User talk:Thargor Orlando/ArchiveDecember2014January2015

Please comment on Talk:2012 Benghazi attack
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2012 Benghazi attack. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of wars involving the United States
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of wars involving the United States. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Satyananda Saraswati
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Satyananda Saraswati. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geopolitical entities not recognised as states
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geopolitical entities not recognised as states. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Day of Ashura
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Day of Ashura. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Watergate scandal
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Watergate scandal. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Chawinda
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Battle of Chawinda. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of India
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:History of India. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Libertarianism
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Libertarianism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Tone
Actually I think tone is one of the major problems in this area.

We're expected to air and resolve often severe disagreements on the talk page, and that works very well. But when the tone of comments escalates into inflammatory behaviour and impugning good faith then someone who only edits talk pages may well contribute to an unusably hostile environment.

In fact, failure to contribute material to articles would surely count against an editor whose main contribution otherwise is to fill talk pages with finger pointing and whatnot. --TS 17:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't generally disagree. But, as I said, the tone has been set.  Now we're seeing those who set the tone get others sanctioned for being at that level.  It wouldn't surprise me if it's not at least partially by design, and I'm disappointed in that specific result for bramble. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We all have a responsibility to set the tone. You seem to be implying that Bramble window was just copying the rest of us. All the more reason for us to set a good example.
 * But I really don't think they were just a copycat. I think we'll probably see a great improvement without that kind of disruptive behaviour. --TS 18:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not when the disruptive behavior is tolerated from other camps. I'd still love to see you start talking to those people, especially since you seem to have their ear.  Instead, you seem strangely fixated on me as of late. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Each case should be examined on its merits. But now you mention it, I think I should say that I have some problems with your own mode of engagement, which sometimes seems to amount to blatant denial of the facts as ascertained by reliable sources.


 * Here, for instance, you say "Unless we find some sources that talk about how things like the swatting are blamed on Gamergate when they aren't related, I'm not really seeing the point of putting it in given the lack of actual connection." Yet there is an abundance of reliable sources that assert and justify a connection between Gamergate and the swatting. There's absolutely no reason why we can't discuss that.


 * And here (and not just here, but actually quite often) you break good faith and chastise your fellow editors because, while not wanting to dwell on the details of some of the most well attested misogynistic abuse seen online, they want to record the fact of that abuse, as established by nearly every reliable source available to us. But that's what the BLP tells us to do. Describe the has harm done but don't compound it.


 * I think when you put your foot down in this territory and with that particular slant, it's easy to find oneself on rather thin ice. When somebody goes out of their way to stand in the way of the simplest and most well attested facts on an issue, it soon begins to stand out as a problem.


 * Do you not agree? --TS 02:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do, but I don't believe I've said anything factually inaccurate. I disagree completely with your interpretation of the policies in this area.  I have not "broken good faith," as the behavior of a number of editors who should have been topic banned months ago have shown that they're interested in pushing their point of view, and angrily so (the "clear evidence to the contrary" as noted at WP:AGF).  This is why I'm suggesting, even more explicitly, that you may want to dive in on the people making the article worse and bringing down the level of discourse.  They have been for months, and I'm sure you're aware of it.  Perhaps making a conscious effort not to interfere when there's an ArbCom case in motion was a mistake, and I should have brought them to the sanctions board earlier, but that's neither here not there at this point.  So no, I don't agree with your perception of the issue, nor do I come with a "particular slant" beyond wanting the article to meet Wikipedia's basic policies on content, which the article has not done so for months. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be saying that somebody else is up to no good, but you say you've been holding off on engaging in dispute resolution. That's not a good thing to do; if you're correct and the problem is people pushing their point of view and warping the article content, you should take action within the process. Instead every time somebody brings up an issue with your editing you deny it and hint that the real problem is these mysterious unnamed third parties.

Can you not see why this kind of veiled hint is bad for an editing environment that depends on good faith engagement? The dispute resolution process isn't really optional, nor is it preempted by the existence of arbitration cases. --TS 02:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The good faith is gone, Tony. Look at the behaviors of the people on the talk page.  There are people there to push an agenda and put aside our policies.  You're right that I made a mistake in not pursuing it, but given how broken the sanction process was for a time (and, truly, still it), there was little value.  Yes, that is my error.  If you'd like to help, the worst offenders are obvious, so please dive in instead of continuing to hector me about it here, please. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The worst offenders are being slowly but surely dealt with. Remember Bramble window? Indefinitely blocked. Ksolway was in the process of attempting to internally fork the draft article when he was topic banned by an uninvolved administrator. That user's latest edit, two weeks ago, was to ask for the ban to be reversed. The appeal was not successful. DungeonSiegeAddict510 accepted a topic ban in exchange for unblocking.


