This is an archive of past discussions with User:FourViolas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Do not be disheartened by this. Instead please go to the deletion discussion and argue your case. My advice if to be as brief as possible, and to read the comments of others before making one, good, input. As you know, I was about to accept it. Things have intervened. I view this as a useful procedural device to sort the issue out once and for all. FiddleFaddle18:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
At least, now, something will happen. I have no idea whether it will be the outcome yo want, but that is Wikipedia. After all the work you deserve an answer. It seems that acceptance of the draft would not have been the end of the matter. You have probably guessed that I care about the article, not the topic, an area which passes me by entirely. I also care about the way folk are treated. FiddleFaddle09:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I know I didn't intentionally cherrypick sources (except for FUTON bias pre-hollis) or skew what they said. That leaves two hypotheses, one ungenerous (hence probably false) and one humble (hence more probable):
People, statistically speaking, do not want to think about these issues,[1] and are intuitively hostile towards those who insist on bringing them up.[2] That is, I foolishly ignored the warnings of the very papers I was citing, trusting that Wikipedians were too reasonable to fall prey to such predictable phenomena.
Something about the way Google Scholar selects papers, or the sources-of-sources-of-sources method I relied on to expand the article, or the way I summarized the material, really did promote a POV other than that of professional consensus in this area.
There's nothing I can do if the first is correct, but the second is remediable. Snow Rise, a very fine editor who also has some psychology training and does seem to understand what the problem is, said they would help out after this mess of merge/delete discussions finishes up. FourViolas (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I don't have an opinion about the topic, just about the article. I saw, when I tried to accept to, a well sourced, decently written article. The sole reason I have nominated it for deletion is that this seems to me to be the only way to resolve what happens to it. It was a draconian way of trying to clear the log jam, akin to using dynamite on a real log jam.
It seems to be controversial. This is probably the same type of discussion as between those for and against routine neonatal male circumcision. Except I have an opinion in that discussion! FiddleFaddle16:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I should, perhaps, state that I am omnivorous, enjoying meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, cereals etc broadly equally, though with some texture/flavour dislikes and a strong desire not to eat garden pests. I understand that a creature must die if I am to eat it. With animals I prefer to delegate that task to those better equipped than I am. I catch, kill, gut and clean my own fish and do not have any issue with that. Equally, I understand and accept that others find this abhorrent. With all living creatures that I choose for food I prefer them to have had a decent life, to have been well reared and to have ben killed well. My budget does not always allow me to do this.
I have been the house guest of vegans, and enjoyed their food. I found it difficult to prepare to give sufficient variety of flavours, textures and nutritional value. I would not disagree with someone who stated that eating meat was a shortcut to that process.
I think I probably fall into those whose psychological state over meat eating is that I am consciously aware and choose to eat it. That, however, does not mean I have an opinion on the topic. Instead it means I understand my dietary wishes. FiddleFaddle17:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I was interested to find that the literature goes far beyond the familiar culture wars between those who think meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice [3] and those who think it's a moral outrage [4]. What you describe is perfectly in line with research; thinking about animals motivates you to seek "happier" meat [5][6], but price often has the final word [7]. But there's much more. Insofar as you value your masculinity, you may be subconsciously motivated to go grill a steak after your manliness has been questioned [8][9]. Eating meat might make you feel more positively about the value of authority and conformity [10], or make you think of yourself as more businesslike and pragmatic [11]. There's a lot to write and think about here. FourViolas (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I doubt I would be inclined consciously or subconsciously to grill a steak after my manliness were questioned, you know. When I was a teenager I might have been so shallow, but I doubt that, too. It's an odd suggestion, really. When under stress we often comfort eat. That tends to be heavy, sweet or crisps! While it is unlikely to be a root stew, it is even more unlikely to be grilled steak.
I suppose your surmise runs to "hunt > kill > prepare > eat" but I don't run on those rails
I had my masculinity challenged quite seriously when I was 17/18. Grilling steak was very far from my mind. Suicide was very close to it. FiddleFaddle15:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to hear that, and I'm glad you made it through.
