Headings and links
Welcome back to Wikipedia! This is just a quick note to point out that the wiki guidelines discourage the inclusion of links within headings especially when only part of the heading is linked. See MOS:HEAD. The subject of the link has often been mentioned and linked earlier in the article (and in this case probably should not be linked again) or will be mentioned early in the section and can be linked at that point. — Jpacobb (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Even in a talk page? Man y'all are hardcore. I mean I guess it is here forever. Thanks for the heads-up!Endercase (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
NPOV thoughts
What is the definition here for a valid point of view? Should NPOV ever be used to remove cited "oppressive" points of view? Endercase (talk)
Stealth banning
I fail to see how removing references to Breitbart and Infowars violates NPOV. Neither is considered a reliable source. I will not revert my edits. Trivialist (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Trivialist The enforcement of an illegitimate ban on users that didn't participate in your discussion to ban is a clear violation of NPOV. Please see the talk page I referred you too. I do not understand why you would refuse to revert. The sources were reliable in context. Endercase (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand your comments. I removed the Breitbart and Infowars material because they are not considered reliable sources. I don't care who added them. If there are more reliable sources for that information, that's fine. Trivialist (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am saying that "not considered reliable sources" is POV. As such, no general ban on those sources may occur. Endercase (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I take it you haven't heard about the recent Daily Mail thing? Trivialist (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please just read the links I left on your talk page. I don't want to have to copy and paste everything. Just because a thing happened don't mean it was justified. Their discussion had clear logical errors that I point out in the discussion. Endercase (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I take it you haven't heard about the recent Daily Mail thing? Trivialist (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am saying that "not considered reliable sources" is POV. As such, no general ban on those sources may occur. Endercase (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand your comments. I removed the Breitbart and Infowars material because they are not considered reliable sources. I don't care who added them. If there are more reliable sources for that information, that's fine. Trivialist (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Who are you? Also re: your comments on RSN
Sorry if this seems confrontational, but I'm just curious if you have used any other accounts or been editing logged out.
It's pretty unusual for an account to make five edits, disappear for half a decade, and then come back and become relatively prolific on two talk pages and a noticeboard, and I'm noticing that a significant number of your opinions on said noticeboard appear to be somewhat extreme.
Have you read WP:RS? Being a dissenting voice is fine (I usually try to give some alternative point of view on matters brought up there that attract my attention), but if you regularly post things that are not supported by community consensus, there's a small chance no one else will post and your opinion could mislead someone.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- wp:RS makes no mention of banning sources and says that context must be considered. That is not occurring. I didn't notice the problem until my reliable sources in a minor edit were removed with the information that I had added, with no reason given but a "ban" . That was out of order and I wanted to know why it had happened. Found out the "ban" wasn't created following protocol, and I chose to stand up for my right to add accurate and valuable information to Wikipedia. You don't need to be "someone" to fix a problem. Endercase (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Again, that's a red herring; no one is arguing that certain sources should be banned -- they are arguing that your use of Breitbart is inappropriate. And I was not even referring to the main thread you apparently showed up on RSN to open (I hadn't read it before coming here) -- I'm referring to your activity throughout the many threads you have posted in. On the FRC thread, for example, you said that the discussion belonged on the talk page of the relevant article, as though the reliability of the FRC for factual claims was completely tangential. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I also notice you dodged the question as to whether you have used other accounts. I was assuming good faith (hence my asking you outright rather than doing research and opening and SPI), but if you twist my question into somehow being about the right of nobodies to edit Wikipedia rather than answering it straight ... well, I'll ask it again: have you used any other accounts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- By the way: another reason I'm asking about this rather (other than your unusual edit history) is that your user page links to the deletion log and calls it
a list of our fallen articles
