Sesquivalent (talk | contribs) |
Sesquivalent (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
:: I don't think this story ends in quite the way that you imagine. |
:: I don't think this story ends in quite the way that you imagine. |
||
:: The link salad you just posted rather badly (and obviously) misrepresents 10 out of 10 cited comments of mine in order to imply racism, Trump worship, dishonesty and other nefarious sins. Both the sheer number and the individual extent of the misrepresentations, were we to go through them item by item, make the totality hard to describe in |
:: The link salad you just posted rather badly (and obviously) misrepresents 10 out of 10 cited comments of mine in order to imply racism, Trump worship, dishonesty and other nefarious sins. Both the sheer number and the individual extent of the misrepresentations, were we to go through them item by item, make the totality hard to describe in anything but the most uncharitable terms. I'm happy to go the [[fisking]] route and will probably even have the time to do it in the next day or two. If that's what you want just say so, but attempts to theatrically dox, fisk, embarrass, and scold don't work out so well when it turns out to all be false and everything is archived. [[User:Sesquivalent|Sesquivalent]] ([[User talk:Sesquivalent|talk]]) 10:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:21, 25 July 2020
—Hi, I did not misspell my own name, there's just not a P anywhere in there!
Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil. -- In other words: duh only book-lurnin we likes 's frum books, not school-folk wit deir fancy-shmancy deeplomas. Ye ain't gots to be unschooled to edit, but ya bettah bring yer damn sauces like uh chef at tha Italian resteeraunt.
If I'm not responding, that's probably because
...And I'm either asleep, at work, or figuring out life here. |
... | ...see my contributions, go here. | ...just generally feel lost, read this. |
---|---|---|
...want to accuse me of a Christian bias, read this. | ...want to accuse Wikipedia's policies or me of an anti-Christian bias, read this. |
...want to know more about me, see my user page. |
New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~)
To-do: red plastic gas cans
These things are ubiquitous in the US (or at least any part I've been to) but we don't have an article on them. Like, I've only ever seen three consistent models (each different sizes of the same basic pattern) and looking online, it looks like those are the only three models that have been allowed since the gas crisis in the '70s.[original research?]
I've got a lot of other things on my plate, but I think these might be sufficient sources for someone (me, anyone else, whoever) to write up an article on them:
- News article
- News article
- News article
- News article
- News article
- Gov't regulation document
- Gov't regulation document
- Gov't regulation document
- "Non-Profit" run by the companies that make these things (haven't actually read through and found specific pages yet)
The last source definitely doesn't establish WP:NOTE and I'd normally be wary of anyone insisting that it be used. Still, I think they also discuss regulatory info and maybe manufacturing history. Given the news sources (all of which are "oh shit, these things are exploding again" and "please stop doing things to make them explode"), I think it's safe to say that its inclusion probably won't amount to promotion.
I'm not sure that this would accomplish much more than a stub, at least with my usual "summarize, paraphrase, combine overlapping statements" approach. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- I saw this up in your table of contents. Those damned things are a colossal nuisance , I finally found a brand that allows better control of flow and doesn't end up slopping gas all over the lawnmower, generator, or tiller. The mesh screen appears nowadays to be broadly used. They also come in yellow for diesel and blue for kerosene. Acroterion (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I am remembering my dad using blue barrels made of the same material for kerosene back when we had a space heater but yeah, I do see the same design in blue and yellow. (I think he got them on sale, I'm not sure I've seen them in stores ever again, and boy hell were they trouble to get rid of). Guess I need to look for sources on the diesel and kerosene ones and figure out what the industry name is for this family of cans. They're not Jerrycans (which is where gas can currently redirects): they're broader, have a handle on the back, and the stamping on the sides is just embossed warning text (not a structural feature). (I'm sure you know but other talk page watchers who haven't opened the links might be wondering why I want to reinvent the Jerrycan).