I wonder why, on the various treatises on the matter, they never consider that women might hunt. I have feeling they postulate what they expect the results to be and then seek to prove themselves to be correct. My (and Sobal's) idea is "ritually simplistic" and seems to be to be total bollocks. To hont requires certain very specific attributes. Maleness is not one, nor is femaleness.
I wonder, too, what "hetero-masculinity" is. I choose to take the meaning of "hetero" in this context from "heterogeneous" and thus see a world of different types of maleness. Interpreting it in a "heterosexual" vs "homosexual" manner is stereotypical and discriminatory-by-definition. FiddleFaddle17:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
No offense intended, but the source was using it to contrast with gay and metrosexual forms of masculinity. Sobal has some more sophisticated discussion later on about "multiple masculinities": “strong men,” “healthy men,” “wealthy men,” “sensitive men,” “traditional men,” “smart men,” “pure men," etc, each script having different implications for meat-eating behavior.
I think you might be right about women and hunting; although the men-hunt-and-women-gather model is true in "most" traditional societies, there are plenty of exceptions [13]. However, a lot of this psych research studies popular stereotypes, not reality, so it's not their problem. FourViolas (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I have taken no offence from you. I recognise that you are stating what is said by others to show that others have said it. There is a deletion discussion at present about Men Going Their Own Way, an amusing coincidence, though I have started both discussions. I started them for different reasons.
People seem to mistake sexual orientation for maleness or femaleness, and go to great lengths to prove that they are right. Most of these people cold not spot a homosexual man or woman even if they were pointed out in a vivid spotlight alone on a vast stage while waving a rainbow flag. They look at their own concept of male and female and bend the world to suit it. How many homosexual women have ben asked, intrusively. "Which of you is the man?" and how many homosexual men "Which of you is the woman?"? People mistake what folk wish to do with their genitals as somehow defining them, or their need for a partner of the same sex as defining them, yet they, if heterosexual, do not feel defined by their chosen genital interaction nor parter choice.
I feel that much of this is psychobabble, not real psychology. That does not say that a Wikipedia article should not report what is said, even if some people judge it to be ludicrous. It simply shows the need for displaying the various arguments in a rational way free from personal opinions. If you look at my early editing history here I worked in the conspiracy theories area around the World Trade Centre atrocity. This was not because I had an opinion on it but was because I wanted to wrest a good article from the depths of faction fighting and POV pushing. We, I would like to say "I", but others had the same agenda as did I, achieved a pretty decent set of outcomes after battle it for a good six months. FiddleFaddle17:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I have a secret tendency to be exasperated with the endless drama about gender and sexuality. Of course it's a massively important factor in everybody's life ever, but it's so arbitrary and so often unrelated to individuals' true personalities that I sometimes wish everyone could just stop making a big deal out of it (and stop discriminating based on it, of course). I'm lucky enough to have enough friends of all kinds of sexualities and genders to know that their ideas and characters are far more important to me than their pronouns and partners.
I really enjoy learning how to discuss all these topics at a encyclopedic distance, arranging topics and scholarly lineages with objective exactitude and sifting out tomes full of ill-informed shouting matches (i.e. unRS). Congrats on World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories and similar; that looks like a massive amount of work and care, and the article is truly informative about the important points of a massively complicated "controversy". FourViolas (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I suspect the meat psych article may turn into your WTC article. The trick to success is to rise well above any views you hold and submerge this in favour of getting collaboration and discussion to build the unbiased article. Firmly insisting on Wikipedia;s rules, giving full rationale and entering into ponderous discussions is th only way to wrest any contentious article form the hands of those who would bend it to their POV. You can, in the end, bore them into submission! But know when to let go of the article and let it find its own way.
