User talk:Ocaasi: Difference between revisions

Wikipedia:Citing_sources Wikipedia:Alphabet_soup Wikipedia:Deletion_process Wikipedia:RS WP:NOR WP:BLP WP:NPOV WP:COPYRIGHT Special:Statistics Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requested_move_Requested_move Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_through_talk_pages RFC FEED signpost/resources/discussion/watchlist Wikipedia:BRIEF

--clthng, dmbg, ar, rbns, mcd, chna, pndg chngs, npov, psdscnc, stki, rcp,

Open Questions

Does WP:ASF/WP:MEDRS apply to a systematic review if only one exists?
Are article naming conventions using Primary topic guidelines based on WP page views or on common popularity?
Are official court rulings considered Primary documents and/or unreliable sources? For which parts?
Are assertions about living persons in official court rulings insufficiently sourced?
Does ASF require that all undisputed findings be stated as fact or merely that they can be? What about contentious areas or statements in the gray area between fact and opinion?
Does MEDRS apply to all aspects of a medical subject article or only the parts that specifically make medical claims?
If information is challenged, the WP:BURDEN is on the info-adder/defender to find sourcing which verifies the claim. From there, does the Burden shift back to the info-deleter/remover to determine whether the provided source is unreliable, or is the info-adder still tasked with showing the provided source is reliable?
Do primary sources illustrate secondary sources, or do secondary sources corroborate primary sources, or are primary sources not reliable in lieu of secondary sources, or are secondary sources redundant if paired with primary sources, and when, and which primary sources?
Do we need ALTMEDRS, to address medical claims made by alternative medicine fields, or to give room for non-WEIGHT violating coverage of the medical opinions within a field, per NPOV but not MEDRS?

Great Diffs

Homework helper http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=386295973&diff=prev
Best friends http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=386348226&diff=prev
An edit war http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=399471730&diff=prev
Stop it! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=399480625&diff=prev
Ouch. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=401661322&diff=prev
Truth in advertising http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=401672362&diff=prev

Wikilawyering: A guide for aspiring tendentious editors

If you like it, call it consensus. If you don't like it, name your policy and call whatever happened IAR.

If no one responds to your idea, call it no objections. If no one responds to your opponent's idea, call out silence does not equal consensus.

If you like the views in one forum, cite them as consensus. If you like the views of another forum better, cite those.

If you like the views of involved editors, call them relevant. If you prefer the views of uninvolved editors, consider them overriding.

If you like it, cite V. If you don't like it, call it OR.

If you don't like, call it OR. If they cite V, call it Plagiarism.

If you like it, cite Weight. If you don't like it, cite Weight.

If they make it about NPOV call out their RS. If they defend the RS, call them out on OR. If they defend the OR, call them out on NPOV. Repeat.

If someone responds to your argument, don't answer them, just repeat your original criticism or choose a new one. Whatever you do, don't engage the merits of an argument.

If someone doesn't agree with you, repeat your initial point. Keep doing this.

If you have a reason, don't share it. Just make claims as if your saying so makes it true.

If you are going to compromise, act like you're suffering a great injustice for the good of the encyclopedia.

If you are going to perpetrate a great injustice, call it a compromise.

If you have an idea which has already been roundly rejected by other editors, offer the same, but do it casually and graciously, as in 'see if this works'.

Know exactly which acts are likely to result in blocks. Do as much as you can within those bounds but never actually cross them. This shows other editors you care about policy.

If you can't convince another editor to see things your way, just broadly write them off as a of POV pusher, SPA, COI, or other unmentionable.

This is not a real guide, although it may be useful to identify the tactics of editors you struggle with. Instead of repeating them, try better ways to improve articles. If you find yourself doing one of these things, Wikibreak?

change to republican def

ok I have legit reasons for said change....gay black republican....possible definition one who is suddenly gay, not accepted by other gays so becomes republican for attention....republican party needs minority vote till after elections hence pic or web ugly dance......of said gay black republican also note said gay black republican is real person does really exist known said person since elementary school openly bashes gays and black please refer to race and sexual orientationjust thought the world should know how why and yes it is possible.....it has to be in wiki the world must know not racist, or judging but did you know.....one who knows all......i didn't unsigned comment added by Jewskin (talk links removed

Russell Brand Edits

Ok dude fair enough, I did try to find a more credible source than the sun. But couldn't find anything, and the credible sources were just quoting what the sun had said. Thank you for giving me a reason, don't like it when other people just edit and delete text without saying why.

