kelvin scale
Christopher King (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't You Think Your Perspective Is Rather Bleak?
Hi, I'm the one who added that comment in the talk section of "The Ultimate Fate of the Universe" article. I wanted to thank you for the spelling correction, but I also wanted to say: don't you think your perspective on the future for us and the universe is rather bleak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.162.55.230 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. I think it takes tremendous arrogance to think that the fate of the universe has anything to do with the fate of our race. I have to assume Kurzweil either doesn't understand the size of the universe, or vastly over-inflates both his own and our race's importance. Overinflating one's own self-importance is a well-understood psychological pathology. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 21:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:68.228.254.131
I have removed the tag from the page again. It is unnecessary, and as I have seen the checkuser data from the address, I know that the "shared" bit is misleading, so please don't add it again. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to mMxican free-tailed bat
I'm a researcher so I knew from experience, but I was able to find sources for you.

--Simmy27star (talk • contribs) 05:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Gaius Marius
Hi tarl, I think I changed Gaius Marius age only from 70 to 71. That is because he was born in 157BC and died in 86BC, which is his 71st year. We don't know his birthday for sure if he had already turned 71 or not. What more, many cultures would count by year (like the 71st year of Marius) and not by reaching the birthday. Thanks Unsigned -- --PrinceLouisVIII (talk • contribs) 12:22, 27 August 2017‎ (UTC)
 * There are several problems with your change; first, references I have say age 70. Second, you are generating information by yourself, which is prohibited by WP:OR. Third, you are reverting rather than discussing - please read WP:BRD. Fourth, your arithmetic is at fault. Fifth, you need to read WP:TALK to know how to use talk pages.
 * You are correct that the raw years would indicate that he was in his 71st year - which means age 70, not age 71. He died in early January, so very unlikely he'd already reached his birthday that year.
 * When you get a note on your talk page, in general you should respond there, not on the author's talk page. You'll see above on the very first line of my talk page, that I say to respond on your own talk page. When you add comments to a talk page, you should generally add them at the end, not at the top - and if you aren't already in the proper section, you should create one. I've fixed these and placed the comments at the bottom of the talk page. Lastly, please sign your comment using the quadruple tilde ( ~ ), which directs Wikipedia to replace those characters with your name and date/time so the authorship is understood.
 * Regards, Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 23:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One further comment; you mention "many cultures would count by year". Perhaps, but this is the English wikipedia, and when we say "age 70", we mean what that says in English - that he would have seen 70 birthdays. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 00:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Because "British" is the usual posessive version of UK.
Besides, it sounds better. They call US citizens and things relating to the US American. Same thing.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)