User talk:Thargor Orlando/ArchiveAugust2013

Organic Consumers Association
Given your edits to/involvement with the 'March Against Monsanto' article, the fact that you did not notify the article creator about your PROD of the 'Organic Consumers Association' article is extremely poor form. GiantSnowman 15:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was created many years ago, and my involvement with the March article is what lead me to the article that doesn't meet our standards. My apologies for not sending a notification, even though it is not required.  If you disagree, remove the PROD, but I will likely take it to AfD if you do. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the notability or non-notability of the subject, I merely found your lack of notification concernine. However, thanks for your explanation. GiantSnowman 15:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the editor in question hasn't been active in months, so it wouldn't have mattered. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=567039953 your edit] to Geoffrey Miller (psychologist) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * stop eating carbs, you won't have the willpower to do a dissertation #truth." Miller subsequently removed the tweet and issued two

Geoffrey Miller citation
Hi there,

Thanks for improving the citations on the Geoffrey Miller page! I noticed that when you edited reference #7, you put in the name of the author, but the rest of the citation is missing. Did you intend to cite this article? If so, I'd be happy to fill in the rest, or you can do so if you'd prefer.

Thanks, Firecatalta (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yikes, I really screwed the pooch on that one completely. I think I might have broken it when I tried to fix the link, but I fixed it now.  Great catch!  Thanks! Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it and for improving the page; the new ref you added is much better than the old! Firecatalta (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted comment
In this edit you seem to have deleted my comment while adding yours. Please be careful not to do that. --GRuban (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

groupuscule's pronouns
hi Thargor

We have certainly have not agreed on everything before, and here is another place. I want to let you know that I was surprised to see you have an investigation opened into Groupuscule's use of pronouns, and that I don't like it. Overall, he/she is a really lovely and helpful editor and does lots of good. His/her use of pronouns is just playful, as folks have said on groupuscule's talk page. I do not agree with Groupuscule's stance on health risks of GMOs nor with the existence of the essay (which if I recall correctly you voted to keep, and I voted to delete), but everybody has their spleen, as they say in Germany. In the context of all the craziness going on with worry from some editors about COI/POV-pushing editing - and about a "cabal" of such editors, your bringing this up now looks just plain ugly (trying to take out an "opponent" on some strange technical grounds). From my POV it is not good for Wikipedia, not good for Groupuscule, not good for you, and only heightens people's perceptions that there are "camps" that are at "war". And I really don't like to see something that is playful and weird (in the good way, as in "let your freak flag fly") and innocent (Groupuscule's use of pronouns) be turned into a political football. Please drop this. I want to suggest that you withdraw the request and even apologize to G for bringing it up. Everybody goes a bit crazy sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're convinced of it. I will gladly apologize for even offering it up if it turns out I was wrong, but I'm not sure why I should be expected to cut some slack in one area if I wouldn't were it on "my side" or whatever.  There are things worth pursuing and things not: that I held off on going after Viriditas is one of the latter, although others didn't agree, clearly.  It was still the right result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you went through the contribution history of groupuscule but the voice there is really consistent - generally reasonable, often witty, always civil.  The pronoun use is clearly playful.  I don't understand what reason you have to go after this.  What inconsistency have you seen that makes you think it is anything other than playful?  real question, not rhetorical.  If all you are going on, is the use of the plural pronoun, I think you are being waay too stickler-y, and the only reason why i imagine you care is because of oppposing POVs.  It just looks ugly, Thargor, to me and to others, as has already been said.  When things get legalistic like this something is wrong. Nobody - nobody can survive without slack - without some room to play and be a bit weird - without forgiveness for making a mistake, which we all do. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC) (added slack for making a mistake Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC))
 * I agree with Jytdog. Thargor, please realize that there was recently discussion about whether the editors who are perceived as being against criticism of Monsanto might be socks. I don't believe that you or others are socks, but it would have been entirely possible that someone would have opened an SPI naming you. You should not want to settle the score. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm actually plainly surprised it didn't happen. I hear what you're saying, I promise.  I just don't agree.  I understand if you feel the need to distance yourself from it.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying that. But let me be clear: I'm pretty fearless about my editing here, and therefore, distancing myself from it is the farthest thing from my mind. I'm not distancing – I'm disagreeing, and giving you very sincere advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. For the record, I did some significant digging and found some evidence that clearly casts significant doubt on my initial research and thoughts, so I have withdrawn with that in mind.  I could be completely hoodwinked here, but it was compelling enough for me to revisit it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for withdrawing the SPI. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto!! I think you garbled something in your text on groupuscule's page.... Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan
I have been asked to bring a my thoughts on the lead to the talk page. I wonder if you would care to share your views on the current lead. I have WP:SPS and WP:RS concerns as it currently stands. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is this in my opinion, we have no RS refs for Sullivan as a "conservative". His WP:SPS statements that he is too a conservative are not supposed to be used per policy. The current ref for his conservatism is a youtube video of Sullivan. We have multiple refs for him as a liberal (Atlantic, Forbes, Huffington Post, etc...) and yet the lead describes him as a conservative with no caveat. I think we should follow the reliable sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest looking back at the talk page conversation on the issue. He's been considered a conservative for a very long time, and while I tend to agree with you on his identification specifically, we have to follow the sources and let the man identify himself. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree on following the sources. The problem is, I actually don't see any RS refs at the article saying he is a conservative. I'd love to follow the sources if they said "Sullivan is a conservative". Currently we have zero refs for that. We have refs for "Sullivan says he is a conservative." We have refs for "Sullivan is a liberal". We even have two refs for "Sullivan says he's a conservative, but isn't." Nothing for "conservative" that I can see. Perhaps I missed the ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Not OK
Thargor,