TUSC token 429f023399011fed35160b775830d68e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

STiki / Research pointer

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at West.andrew.g's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chiropractic ....rock_climber02

Thanks for your feedback on the chiropractic section. I will more closely follow the guidelines you mentioned in the future. I am just now learning how this all works and want to work within the current system. thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock climber02 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

chiropractic

Thanks again for your patience with my learning curve. I will take some time to more thorougly read some of the talk points. There are multiple studies that do not have the extreme anti chiropractic findings that are currently cited on the page. I will attempt to do a better job at displaying this. Thanks again for your constructive criticism and feedback. Rock climber02 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks again for your help and feed-back. I am working on doing just as you described for a much less controversial topic on this subject, that of chiropractic education. The current information is highly inaccurate and this should be easy enough to substantiate. Thanks again and I really appreciate your help in understanding the process.Rock climber02 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bolditis

Re: your revert here, please read MOS:BOLDTITLE#Descriptive titles: If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. (For a tongue-in-cheek but very succinct and accurate summary of the reasoning behind this, see Wikipedia:Stop bolding everything.) My edit was 100% correct. Your revert was not, please undo it. Thank you. --87.78.31.89 (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit at WP:SPOILER was a matter of personal taste, the MOS does not apply to project space pages (i.e., the reasoning for your revert there is not valid, but what the heck). Wrt to an account: been there, done that. Compared to my experiences from my tenure as a registered editor, the frustration I suffer at the hand of trigger-happy Twinkle-abusers is minuscule.
However, the formatting correction I made at Chiropractic controversy and criticism is pretty much non-negotioably correct. Bolding separate words or word groups is just obviously idiotic. You either see it or you don't. Now have a nice day and I hope you enjoy those idiotically bolded separate word groups. Thanks for being part of the problem, mate. --87.78.31.89 (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template with instructions

Do you want a template with instructions beyond linking to policy in the article or not. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree to a template with explicit instructions including material about MEDRS and ASF. I understand you will consider it but I want to know if you now agree to it with having explicit instructions. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that MEDRS is only appropriate on pages with medically related articles. As for explicit information about ASF I'm not sure it would be appropriate unless it was simply a link/summary of WP:ASSERT, which explains the variety of issues around attribution and the presentation of facts and opinions.

I think what you're trying to accomplish by informing editors is a good idea, but since you have a strong predisposition to a certain policy aspect and a strict interpretation of that policy, one which is informed by your generally skeptical approach to alternative medicine, I'm not sure that there is sufficient consensus to actually make such a template. But I support the idea, if it works. Ocaasi (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support the template the way I think it should work with explicit instructions. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal sources for biomedical assertions. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing scientific findings, evidence, facts, and legal aspects; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Where a topic is subject to a significant amount of academic research – whether it be hard science, social science or the humanities – Wikipedia articles should accurately reflect the current status of research.

Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable sources where available. Non-academic sources can be used, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This includes books by reputable publishers as well as newspapers, magazines, journals and electronic media.

In topics which are the subject of scholarly research, the most authoritative sources are usually academic works that have undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in a field, particularly peer-reviewed systematic reviews. Quality mainstream media sources can be used for areas such as current affairs – including the socio-economic, political, and human impact of science – or biographies of living persons. Non-academic sources may misreport or misinterpret data and its significance, and should therefore not be relied upon exclusively as sources of that kind of material where academic secondary sources are available. The full guideline is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).

I have previously worked on a summary for reliable sources. The above three paragraphs can go into a template. MEDRS applies to any article where there is a medical claim. You or I can summarise the consensus version of ASF. Of course, for a template it must be simpler (shorter) than the policy version but still properly summarise ASF. Either you are going to agree with this specific proposal or I will not spend several hours working on it without consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I would like to see where it's going. You know up front that: I like the idea of instructions; I prefer that anything policy oriented be seen by eyes at NPOV and rather than just chiropractic; I agree with MEDRS (applied specifically to medical issues); I agree with using scholarly research where it is available; I agree with using quality non-academic sources for medical issues so long as they are used appropriately; I think that alternative medicine articles exist somewhere between MEDRS and RS, and think MEDRS can be overly applied here in certain circumstances, particularly the non-research parts of the article; I don't agree with your general interpretation of ASF that in every instance where something can be stated as fact that it must; I take general concern that issues can be complex and a rigid application of ASF can oversimplify or overstate (just like a too loose application of ASF can dilute claims and allow undue influence); I no longer see the prior version of ASF as having broad consensus support--if that is an issue then NPOV is the place to go first; I think WP:ASSERT is the closest we have to a comprehensive instruction here.