, but you yourself have never edited a page that was deleted.[1] This either shows a pretty offensive disrespect for the Wikipedia community's deletion process, or a bitterness that some article you worked on under another name was deleted at some point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)- I have never used another account, why would I? It seems as if the use of one account throughout all time would earn more respect. Additionally, I believe in transparency and honesty and would not misrepresent myself to you. Our in that reference refers to all of Wikipedia. I don't see how that is disrespectful. Also, deletion is a misnomer, they are hidden (fallen). I don't understand why someone would have strong feelings about the hiding of their articles (I mean they could/should just post it on their blog or whatever) If no-one is arguing for a ban then why are they banned? Requiring a special exemption for use is a ban. There is no personal bitterness toward our processes, I just like to use strong/poetic wording because it is prettier and demonstrates my honesty though the apparent strength of my beliefs. I haven't upset you is some way have I? You are beginning to sound a bit hostile. Not a single user (other than you) has actually spoken to my specific use of that source thus far actually. Endercase (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Also, what does FRC and SPI mean? I didn't mean to "twist" your words. I just think a bit differently. 2 weeks ago I was not even aware that Wikipedia deleted articles other than the really dumb ones about people's dogs. Endercase (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, I know what SPI means now. Sock Puppet Investigation. Right? I don't believe in using of sock puppets, I don't like that sort of manipulation. Of course, you shouldn't just trust me on that. But why would I switch to my real username for all the drama? A quick search of that username will show you James P.S. Case. If you would like you can hit me up outside at some other account for verification. I still haven't found FRC yet. Endercase (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRC is not helpful in this case (from your context). It might need updated. Endercase (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You twisted my words by changing my question about whether you have used other accounts to a question about whether you are someone important (a question I don't generally ask Wikipedians who don't have clear COI problems), and you answered the latter question even though I had not asked it.
- For what it's worth, the vast, vast majority of mainspace pages that get deleted probably are either about people's dogs or other trivial matters like that. That is why linking to the list of all of them and apparently lamenting their status as "fallen articles" could be seen as an offensive jab at Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The other possible explanation, though, is that you edited some articles in the past that got deleted, but your edit history doesn't bare that out.
- I have no interest in off-wiki contact with you, and if you want to blank your own edit and get this rev-delled, as you appear to have (accidentally?) outed yourself, I will understand. I am just concerned that you
- A little over two days ago, you posted in a thread on RSN about the Family Research Council, which is the only place you and I had interacted before I posted here, and is clearly already listed on FRC. "Ctrl+F"ing "FRC" on RSN would have revealed this pretty quickly, although if you were more careful about looking into each thread you comment in perhaps misunderstandings like this could be avoided. Looking a bit more carefully at your comments than I did earlier, I notice you cited BOLD in 6 out of 11 threads you commented in; AGF is unclear on whether it would be better to assume you are not posting in a bunch of threads without reading them first or to assume you are not posting based on a personal opinion that conflicts with policy; I chose the latter in this case, but if the former would have been correct, then I'll end this by saying you really should be more careful.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRC is not helpful in this case (from your context). It might need updated. Endercase (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, I know what SPI means now. Sock Puppet Investigation. Right? I don't believe in using of sock puppets, I don't like that sort of manipulation. Of course, you shouldn't just trust me on that. But why would I switch to my real username for all the drama? A quick search of that username will show you James P.S. Case. If you would like you can hit me up outside at some other account for verification. I still haven't found FRC yet. Endercase (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Also, what does FRC and SPI mean? I didn't mean to "twist" your words. I just think a bit differently. 2 weeks ago I was not even aware that Wikipedia deleted articles other than the really dumb ones about people's dogs. Endercase (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have never used another account, why would I? It seems as if the use of one account throughout all time would earn more respect. Additionally, I believe in transparency and honesty and would not misrepresent myself to you. Our in that reference refers to all of Wikipedia. I don't see how that is disrespectful. Also, deletion is a misnomer, they are hidden (fallen). I don't understand why someone would have strong feelings about the hiding of their articles (I mean they could/should just post it on their blog or whatever) If no-one is arguing for a ban then why are they banned? Requiring a special exemption for use is a ban. There is no personal bitterness toward our processes, I just like to use strong/poetic wording because it is prettier and demonstrates my honesty though the apparent strength of my beliefs. I haven't upset you is some way have I? You are beginning to sound a bit hostile. Not a single user (other than you) has actually spoken to my specific use of that source thus far actually. Endercase (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Again, that's a red herring; no one is arguing that certain sources should be banned -- they are arguing that your use of Breitbart is inappropriate. And I was not even referring to the main thread you apparently showed up on RSN to open (I hadn't read it before coming here) -- I'm referring to your activity throughout the many threads you have posted in. On the FRC thread, for example, you said that the discussion belonged on the talk page of the relevant article, as though the reliability of the FRC for factual claims was completely tangential. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am used to a significantly faster paced social media and may have posted may too much in various locations for that reason. I don't know what is normal here. This is a very strange experience compared to other forms of social media. Yes, I will call this a social media. Admittedly, one with a significantly different focus. Endercase (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Are you saying you are editing Wikipedia because you are upset that your Twitter account got stealth-banned? Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to stay away from articles on social media and right-wing politics for a while. Wikipedia tends to be kinder to users who are clearly here to build an encyclopedia, and single-purpose accounts that start causing problems get in trouble quite quickly. You should also be more careful when commenting in multiple threads on the same noticeboard. If your comments are out of line with policy, they can be quite disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I have definitely upset you. I do not know the Jargon you are using. I did not mean to upset anyone. I'm sorry. I don't really have strong feelings about stealth-bans but I do think the phenomena should be documented. Would you please leave me alone until you calm down? Consider that I really am just trying to maintain transparency in Wikipedia. Also, I didn't vote for Trump. Endercase (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
Ahhhhhahhahahaaaa
Please excuse. What is funny?I have definitely upset you.
Not really. I'm just offering you some advice. Take it or leave it.I do not know the Jargon you are using.
Why I carefully linked all of it so you would not misunderstand.I did not mean to upset anyone.
Good.I'm sorry.
No need to apologize.I don't really have strong feelings about stealth-bans but I do think the phenomena should be documented.
Well, you should not cite fringe sources like Breitbart to do so, and if you only edit the one page while citing fringe far-right sources it makes you look like you are not here.Would you please leave me alone until you calm down?
I'd be glad to leave you alone if you don't want to listen to my advice, but I don't know what gave you the impression that I am not already calm -- could you elaborate?Consider that I really am just trying to maintain transparency in Wikipedia.
Aren't we all.Also, I didn't vote for Trump.
Neither did I, but I am not American, and I'm sure there are lots of American extreme rightists who think Trump is too much of a progressive; not voting for Trump doesn't say anything about one's political views, nor about whether one is here to build an encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- I am used to a significantly faster paced social media and may have posted may too much in various locations for that reason. I don't know what is normal here. This is a very strange experience compared to other forms of social media. Yes, I will call this a social media. Admittedly, one with a significantly different focus. Endercase (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- FRC is Family Research Council in this context (Oh). Ok, that is why you are upset? My understanding of policy is that reliability discussions about specific sources should be first made on the article's talk page and if no consensus can be reached there then escalated to the noticeboard. I don't understand why the fact that the specific reference was attributed was irrelevant as that is the protocol for less reliable sources. Additionally, the discussion made no reference to specific context or about specific information that source provided. There was no supplying of secondary sources to counter the information provided by the first source, which while maybe normal here is really strange (can get you fired) in research. I have a working history in research and the entire behavior in that discussion seemed ad hominem and strange. The evaluations were made about the source and not at all about the information. It seemed as if the users hated that source, and did not care about the information at all. I don't even know what that source is, I've never heard of them before. That is definitely not my area of expertise. Endercase (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Busy now reply later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- rev-delled is the main term I don't understand, although you also have some formatting issues. I paniced a bit because it seemed like you were really mad (but trying not to say anything that could get you in trouble) Your comments keep having this undercurrent of "if you say one 'wrong' thing you get banned, MUHAHAHAHAH!" Breitbart isn't fringe, although a good number of their articles are. That is due to the vast number of their paying readers being (well I don't know how to say it politely)... But sometimes they publish accurate things, and sometimes they document things that have happened. And some of their authors were sniped from "reliable" sources and continue to produce verifiable content. Anyway, a general discussion on Breitbart isn't the point. Anyway, I'm done for the night. Endercase (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Busy now reply later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- FRC