- There's another gas can design that I'm seeing, "Safety gas cans," which I suppose needs to be written about as well. Basically squat half-capsule mini-barrels with a handle and spout on the flatly rounded top. They're why I haven't just made "gas can" about the red plastic ones, since we really need "gas can" to be a disambig between the standard plastic, the Jerrycan, and the safety gas cans. Thanks for helping me realize that. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm accumulating a museum of gas cans. I got two of the safety cans after squirrels started eating the plastic ones. After that generation of squirrels died they seem to have stopped munching plastic and confine themselves to the house, so now I have some plastic ones that are easier to handle, and a yellow one in case we run out of heating oil - I can get off-road diesel and use that in a pinch. I think fuel container is a safe generic term. Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Five years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Useful information for editors working in certain topics
This video series "The Alt-Right playbook" is almost required viewing for anyone editing in topics touched upon in WP:NONAZIS. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Prompt message
Thanks for the quick prompt message on my questions I forgot to ask would actual credits from movies would be a reliable source aswell? ZTR2001 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ZTR2001: That's one of the few instances where we're OK with primary sources, though movie credits are a bit harder to verify than online sources. In short, yes and it's not wrong but it's not ideal. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Bias conversation pertaining to Wiki Loves Pride
Hello, I read your note "Even though this is hatted, I'm removing a rant that served no purpose but to troll. If someone seriously believes that natural attraction to the same sex is anywhere near a threat to America as Covid-19, systemic racism, police brutality, rising fascism, an upcoming housing market crash, financial corruption among the rich, Russian and Chinese interference in politics, or even Jeffrey Epstein's pedophile ring -- nothing they have to say is worth wasting space on our site"
This is a completely inaccurate catagorisation of the conversation. I am not ranting or trolling, and I do not believe "attraction to the same sex is anywhere near a threat to America as Covid-19...", in fact this conversation has nothing to do with threats about America.
I am simply pointing out that it is not neutral for an encyclopaedia to have a program called "Wiki loves Pride" as loving pride is a moral and political stance.
Therefore I must object to the removal of the conversation as I see it is a hushing up of a valid dispute, which has arisen many times but has not been addressed properly by the likes such as people on the page.
Perhaps we should add a note to the main page that "Wiki Loves Pride" is not the opinion of the Wikipedia Encyclopaedia as to refrain from confusion.
Regards,
Ray2556 (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- (by talk reader) @Ray2556: Wikipedia is a left-wing website because the over-educated, under-employed volunteer editors skew left. The few right-wingers left years ago for Conservapedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Ray2556: As you can see here, I removed a post by Somua35 that described human rights for LGBT individuals as "one of the greatest threats that the society considers today. Many have and are willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice to defend the rights of Americans to resist it" -- In other words, my assessment was accurate. Somua35 did not contest my description of his post. As you have quoted, I said "even though this is hatted, I'm removing..." What did I remove? Your post? Show us with a WP:DIFF where I touched or spoke about your post. Unless Somua35 is a sockpuppet account of yours, then my action was about someone else's post. This conversation suggests you have a problem of ignoring facts when they get in the way of your anger, an attitude that's pretty useless when contributing to an cooperative project (especially an encyclopedia). If this is generally not the case for you, then you need to find a topic where you think clearly.