All of those things factor in to my understanding of policy here, and I'm not sure if we have consensus about them. So, don't invest yourself if it's conditional on total agreement, but do continue to present these issues to me and others if you think it will improve things. Your idea is also similar to the discussions about academic sourcing that have been going on over at WP:SCIRS; maybe it would be appropriate to try and draft something and bring it there, too. Ocaasi (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the abnormal changes to ASSERT is incoherent to comprehend. It does not even have the examples of the inline qualifiers. It was removed without consnesus. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, if along with your above MEDRS guideline, we could combine the following, I'd be interested:

Achieving what Wikipedia understands as "neutrality" often means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of sources, and then attempting to convey the results to the reader clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. There are few hard-and-fast rules for doing this—much depends on the good faith of editors, who should be striving to provide information, not promote a particular cause. However, observing the following principles, together with those of verifiability, will help to achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Avoid stating opinions as facts. It is expected that articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects, but these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice—they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as "widespread views", etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide is widely considered to be an evil action" or that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, it is normally necessary to treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and avoid presenting them as direct statements.
Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Seemingly factual, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.
Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. Ocaasi (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a summary of the consensus version of ASF. You have not shown consensus for the mass change to core policy and you have not shown how ASF was improved by making it weaker (simpler). QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the summary of assertion guidance currently in the NPOV policy. It has been there for almost a month now with almost no objection besides yours. Maybe the consensus version of ASF isn't. You'd have to find other editors who share your view or bring an RfC at NPOV in order to determine whether the policy has abandoned its roots or just been improved as part of a general clean-up. Ocaasi (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules

<div style="position: fixed; right:0; bottom:0; display:block; height:{{{1|150}}}px; width:{{{1|150}}}px;"><div style="position: relative; width: {{{1|150}}}px; height: {{{1|150}}}px; overflow: lolz"><div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; font-size: 300px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 300px; z-index: 3">[[WP:Ignore all rules|...]]</div><div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; z-index: 2">[[File:Undertow seal.png|150px]]</div></div></div>

I thought you may like the Ignore all rules template since you like simpler or no instruction creep for policy. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

You may want to think twice before editing the article again. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible BLP violation

Please stop your accusations against a person your personally disagree with. QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QG, can you identify the specific BLP violation? It is accurate and verifiable that a United States court has found Stephen Barrett not qualified to be a medical expert in certain cases. Whether I personally disagree with him or not is irrelevant. I happen to think he serves a useful purpose by spreading information about possibly fraudulent health claims; I just wish he was less biased in his quest to do so. Are you Stephen Barrett or affiliated with him in some way? Ocaasi (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ocaasi I noticed that you posted a question at the talk page of WP:BLP. You might have wanted the noticeboard instead -- WP:BLPN. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

research

This was a poorly supported and written research article published in a well respected medical journal about the risks of cervical manipulation and stroke. The risks are the same as a patient with neck pain and headache going to a medical doctor. There is actually no causal link that has ever been established other than pure bias. What you have on the sight now is extremely biased and not at all established in fact. The possiblity of having a vbai from cervical manipulation is 1 in 5.8 million. Research has also, proved conclusively how effective chiropractic manipulations are for low back pain and that isn't even up for debate. however, wikipedia states with the "possible," exception of back pain. Chiropractors are the spinal healthcare specialist within the healthcare system and for over a hundred years, there as been adversity because of some of the founders beliefs. Well, chiropractic has evolved from pseudoscience to actual science just like medicine has evolved from blood letting to actual science. Please don't let the bias of a few, spread falsehoods about a profession that has been fighting for respect for and endless amount of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.162.140 (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:TALK

Please focus your talkpage contributions on the topic of improving the associated article. Attacking your fellow volunteers is not productive. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2/0. I have no idea what you're talking about. Diff please? Ocaasi (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I found what you're referring to. QuackGuru accused me of possible BLP violations and LIBEL in reference to the NCAHF v. King Bio lawsuit which I was attempting to improve the sourcing of per MastCell's request. After QuackGuru suggested, "You may want to think twice before editing the article again" and "This could be blockworthy if restored without consensus", I asked him which statements he considered to be BLP/LIBEL issues, and after he persisted, I asked if he was the subject of the alleged violation and if he had a COI in this area; I also inquired whether he intended to sue me or otherwise pursue a legal action with the foundation to address the LIBEL.