The dramas around sex and sexuality and trans issues is, mostly, down to prurience. People have a detailed interest in what others do with their genitals, perhaps to chase the best sexual experience ever. They are also repressed, probably caused by current or historical religious instruction. That repression is often expressed as 'shock', which is occasioned by their feeling aroused by the taboo things they are discovering. How many homophobic politicians have been found in bed with male escorts, for example?
One issue is that women were once in the UK the property of men. In some nations they still are. They were seen and treated as sex objects and breeding machines for the necessary heir. "If" they had opinions those were ignored as being women's prattle. The man, with no danger of becoming pregnant, could do whatever he liked to whoever he liked, especially if that person were weaker, smaller, or simply submissive. That was reinforced by the priesthood
Something that may amuse you is that I have never been interested in this or other discussions in whether you are male or female. I note that you are a feminist, of which there are many male, but more female. For some folk it matters hugely. For most sensible people it is an irrelevance. There was a huge discussion when BethNaught was created admin about their sex, as if that mattered. I neither know nor care. I care instead about their editing, and I think they care about mine in the same way. I seem to have drifted into a ramble! FiddleFaddle14:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Your advice to Martin is somewhat off the mark. Mr. Hogbin has a long history of ignoring consensus and starting RFCs to attempt to bypass consensus. The RFC process specifically recommends not doing this. Please see the section "Before starting the process" at WP:RFC: "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." Viriditas (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
While, as you know, I disagree with MH on the question, I think he's well within process. It's a matter of principle: there is, after all, the (theoretical) possibility that all of us are wrong, and he alone is following policy and RS. He has tried to discuss, and has failed to find a consensus he can accept. Now the wider community can decide which position has the better sources and arguments, and I'm sure a fair result will obtain. No problem about the sig, I linked to the wrong part of the page. FourViolas (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Microbiota, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stress and Depression. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
On 19 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Psychology of eating meat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that research into the psychology of eating meat suggests a correlation between meat-eating and support for hierarchy and inequality? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thanks for double-checking my edit to the Yo-Yo Ma page. I was sure that I got the info from his official bio, but obviously not. I've found a couple sources for the seven-year-old reference: One at Harvard Magazine and one at Smithsonian.com. And thanks for the kind welcome to Wikipedia. I'm new to this editing thing. Cckktt (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem, Cckktt, and thank you for finding those sources! I've added them in, formatted so they can support other useful information in the future.
Editing is always a combination of adding good content and nosing around to see if anyone else slipped up in adding theirs; if you can do both in good spirits, you're already a great contributor. Thanks again, welcome, and feel free to drop me a line whenever you have WP questions! FourViolas (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Dvorak advert
re dvorak 9 : use in ads : yes, this was a notable use of the music with a high recognition factor in the uk. it brought both the music and the location to public notice. i will try to find support for this.
Daiyounger (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
from the entry for hovis
"In 1973, Hovis became lodged in the public imagination through an evocative television advertisement, "Boy on Bike" (a.k.a. "Boy on the Bike" and "Bike Ride"),[4] written by Geoff Seymour from the Collett Dickenson Pearce advertising agency and directed by Ridley Scott, who six years later would come to the public's attention when Alien was released. The advert featured the slow movement of Antonín Dvořák's Symphony No. 9 rearranged for brass.[6] The advert has been voted Britain's favourite advertisement of all time [7] The ad was filmed on Gold Hill in Shaftesbury, Dorset.
This advertisement was repeated on British television for a 10-day run in May 2006 to commemorate the firm's 120th anniversary. The boy on the bike, Carl Barlow, then aged 13, became a firefighter in East Ham in 1979, and later acted in the films Alien and Gladiator.[8][9]"
Daiyounger (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Daiyounger, I didn't know the ad was so well-known. WP:In popular culture suggests it may be appropriate, depending on whether the advert itself was truly notable, of interest to a broad spectrum of readers, and whether the section quoted from the music was enough to let watchers learn a significant amount about the work. I'm not sure those criteria are met, but at least WP:Verifiability is, which is a good start.