 * I meant it when I warned you that I am worried about your recent tendency to cast dark hints about some mysterious individuals who, though they are invisible to me, you say are responsible for "obvious" disruption. Don't do this. Take those individuals through dispute resolution or stop these broad brush slurs against unnamed fellow editors. That's Wikipedia policy. --TS 16:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That you've still seemed to miss the very clear disruption is a problem in itself. We'll see how ArbCom turns out at this point, we'll literally see a proposed decision at any time.  As for the rest, your opinion is noted.  No need to reply further.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Cairns child killings
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 Cairns child killings. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campus rape
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Campus rape. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Bollywood Subjects
If you do have free time this is an area that does need more neutral eyes, however they need to also be accepting to that culture sourcing too. You can see articles like Jacqueline Fernandez and any number of other models. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For instance [] shile not all of the changes are problematic a lot are. I've noticed in this area discussion doesn't seem to matter much as they are extremely persistent in POV promotionalism. This is an area that we do actually need editors like TRPOD because you have to do that in a just as stubborn fashion at times.
 * Thanks! If you want to offer a few other articles that could use eyes, I'll be happy to watchlist.  My time has been limited as of late, but I think things will be opening up soon. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly if you just follow the links it's fairly easy to find. It's rampart problems and I don't know if it is because it's a cultural difference and so it's a regional bias or whatever but it seems to be a wide ranging problem there. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Will do, thanks! Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please follow the dispute resolution process
Lately it seems that every other day I see a contribution by you to Talk: Gamergate controversy like this.

Please gather evidence and use dispute resolution as I have repeatedly requested. These dark hints and slurs about unnamed editors cannot possibly help us to improve Wikipedia, and hamper discussion of the article. --TS 18:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tony, please stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As my recent hatting of one of your disruptive comments was reverted and the editor didn't take it to General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement, I've done so myself. The request includes a brief summary of your refusal to engage in dispute resolution, as background. --TS 20:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tony, at this point I will ask you to refrain from any further comments about this topic at my talk page. Your baseless accusations about me are without merit, creating more heat than light, and are a net detriment to the project and to cordial, constructive discussion.  I have asked you numerous times to stop and you have not, so this is the final time I'm going to ask you to stop with the constant needling simply because we have a disagreement on the usefulness of various tactics and noticeboards.  Please do not reply further. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comment at Talk:Gamergate controversy
Please revert this approach if it's unwelcome; I know you've asked me not to comment on your Gamergate editing here recently, but as long as we're working in the same area we do need to resolve our differences, and this kind of contact is usually the first step. If you would prefer to take this to my talk page or to the enforcement page that's fine with me. Please don't ignore it altogether.

You responded to a recent comment I made at Talk:Gamergate controversy as if I'd attacked my fellow editors. Would you elaborate? I'm aware that this is a sensitive area. I certainly don't want to inflame this area: far from it. I'll apologise fully if you can tell me what you think the problem is. --TS 23:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tony, here is the quote that's got me angry. "I've no idea how this discussion somehow morphed into an advocacy thread for the 'rape and death threats are probably not such a big deal' tendency', but I think it's time to stop. You've had your fun...Let's just try to conduct ourselves with some dignity, and not give the thugs and hatemongers encouragement...That is reflected in the response of the authorities, the media, and I fervently hope, most human beings."  The implication is that we're trying to advocate for some sort of nasty, gross position, that we're trying to have some "fun," and those who disagree are not dignified and, perhaps, not human.  You want to refactor and remove my comments for various reasons, and then you say something like this?  Let's have some consistency and decency.  Remove the comment, it's unhelpful and uncivil.  I'll be logging off for the night shortly, so don't take any radio silence for a while as anything other than not being near a computer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That comment was glaringly bad and inflammatory. I've withdrawn and apologised. My input can't be productive on this topic. I'll move away from this particular discussion. --TS 23:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:9/11 Truth movement
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 Truth movement. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert
I've reverted your change for two reasons. One, it's actively being discussed on the talk page, and two, if you do revert me, please be sure to only revert the lede there are other changes that got caught up in your revert. — Strongjam (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant to hit you up and got pulled away. I couldn't find the reference in the list. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops forgot to watch your talk page. No worries about hitting me up. I was 50/50 on whether to revert or re-do the changes, I'm trying not to get involved in edit wars about the lede. But since it was reverted already and being talked about I decided to be a bit lazy and just undo. Personally I agree with you about the "overwhelming majority" bit. I'd like to just drop it from the sentence as it's going to be a constant argument. — Strongjam (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Confusion
In this diff you edit summarize "...synthesis issues I raised at talk." Could you point where you mentioned synthesis on talk out to me? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Check the threads from earlier today. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which one, please? Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the talk page, and don't keep asking me questions about individual articles here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking about articles. I have reviewed the talk page and don't see a section detailing synth concerns. This is likely a failing of my ability to skim that massive talk page. Could you please help me out by pointing to the section? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be polite and collegiate to answer a direct question. The talk page is bloated at the moment, and there are also recent revisions there by you that have been deleted. . --TS 19:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tony, I have respectfully asked you not to comment on this topic at my talk page. I let the last one go because it was a reasonable, direct request between the two of us.  It was not an invitation to continue to harass me about the topic at my talk page.  Stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:American socialism
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:American socialism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

PC reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Appreciated, thanks! Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

GG talk
SPA gamergate advocates are not going to make for productive editing. If thats what you want call them out rather an enabling them.©Geni (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's your feeling, fine. I don't see how your tack is going to be productive, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, every new editor is technically an SPA. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

How do I make a semi-protected edit request
Exactly what it says on the tin. I am still new, and this is something I am going to have to do eventually. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Use on the talk page in a new section.  I'll just tell you now, though, it's unlikely anything will get through like that at the moment, it might be best to just start a new section or keep discussing in an existing one. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of making one soon. My recent... post has not been up for long enough for me to feel right making an edit request, since there has not yet been significant discussion by a large number of editors. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chris Kyle
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chris Kyle. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)