is Family Research Council in this context (Oh). Ok, that is why you are upset? My understanding of policy is that reliability discussions about specific sources should be first made on the article's talk page and if no consensus can be reached there then escalated to the noticeboard. I don't understand why the fact that the specific reference was attributed was irrelevant as that is the protocol for less reliable sources. Additionally, the discussion made no reference to specific context or about specific information that source provided. There was no supplying of secondary sources to counter the information provided by the first source, which while maybe normal here is really strange (can get you fired) in research. I have a working history in research and the entire behavior in that discussion seemed ad hominem and strange. The evaluations were made about the source and not at all about the information. It seemed as if the users hated that source, and did not care about the information at all. I don't even know what that source is, I've never heard of them before. That is definitely not my area of expertise. Endercase (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, the fallen thing was really just poetic license; I thought it sounded good. Like fallen angels or something. Idk it was something I thought about for less than a minute. As far as I know you are the only user that has even read it. Although you are a bit fixated on it. If it really bothers you I can remove it. Endercase (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for linking me to Wikipedia:NOTHERE I had not seen that one before. *Insert finger pointing comments about everyone I have interacted with* I didn't know that calling Wikipedia a social media site was such a touchy subject. Goodnight. (I'm not a right leaning person, not that that should matter) Endercase (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- And of course, I'm here build an encyclopedia. Otherwise I'd be somewhere else. If I wanted to soapbox this would be a terrible place for it. (this place is a bit addicting though) Endercase (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for linking me to Wikipedia:NOTHERE I had not seen that one before. *Insert finger pointing comments about everyone I have interacted with* I didn't know that calling Wikipedia a social media site was such a touchy subject. Goodnight. (I'm not a right leaning person, not that that should matter) Endercase (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Democracy at Wikipedia?
@Endercase: I read WP:DEMOCRACY and I thought voting was pretty clearly discouraged when debate or discussion can be had, yet voting appears to be the normal method when more than 3-4 users are involved.
I have not read the section recently but I know from experience, that few decisions are based on democratic votes, which is why people call "votes" as ivotes or !votes. The decision is based on the merits of the argument. In a recent WP:AfD, of four people who voted, I was the only one to say "keep". Because I provided WP:RS, that carried more weight than the three editors who said "delete--no RS".
In fact, I have seen it said many times that a simple vote in one direction is of essentially no value if no reason is given.
Ultimately, following policies and guidelines carries the most weight in a discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- @David Tornheim: So users that vote giving little or no reason to support their vote are engaging in fruitless activities? Odd. Endercase (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
No rules -- Ignore the Rules?
I guess the use of the term rules is not meant to convey a top-down nature of organization but to convey the severity and seriousness of their use.
As I have said before, despite WP:IGNORE and WP:BOLD, Wikipedia is filled with rules, and even more unfortunate is that many of them are vague and/or contradictory and leave much to interpretation. Unlike American law, we don't rely on stare decisis, or carefully argued decision by judges, and you'll see editors referring to "rules" or past decisions without giving you a link to what they are talking about. You could spend an hour looking for it--I know I have--and the search results are often far less definitive than what they lead you to believe. They themselves may not even remember where they saw the "rule", past decision, behavior, etc. For example, the person who said something to you indicating that Breitbart is never reliable didn't provide you with a reference. They probably didn't feel like spending the half hour trying to prove it--instead they leave that task in your hands. As a new editor, you probably wouldn't even know where to search to check if the claim was legit or not. So, I'm really not surprised you went to WP:RS/N to ask whether we really do ban sources. It's a reasonable question. I think your biggest mistake was not asking the question, but the way you asked it. Experienced editors find it odd for a new editor to ask for sweeping changes in the way we do WP:RS. More humility was in order.
I believe many rules are implicit rather than expressed and the only way to really learn them is by experience. One of the implicit rules is that WP:IGNORE and WP:BOLD should not be taken too seriously if you don't want to be blocked or banned. Those "rules" do not trump all the others, even though they are written as if they do. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree I didn't take audacity into consideration. I read that all peers are equal and went for the gold: question everything. That was reckless. I really hope the list proposal gets some traction in the proper forum as it really would be helpful to easily know which sources cause other editors grief. Endercase (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)