I take BLP issues into consideration, but LIBEL issues are WP:LEGAL and can't be tossed around without either a) chilling effects or b) an actual process to evaluate/resolve the claim. In a comment explaining why I asked if QuackGuru had a COI, I wrote, "QuackGuru, as his name suggests edits almost exclusively on alternative medicine articles and almost always to promote skeptical or medical claims while excluding alternative or non-medical claims. After his repeated warnings about BLP violations and Libel, I asked him if he had personal involvement in this area."

I don't think anyone would dispute the above, although it may be better not on an article's talk page. I was, however, responding to a BLP allegation, and inquiries from both Arthur Rubin and Shot info regarding my questions, which I thought was a reasonable response to their various claims and questioning. If you want to know more, you might read this thread at AN/I. Otherwise, I can look at striking or removing the specific comment you find objectionable, and then un-collapse the response to a BLP thread which QuackGuru initiated, along with the 'sniping' hat.

I agree that talk pages are for subjects not editors, but when an attempt to discuss actual sources was met with legal/administrative threats of libel and blocks, responding to those claims, while continuing the content discussion, seems somewhat short of what you're suggesting. Ocaasi (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the comments that addressed specific claims about QuackGuru, and un-collapsed the thread. I left responses which were generally part of explaining my response. If you think I missed something, let me know. If you want to re-hat the convo with a thread besides 'sniping', once you think that issue has been removed, that's seems fair.

Generally, there is an extremely hair-trigger response to issues surrounding QuackWatch, NCAHF, and Stephen Barrett. I don't have a problem treading carefully in these content areas, but prohibiting any discussion of these public organizations, advocates, and lawsuits in which they have engaged is not just tricky, but I think misses the boat on NPOV.

There are published legal rulings which have been commented on in several sources, some of them clearly reliable, others just relevant--and some of them from the NCAHF or QuackWatch themselves. So, I won't really back away from these issues just because they are tricky, but I can keep discussion of other editors on pages specifically addressing their actions (either AN/I or WQA or RfC), if necessary. I was under the impression that if an editor on an article talk page addressed something I did on a usertalk page that I could address it on the article talk page. Perhaps not the best response. Let me know if you have any other questions or thoughts. Ocaasi (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchy

About this change to MEDRS:

The actual policy has moved on from the mindless "policy trumps guidelines" notion promoted by a handful of editors, to what the community has always supported, which is that conflicts between pages need to be resolved so that all pages are accurate. See, e.g.,

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content, "When apparent discrepancies arise between pages, editors at all the affected pages should discuss how they can most accurately represent the community's current position, and correct all of the pages to reflect the community's view."
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Conflicts_between_advice_pages, "If policy and guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice."

One of the reasons that the community chose to reject the "policy trumps guidelines" idea is that it has become very difficult to correct or clarify certain policies, even when it is apparent that the policy no longer reflects the community's actual views. As a result, it's sometimes the case that the policy is wrong, and the guideline is right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that explanation is helpful. I understood the 'disclaimer' as being just a holdover so that if there was a conflict, in the meantime policy would take precedence and have to change first. A few questions:

I agree that the more important issue is that edits reflect whatever is accurate... if something is accurate, why wouldn't it show up as consensus on the relevant policy page?
If a guideline does some cutting edge revision to reflect actual usage, shouldn't policy have to 'affirm' that the change is in line with the overarching spirit of the policy.
If there is a conflict between a particular guideline and a policy, or between guidelines, or between policies, or between the whole shebang... where should it be discussed?