I do still feel it's more relevant to mention the symphony at Hovis than the advert at Symphony No. 9 (Dvorak), though. Searching scholarly discussions of Dvorak's 9th, I found one paper (about something else entirely) noting that "Thanks to a BBC television advertisement, some listeners in England during the late 1970s associated the slow movement of Dvorak's New World Symphony with Hovis bread"; however, I don't think that demonstrates that most readers of an article about the symphony would be interested in Hovis' advert. FourViolas (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
hOVIS etc. pedantry alert : there are no adverts on BBc television in the UK. i think the small section i propsed on the use of the music is still valid. the association in the Uk is still strong, and works both ways.
Daiyounger (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
A year ago ...
good faith to an extreme
...you were recipient no. 1167 of Precious, a prize of QAI!
Thank you for the warm welcome I was so nervous to start to help improve Wikipedia, so I really appreciate your guidance! I checked out the article you suggested and I found a couple to work with from the library databases at my university. I was wondering what you think of the information I’ve thought about adding to the Environmental Veganism section. Please give it a read I hope I did a better job!
Thank you,
MMM
Professor Michael Allen Fox argued in 2000 that the high consumption of meat in America is leading to the “hamburgerization” of rainforests. This means that rainforest ecosystems are being converted into farmland in order to provide feed for the high demand in animal products. He writes that abstaining from eating meat can help preserve rainforest ecosystems that are essential for reducing the effect of greenhouse gas emissions. (Fox 170)
In 2011, Professor Brian G. Henning wrote that agriculture accounts for 66-70% of global freshwater resources. Producing one kilogram of meat requires 100 times more water than producing one kilogram of grains. Henning argued about how freshwater is a depleting resource and that meat production is a grossly inefficient use of it. (Henning 70)
Hi, MMM! Those (Fox, Henning) are strongly argued and pretty well-cited sources, good finds. Your proposed summaries look good; since they're more like summaries of individual scholars' positions than objective review articles, it's appropriate to clarify who's talking per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. You might note that Fox got "hamburgerization" from another author, but that's not a big deal.
It's important to note, however, that these are basically applied philosophy papers, citing a lot of facts to make an ethical argument. They're the best place to find arguments about why facts ABC imply veganism is good, but not the best place to find those facts. In fact, they may be problematic in the way they present those facts: this study of the environmental impacts of different diets in Germany, for example, supports the claim that vegan diets are overall better for the environment but challenges Henning's implication that water use is an argument for a vegan diet. It is true that meat requires more water than grain, but the nuts and seeds vegans use so much (e.g. in nut milks) use even more water, so that vegan diets are overall twice as freshwater-intensive as normal diets.
I would recommend using this source, a critical review from last year looking at all the reliable research published in this area, for factual information about the pros and cons of veganism. I can get you a copy if you don't have access. Philosophical sources also deserve inclusion, both the common ones like Fox and Henning arguing for veganism as well as any you can find on the other side (WP:Neutral point of view; it makes for much better articles). However, they should be used more for more philosophical claims, such as Fox 164: "the good life for a human being entails good health, [...] good health in turn rests on a carefully chosen diet, and [...] our diet in part reflects as well as determines our species' impact on the biosphere." Final note: environmental vegetarianism has more info. FourViolas (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to request your participation as a fellow dance editor. It's about the history of dance, the meaning of "pantomime". This was a dance-drama of ancient Greece and Rome that gets a lot of coverage in dance history books. I've found, though, that this meaning is disputed at Pantomime. Could you, if you feel competent and interested, take a look at the talk page there and help decide how to include the dance-oriented ancient pantomime? Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
May 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harvard College may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
_r=0 Harvard Restrictions Could Reshape Exclusive Student Clubs] The New York Times, May 6, 2016]</ref>
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bruce Lisman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Sorrell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Do they even publish anymore? Some people trying to re-energize it had a table at the Visitas club fair recently, and I had a chuckle at an old op-ed huffily demanding that, if students were going to go around being openly homosexual, they at least refrain from putting up flyers advertising their deviant social organizations. FourViolas (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Mj thenovelatre! I'm sorry my reaction was poor (especially my WikiText: I meant to link to WP:PROMO). I didn't mean to suggest your edit was promoting Rakesh (in whose favor I'm actually personally biased: he's my house masterfaculty dean[14], or official friendly mentor person, and a great guy). I'll respond to the content of the edit at the proper talk page. FourViolas (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your work finding such excellent additional sources to add to the article Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016. We have an editor who is repeatedly blanking a section of content that he appears to think unfairly disparages Donald Trump and, since this is under 1RR, it can't be restored quickly. However, once it's stabilized I hope to incorporate your sources into the article if you don't plan on doing so yourself? Hope all is well. Kind regards - LavaBaron (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome! I may find time to incorporate them soon, although of course you're welcome to; the new material is probably just a paragraph or two of general comment along the lines of, Golly, it sure has been conspiracy-theory-ish around here this season. Here's some possible reasons.