Please don't try and harass me by visiting random articles I have worked on and making unhelpful changes, like you did at Riki Ott and Hedges v. Obama. If you have serious concerns and want to help the encyclopedia, make your arguments at the Riki Ott talk page. Thanks,  petrarchan47  t  c   01:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not harassing you at all, actually. In both pages I found poor sourcing that I fixed.  In the case of Ott, I fixed a problem with the article stating something the source did not.  I have much better things to do with my time than go after random articles you've edited and, frankly, if I wanted to do that I'd simply hit up all the GMO articles instead.  Pay some attention to what I'm editing before blind reverting. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * An amazingly inaccurate portrayal, and easily disproven. You did more than change the source, you made tendentious edits in both articles as well, by changing the wording. The Riki Ott article now has a bare reference complete with article title and retrieval date sitting on the page. If this is work you consider helpful, you and I have even less in common that I previously believed. (The GMO articles are not on my watchlist, so I wouldn't know if you "hit" them or not.) I have been advised that what you are doing should go to ANI immediately, but I am not here to spend my time in that way, no matter what you do. I am here to build articles.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You clearly have not processed "what I am doing." Not sure how else to explain it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't have a right to remove Truthout mentions all over Wikipedia. Truthout is RS, and you know this. This has been a huge topic at MAM. Why in the world did you remove it from the Dahr Jamail bio? In your edits, you removed the fact that he had written for Truthout for years. I don't see this as helpful to the Wiki, but quite the opposite. I don't know your intentions, but until I hear a good explanation for why you are removing these mentions of Truthout, it's truly hard to AGF.  petrarchan47  t  c   03:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a terrible source that should be avoided whenever possible. I am glad to talk about Jamail at the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please then leave your explanation at the Jamail talk page: Why you deleted mention of his work for Truthout. Thanks  petrarchan47  t  c   21:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Beyt Tikkun
I really dont think this qualifies for an article, and as i said in my argument, i have attended: its Michael's baby, until it expands beyond his purview. I am really surprised it survived the previous afd. as someone noted, the singer is not the song. michael is hugely importance to the renewal movement, but his org is a small part of that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to WP:RSN
... to defend your view that Congressman Dennis Kucinich's puiblic opinion is invalid simply because it was offered in a forum that is itself "sketchy". But please remember, the word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: So I wish you to keep in mind that when "reliable source" can mean more than just the publication, it can refer to the author offering an opinion... so if you feel Kucinich is not allowed to publicly publish an opinion, please say so and explain how. Thank you,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * the piece of work itself (the article, book);
 * the creator of the work (the writer, journalist) ,
 * and the publisher of the work
 * There is a discussion at talk, we'll have it there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop targeting sources
Hi Thargor. I see that you have launched a campaign to delete references, encyclopedia-wide, which cite Op-Ed News and Truthout. You are doing harm in articles where these references are contextually appropriate and you need to stop. First of all, your opinion that these are bad sources does not entitle you to delete them. Second, you have provided no evidence that they are unreliable. Third, you seem to give no consideration to whethe a source would be reliable in context. The article on Riki Ott attributes claims to Riki Ott based on an interview she did with Rose Aguilar at Truthout. You deleted this source completely because you don't like Truthout. User:Petrarchan47, who has been working on the Riki Ott article since its inception, undid your change. You deleted it again... three more times! This is unacceptable behavior: rude and contrary to our community's norms as well as systemically biasing. (We are still not finished cleaning up after a similar campaign which User:bobrayner launched last year against Third World Traveler.) Please stop targeting sources you don't like... and if you're feeling particularly civic-minded, please undo the damage you've already done. groupuscule (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have an issues with any specific removals, please address them at the relevant talk pages. Thank you! Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It should not be the job of other editors to wade through your contribs, cleaning up after your biased deletions. And now you have made the same deletion at Riki Ott  five six times, despite objections from two editors who have actually contributed to the article. You need to cool it. groupuscule (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have an issues with any specific removals, please address them at the relevant talk pages. Thank you! Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not fair to ask me to do this. Your behavior remains very inappropriate and I have asked for assistance from the community here. groupuscule (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Star Writers Group
I found some references for North Star Writers Group at http://www.editorandpublisher.com/SiteSearchResults/?operator=search&keyword=%22North+Star+Writers+Group%22&searchButton=Go  You may want to revisit Articles for deletion/North Star Writers Group.

Declined prod nomination of Occupy Texas State
I have removed the prod tag from Occupy Texas State, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Articles for deletion/Occupy Texas State, which overrides the need for a prod tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for nominating! Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I haven't really informed an opinion one way or another about the article yet; but I figured your concerns did merit an AfD discussion so I decided I'd save you the time! Happy editing, — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

B. Dusty Nathan
I have removed the prod tag from B. Dusty Nathan, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, please to list it at Articles for deletion if you feel it should be deleted. Fbryce (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks for the heads-up. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)