I much prefer a Wiki where editors can make intelligent choices based on context, but I also would like that the network of policies and guidelines be accessible, coherent, and mutually consistent. However that gets done is cool with me. Ocaasi (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some (not all) of the policy pages have an WP:OWNership problem. More commonly, however, different parts of the encyclopedia legitimately have different needs. For example, the ideal class of sources for an article on Heart disease is probably not the ideal class of sources on whatever the newest big television show is. So User:HeartDiseaseRUs might try to change the content policy to favor academic sources, and User:LuvMyTV might be very unhappy—because brand-new TV shows usually aren't the subject of any academic sources (yet). In the instant case, SlimVirgin does a lot of work around animal rights activism, and many pro-rights sources would be considered "high-quality" in that field, but only be considered of moderate quality by medical standards.
No, because we can WP:Ignore all rules when that improves the encyclopedia. Furthermore, changing practice by writing an essay (or a guideline, in previous years) specifically to recommend a new practice is a long-standing, community-approved practice. Also, there's the practical issue: There are 50 policies, and a couple hundred guidelines. Just reading all of the changes made or proposed each day would take hours.
On any relevant page, with invitations to participate at all the relevant talk pages (see WP:PROPOSAL for advice). Personally, I'd have the discussion at the page that I thought needed to be fixed, but any page is okay. If multiple pages need fixing, you can set up a separate page (often done as an WP:RFC).

As for making the advice pages consistent—let's just say that they're much closer to that goal than they were two years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your BLP/LIBEL issue

Ocaasi. My suggestion is to get noticeboard input on the matter. You are being bullied by QG and others, but it wont stop unless you are correct and get outsiders to chime in on that. I had a very similar problem with User:Ronz who kept on deleting a comment by User:BruceGrubb because it contained links to those same court cases. We were, at the time, discussing Barrett's reliability as a source. When outsiders commented at the BLP/N and AN/I they all agreed that there was no BLP or LIBEL issue in Bruce's comments. I can't say this is equivalent, but when someone claims you are violating policy it's best to simply, and humbly request outside input, especially when it is clear that those who are accusing you of policy violation cannot or will not supply you with the rationale (as is the current situation - and as was the situation with Ronz). Good luck. I still think the BLP/N is your best bet. Keep in mind, of course, that others may actually think that there is a BLP concern here. It's also, clearly best to be open to that possibility as well.Griswaldo (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I did ask if QG had a COI in affiliation with the case, and then commented on his editing pattern on an article talk page. That probably wasn't the best response, but it is not a part of the blp/libel issue. I need qualification about the notion that legal decisions, even from US district and appellate courts cannot be verbatim cited for merely descriptive statements about the court's ruling insofar as it mentions a living person. That's also aside from the issue of secondary sources and Weight. So it's obviously complicated, but I was a bit surprised to see the discussion on the merits of things turn so quickly to policy breaches and implied punitive what-not. I didn't help the matter by responding about specific editors' behaviors or biases, but I suspected there would be a little more focus on the NCAHF, and the lawsuits, and their sourcing. I'll be a little less broadly editor-focused in my responses, particularly on article talk pages... Thanks again for your opinion. I'll try and keep working on the sources and see if it becomes relevant for BLP/N.Ocaasi (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI insinuations are never a good idea. I asked Ronz the same question because I was dumbfounded by any other explanation at some point, but dropped the issue after I was met with angry evasion. I should note that his actions in that instance make QG's pale in comparison. Anyway that is immaterial. The point is that when someone challenges an edit based on a policy claim the first thing to do is to get outside input. If you don't have outside support then you'll be seen as disruptive by the community if you insist. If you do have support he other party will be seen as disruptive. Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys?

Just a friendly reminder that every time you leave a message on MastCell's user talk page, it lights up the orange box for MastCell, not for the person you're talking to. If your conversation doesn't directly involve MastCell, you might take it to one of your own talk pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point. MastCell was willingly or absently enduring the exchange. I don't think there's much more to discuss. Shot can post here if feels like responding. Thx Ocaasi (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New version of STiki software available

Hello there. I've noticed you are a frequent user of my software tool, STiki. First, I wanted to thank you for your use of my tool. Second, I wanted to inform you that a new version just became available (see this post on STiki's talk page for a brief summary of changes). I encourage you to download it! Further, keep your bug reports and feature requests flowing in. STiki has now reverted over 25,000 instances of vandalism, and I hope together we can help this number continue to grow. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Sorry for accidentally removing your comments. I had intended to replace them, but something urgent sprang up. I see you have put them back. JFW | T@lk 06:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no problem whatsoever. I thought you were refactoring, or maybe just did it by accident. Cheers, see you back in VBA-land Ocaasi (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes trial