EEng's concern isn't really about Trump; it's that the framing of the material (section title, historic connotations of "publicly expressed some degree of support") gets close to misrepresenting the cited politicians' presumed actual opinions, which is a BLP concern for the politicians. As for his own opinions, I keep worrying he'll get himself in trouble with User:EEng#A not-so-entertaining diversion, which you may enjoy. FourViolas (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Veganism
Really glad to have found some other Vegans here at Wikipedia. Here's a classic '71!
Hi Fourviolas,
I hope you are well and your strings are feeling nicey tuned.
The talk that was taking place re the page on veganism:-
I was looking to press ahead for what was the agreement from the different points that had been discussed
All that dialogue though has now disappeared
I messaged Flyerreborn a couple of weeks ago asking for help with that
Lo agradable, ustedes son también Veganos de mi querido comarco de la Vega Baja del Segura? Sorry about that. The discussion was automatically WP:Archived to Talk:Veganism/Archive 15#History section. I reread the conversation and implemented some changes which incorporated both your idea to group the recent-history section under "History", and SlimVirgin's idea of renaming the "history" section (on early history) to "origins". Give it a look; if you still want to discuss, you can cut and paste the section out of the archive and onto the main talk page with the WP:Edit summary "de-archiving continuing discussion". FourViolas (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Herman Cornejo
On 24 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Herman Cornejo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ballet dancer Herman Cornejo is "not a fairy-tale prince", but "a believable, 21st-century hero"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Herman Cornejo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Herman Cornejo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
All Jews, minus converts, are of West Asian descent. Plus, other governments are listing Jews as Middle Eastern now, so that's why I included them in that bracket.