- LGBT people are a persecuted minority. Their orientations are not a simple choice but a result of genetics and neurological hard wiring (with any nurture elements being early enough in life that you can't really change it now). As a Christian, I believe we should love people -- especially downtrodden -- instead of spreading false witness to deny their humanity and right to live. It's not like loving someone for choosing to be a Nazi or choosing to be a domestic abuser. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Easy on the accusations
Your edit summary on George Floyd protests "Undid revision by Dtatsu - the same problem exists with this edit as the other -- you are pushing a term normally favored by white supremacists to downplay the legitimacy of protests by African-Americans. If that is not your goal, you need to discuss the matter instead of silently edit warring." was overly belligerent. The term "riots" was used multiple times throughout the article due to proper RSs. I personally disagree with Dtatsu's edits but lets please refrain from hurling insults as it discourages proper editing from new editors. Anon0098 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Your edits on this subject are fine, Ian. Anon0098, you are 100% wrong. That isn't bitey in the slightest, and it is you that needs to dial it back. Youve been here a couple months. You have neither the knowledge or experience to be instructing an administrator, with thousands of edit and many years experience in matters of Wikipedia policy, behavior or etiquette. I'm reasonably sure Ian will file this appropriately - in the cylindrical file that sits on the floor, exactly where it belongs. Is you gonna be all butt-hurt now? John from Idegon (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- thank you for white knighting, I don’t frankly care how much prestige you boast on here, I am simply suggesting that we should refrain from accusing people of using white supremacist vernacular without justification. I even said I agreed with the edit just not the accusation Anon0098 (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Funny, I've generally don't see the phrase "white knighting" used outside of certain circles. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- And if we're going to pretend that it's not part of a vocabulary for particular groups, you're as guilty of white knighting for Dtatsu and not really in a position to point out anyone else doing that. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- One is a rebuke and one is defending a person in a situation you have zero original reference to — the latter is laughable. I got my point across regardless. Not going to argue with someone I have never even seen before, so Peace, Anon0098 (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, so things you do are OK when when you do them but not when someone else does them to you, and you don't want the opinion of a third party to prompt you to consider that you might be wrong, got it. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Funny, I've generally don't see the phrase "white knighting" used outside of certain circles. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'm in the middle here. While biting newcomers is not generally good, certain topics do attract users who are not here to help (and they aren't upfront about it) and some who, while theoretically having the right to their beliefs, do not need be given the means to voice them and should be shouted down whenever they whimper. My actions are not perfect, they are moving towards a line -- but still not crossing it. While that line should not be crossed, and it's disruptive to make a show of running up to the line but stopping for purposes other than helping the site, staying as far away from the line as possible is less than useless.
- I try to make sure to include lines like "If this is not your goal" to show the assumption of good faith that that wasn't their intention, or even give them a way to gracefully back down if it was. Instead, we have sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- And I appreciate the sentiment but I figured I would point out that line, since I don't want it moving if you catch my drift — the rest of the article is fine. Thanks, Anon0098 (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- thank you for white knighting, I don’t frankly care how much prestige you boast on here, I am simply suggesting that we should refrain from accusing people of using white supremacist vernacular without justification. I even said I agreed with the edit just not the accusation Anon0098 (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 16:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Copyvios
Thanks very much for the fast cleanup on Mottingham. Now that I look, I see Diannaa rev-deleted material from the same source immediately before that, so I could have saved myself the search on "capacious" or whatever it was that triggered my suspicions. I had originally planned to figure out how to ask for the history to be cleaned, but the rewrite turned into a multi-hour marathon ending after 1 am my time, and I was even too zonked to notice I'd messed up the Commons cat template. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Editor advice for newcomers
Hello Ian,
I have created a page called WP:Editor advice for newcomers where you can provide comments to help newcomers on Wikipedia. You are welcome to share your thoughts on what would help newcomers be better editors. Interstellarity (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 14:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
unilateral insta-block
Recently you immediately blocked user CorrectingBias after he made one and only one article edit. That edit was quickly reverted by one of the editors who patrol that article, and had the user you blocked continued with similar edits he might very well have ended up blocked anyway. I don't think there was any real chance of edits like the one that caused you to block him making their way into the article for more than a few minutes or hours at a time, as it is read and patrolled by many people. The editor who reverted, for example, is a highly active SPA for purposes of all articles on race and ethnicity-related controversies, which she monitors and in some cases takes control over.