Hi Ocaasi,

Do you know what is happening with the new pending changes trial? I thought it should have started by now, but I haven't seen any evidence of it.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great question, and you know what, I think it's running. Right now, kinda. Because on Nov 22 or 24th the new release came out. If you look at it, the reject button is there and everything. So this is Pending changes 1.2, or beta. Funny thing is, no one seems to give a sh#t, because what the hell does pending changes do anyway except quietly sit in the background on 1000 articles. That said, I have no idea what's going on with it, and imagine we won't until at least the fundraiser is over. I know that Foundation is busy as heck over there and that even minor changes to the next rollout to PC are being kind of put on the backburner. I think if you didn't mention it, no one would. Think we should? Right now it's kind of a useless tool, but at least it's causing no harm. Maybe that's what's needed, is for people to be able to point out, hey, you didn't even notice this thing existed... how bad could it be!"

Then again, I'm sure the first mention of expanding to 500 more articles or a BLP trial will cause bombs to go off. I say, let pending dogs lie. In a few weeks, let's reconvene to try and draft or prompt some sensible trial language. My guess is from January through March. Actually, one way to get the trial started sooner would be to suggest we start it in March. Then everyone will huff about how it is being postponed for ages and we can start the trial pronto for sure. Propose a poll in June and we can be drafting trial language tomorrow. Ocaasi (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like they did a few changes to the software but no one can be bothered to run a trial. Not surprising, given the amount of drama involved in the last trial.

I enjoyed your comments on the perverse way some arguments go. The thing is, I would like the trial to be put off until at least March so we can think about what we are doing in advance. I guess there are a number of options for what to do next, but something that might be worth considering is to just keep PCs ticking over and see what incremental improvements can be made - no expansion or contraction and no trial, in the sense that we aren't looking to make a decision on whether it is a good or bad thing... we are just letting it run on a small number of articles and seeking to improve it.

Yaris678 (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see no harm in that, except that it might just be too little for anyone's satisfaction. PC haters will cite it as proof that polls are excuses to slip changes through; PC lovers will want it tried out somewhere new; and the Foundation might not devote their precious coding resources to it. So I think at some point we do need to prod it a little, although I agree that doing it before at least February isn't likely to bring any more clarity than the last time. And I'm still burnt out from that poll... Ocaasi (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Revesz

Deleting the reasonable changes I made to the page was not fair. All changes were appropriately sourced. I merely added appropriate context to the situation to demonstrate the severity of the issue by including the exact language that sparked the controversy. This language is included in almost every article covering this incident. It is important to Wikipedia that the phrase used by Thio Li-ann wich likened homosexual sex acts to "shoving a straw up one's nose to drink" be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.125.63.200 (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your talk page. Indeed, your edits were good. Also, I left some info about a better source you can use. Thanks again! Ocaasi (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can a youtube video of the speech be used? If not I'll find the parliamentary record at a later date, but the reason there are not many good sources is because singapore does not have a free press. the newspapers are all state-controlled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.125.63.200 (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... text is really better. I think a youtube would be overkill at this article anyway, since it's not even primarily about her. Any of the sources on your talk page would be fine, either the insideeducation or new york times for sure. It's just the full text itself that's a little tricky. This isn't a big deal either way, since it's obviously backed up by reliable secondary sources, and it won't effect the edit staying in the article. Ocaasi (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

The reason I removed some of the information is because they were spoilers, guess I could of added the tag, but I'm not sure how to use things like that yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.18.251 (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was 1 of those tags I never bother to read about (either can't find the page or tl;dr) that mark it as a spoiler, oh well, just put it back to its original then, just had to correct the spelling and didn't think it was right to have the spoilers in, not in terms of an encyclopedic site, but, someone comes on here for information on something, especially when its got several alternatives like a movie and manga etc, you don't want a wiki page ruining it up accidently, cause I hate it when that happens, most pages I read don't blatantly spoil things like that page did. (119.224.18.251 (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, it's not the first time someone has been upset about it, but it's just the way this site works. Imagine if you purchased a book analyzing your favorite movie; you'd expect it to discuss all of the events. That's how Wiki works too, except instead of complete analysis is complete summary. Ocaasi (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion

Hi Ocaasi, but for the matter that you subsequently noted, that would indeed have been "Personal information includes almost any material that is (or looks like it might be) actual claims, facts, hints, or allusions to non-public, personal, or private information." However posting the diff itself isn't ideal as it gives others the opportunity to copy it - much better to email a currently active admin and if it looks urgent say ping on their talkpage. Incidentally I noticed you've posted your email on your userpage - you will probably find yourself getting a lot of spam as a result of that as there are spam bots crawling the whole Internet harvesting such email addresses for spammers. If I were you I'd replace it with {{user email}}. Cheers Ϣere SpielChequers 09:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advice. so revdel, email not post, and avoid spam. check

Done Ocaasi (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also added this to WP:REVDEL, "When contacting editors about sensitive material, prefer email to public talk messages, to avoid exposing information to more readers." here Ocaasi (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for STiki

Spacebar function, page down?
Is there an option to change it's false-positive/false-negative ratio? I.e. (most) all catches are vandalism or catch (most) all vandalism?
Has it learned anything about likely vandals?
What about displaying some raw stats?
What about displaying some composite stats? (risk of feedback)
What about incorporating UIowa's text processing, perhaps through a separate feed?
Integrate STiki's back-end with Huggle's GUI?
Run STiki from browser like Lupin's or Igloo?
Test reviewer redundancy (best 2 of 3?)
Run as a bot?
Integrate with pending changes filter?
Option to leave comments for back-end or possibly for other users, i.e. with pass?
Live update for intervening edits (i.e. diff is not most recent, cannot be rolled back or undone, etc.)

The Passion of the Christ tool assisted edit

I have reverted your tool assisted. If you look at discussion I have put my explanation even though it is only a sentence construction edit. There were reported allegations of antisemitism. 'Reported' means the news covered it and it came to us though a report. Without reported it implies 'it was well publicized' at that point in time when the chronological introduction is made. There is one example to back the statement of approx 20 largely unnamed people protesting. There is no doubt as to the validity of the source and it is not cherry picking there is an air of bias. For example if 20 people decide to make allegations against the president about something and it is publicized then there have been reports of allegations. 'There were already allegations' is not unbiased phrasing, there is an air of bias. More references are necessary for that phrasing as it is not a direct quote of the reference. 92.233.71.47 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC) 92.233.71.47 (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC) 92.233.71.47 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Thank you for your message on editing help. Indeed, I'm new to this and didn't realize the edit function was available for old versions - which would have been very time saving had I read your message first! I didn't understand what you meant by this, though:

"adding 10K back into a BLP article just to tweak it for another purpose probably won't last long"

What is a "BLP" article? and why won't it last long?

Thank you and I hope to learn more to facilitate easier editing in the future.

Sunflower at Dawn (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief response

Your edits weren't a problem in that way, but they did add back info that was better on another article (the one about Wikileaks or Cablegate).

Thank you once again for your reply to me with clarifications and introductions.

I just wanted to add that I only restored the information in order to copy the editing code and move the information to the main "Reactions to the diplomatic cables" article, as - at that time, pre your helpful advice - I knew no other way. I found the quoted material too good to remove entirely from the Wiki base and subsequently did proceed to move it out. (Someone else has since put some of it back in "for balance".)

Anyway, thanks for welcoming me! --Sunflower at Dawn (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna's COADF sales

I have more reliable sources that state the album sold 8.5 million, not the inflated 12 million that was reported. I don't get why her own record label, Warner Bros. records and Live Nation aren't considered as reliable as a blog from a Chicago Sun Times writer.ARMOR89 (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edits to chiropractic page

Hi Ocaasi, I have noted that you frequent the "chiropractic" page. As such, I wanted to let you know that I have posted some proposed edits on the respective talk page for other editors to comment on. I hope to systematically go through the entire evidence section over time, as well as other sections that may benefit from attention, but have noticed by reading the talk page that it is a "rough" neighborhood :) Thus, I hope to seek input before I make any changes. Any comments, critisisms, or advice is apppreciated. Best regards, Puhlaa (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weston a price pic

Yeah, I uploaded it, but now someone's marked it as a possible copyright infringement. It probably is, but I honestly thought no one would care. Perhaps someone from the price-pottenger foundation can reupload it or give permission for it to be "public domain". I guess I'll email them, but I didn't want to be involved in this hassle. How silly.

See my talk page for the note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JaredBond