My question, though, is whether a single edit that happens to offend a roving admin is in and of itself grounds for instant unilateral blocking. You cited NOTHERE and CIR, but WP:CIR lists blocking as a "last resort". The user in question asked a question on Doug Weller's talk page, which you apparently follow, at which point you immediately hammered him down. Sesquivalent (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) a brand-new account that names itself "CorrectingBias" which immediately edits an article about a work widely recognized as antisemitic and written by a noted white supremacist and conspiracy theorist, replacing those statements with fluffy language about the point of view being "alleged" by unspecified sources, is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia; see WP:PROFRINGE. Whether that's an immediate block or a warn-and-wait situation is up to admin discretion. However, you might notice in the article history there is an anonymous editor (12.154.111.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) making specifically the same sort of edits to that part of the article, and also railing about the intro's "bias" on the article's talk page. That IP was blocked on 6 July, and CorrectingBias arrived 11 days later to make the same edits. Either they're the same person or they're responding to a request somewhere to "correct" the article, a very common approach by civil POV pushers and brigaders. So, yeah, this was a good block. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I did not notice the IP edits, and I don't share the assumption that the edits are probably correlated, but if that was part of the reason for the block it does make more sense.
- I recently made some edits to that article and have followed the edit history and talk page, and that of some similar articles such as Ron Unz. One reason that there are a lot of "sympathizers" showing up with FRINGE or NAZI edits on the articles is that some of these articles are ridiculously slanted, as though Wikipedia's role is to be a didactic good-or-bad classification service. The articles on MacDonald, Unz and others have been a free for all of edits painting them with stuff outside of their actual views and activities, and this is a problem regardless of the unsavoriness of those views. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Saying that a noted white supremacist and conspiracy theorist is going to provide insight into Jewish culture is reason enough for someone to not be editing.
- Nazi editors would be showing up to articles on their favorite topics to complain until we look like Metapedia. They're not just gonna stop at WP:GEVAL. We only cover fringe claims to point out what mainstream sources say about them: that they're wrong. We don't owe them anything more than that. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well said. Thanks for taking decisive action. Well done. El_C 21:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- The complaint about "insight" mischaracterizes that part of the edit and then dramatizes the mischaracterization to justify a block. With that said, I was not asking for reasons or justification for the block or a debate about whether the blocked account is a Nazi, but about policy on instant blocks of brand new users based on single edits. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well said. Thanks for taking decisive action. Well done. El_C 21:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also, double checking the article history and then Special:Contributions/Generalrelative, @Sesquivalent: calling Generalrelative an WP:SPA is dishonest to the point of being a personal attack. Between that and your accusations of someone else being a "notorious anti-Trump editor" for merely pointing out that John McCain was a Republican (even if were Trump would like to think otherwise), I'm wondering how long until AP2 DS gets thrown at you. This prompted me to here, finding that no matter how many people are involved, including third-parties, anyone who disagrees with you couldn't possibly have any reason besides POV-pushing! There's also you accusing the SPLC of slander for not sticking to a naive reading of an author you like and saying Stephen Jay Gould "was a purveyor of a considerable amount of demented nonsense under an academic veneer" because of his opposition to racialist views. Then there's this post where you accuse a section directly summarizing current pieces from the Associated Press, NPR, WaPo, The Atlantic, Politico, and many more as being a "SYNTH POV" "selectively anti-Trump screed." One must never question fearless leader, eh? Others have pointed out the beam in your eye when you try to make a mountain out of the speck in others, and you completely miss it. Honestly, your prior history leaves you with less than no room to accuse anyone of being an SPA or POV-pusher with regards to race or politics. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think this story ends in quite the way that you imagine.
- The link salad you just posted rather badly (and obviously) misrepresents 10 out of 10 cited comments of mine in order to imply racism, Trump worship, dishonesty and other nefarious sins. Both the sheer number and the individual extent of the misrepresentations, were we to go through them item by item, make the totality hard to describe in anything but the most uncharitable terms. I'm happy to go the fisking route and will probably even have the time to do it in the next day or two. If that's what you want just say so, but attempts to theatrically dox, fisk, embarrass, and scold don't work out so well when it turns out to all be false and everything is archived. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)