I'm glad you appreciate my input! As a young person considering going into the sciences, I usually stay out of the culture wars between "fundamentalist scientism" and "rank pseudoscience", as I work towards a position on the limits of the empirical falsifiability paradigm and the question of what kind of ideas "deserve" scientific consideration. Regardless, in this case there's clearly lots of interesting RS coverage, so I'm comfortable saying the encyclopedia would be improved by the page's inclusion. FourViolas (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I tried opening an ANI case against Cassianto precisely about Talk:Noel Coward about the same thing, but his infoxbox buddies swarmed it. I feel sooo vindicated. Thank you again. :) jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you appreciate it. I thought the violations of WP:Civil and WP:Consensus were so clear-cut (evidence) that action could be taken; apparently not so [15], but I tried. Still, it seems like the community is ready for discretionary sanctions on the topic (currently under discussion), and especially because I have no opinion on whether incivility is worse on one "side" or the other I'd be more than happy with that. FourViolas (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Very bad idea to make a claim like "unambiguous SYN " in an edit note as you did here that you cannot strike. Did read the Boston Globe ref before you wrote that? Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
See the talk page, where I already provided support for my assertions. I'm not contesting that the information is true, but the sources don't mention the subject of the page (and of the rest of the sentence). Thanks for the advice. FourViolas (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me? What other argument would that be? I'm raising concerns about the content on the page, citing relevant policies and making arguments in good faith. Please do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS of wrongdoing without evidence, or make threatening comments. FourViolas (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
hooray you finally stopped and looked around. It is a really bad idea to parachute into an article and start stomping around. This is the kind of sloppy behavior that people remember and costs you credibility. Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I was aware of the situation, thank you. I thought the SYN violation was so obvious that it needed to be addressed pending the final decision on whether to include the material. I will note, for what it's worth, that you had much more credibility with me personally before I observed what seems to me to be your habit of "stomping around" trying to intimidate editors with whom you disagree. FourViolas (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't stomp around trying to intimate people with whom I disagree. I warn people who are blundering into editing disruptively that they are heading into trouble.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Richie (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, FourViolas. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Yes, just in time to discover that last-minute Christmas shopping is harder on Sundays. Going home tomorrow morning. Hope you're well! FourViolas (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi FourViolas... I saw this edit you made to the article on the journal Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing. I take your point about identifying the journal Homeopathy as being published by Elsevier as a WP:SYNTH issue. However, the context of the source makes it clear that "Homeopathy" in the quote refers to a journal by that title rather than to homeopathy, the alt-med topic. Would you have an objection if I partially restored the descriptor, as follows?
Pre-your edit: ... which "doesn't limit itself to just one quackery, the way [the Elsevier journal] Homeopathy does" ...
Your edit: ... which "doesn't limit itself to just one quackery, the way Homeopathy does" ...
My suggestion: ... which "doesn't limit itself to just one quackery, the way [the journal] Homeopathy does" ...
Your edit matches the source, I know, but without the content before that quote, only the fact that "Homeopathy" is capitalised and italicised conveys to readers what is meant. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@EdChem: That's a great point, I hadn't realized my edit introduced that ambiguity. My concern was that inserting "Elsevier" felt like it was endorsing Gorski's quarrel with Elsevier as a whole in WikiVoice; your suggestion fixes this, and I'll implement it. Thanks, FourViolas (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
My edit was to reference countries not targeted, which was mentioned in the article
@Kintetsubuffalo: Thanks for getting in touch about my reversion of your edit. I've responded on the talk page. We usually consider mainstream sources like the NYT article to be gold-standard references already, but in a hotly contested issue like this, you might be right that it's appropriate to include the original source. FourViolas (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Ethics article
Hi FourViolas, I do not believe your sources reliably support the claim you found. Both sources are "generally reliable", as independent peer-reviewed journal articles, however reliable sources are deemed depending on what they support. In this case they make the claim that "most of the world uses battery cages" only as a passing mention in their abstracts, with no mention in the actual study. As well, no statistics, evidence, or sources are given in either paper to support these claims.
This is often how misinformation and vague generalities are spread; they are stopped by methodologies, statistics, and other forms of hard evidence, which appears to be necessary here. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)05:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I went for the most recent papers I could find discussing global laying hen housing systems, and they demonstrate that this is common knowledge among experts; that's the standard demanded by WP:V. However, since there are a lot of misconceptions out there, from advertisements and children's books and so on, I agree that it's a good idea to show the primary sources, too.
The most authoritative data available seem to be those of the International Egg Commission, an industry group. Their annual reports are only accessible to members, but their 2007 report was summarized in Horne and Achterbach 2008; p. 46 has The majority of all commercial layers in the world are kept in confined housing systems with light control, power ventilation and mechanical feeding. The space per hen in conventional cages is very limited making it impossible to express natural behaviours like sand bathing and wing flapping..., and p. 47 shows a figure summarizing the data, clearly supporting the statement. I'll add H&A to the articles in question. FourViolas (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes I like the graph given by Horne and Achterbach. I wonder if this data has changed since its publication in 2007, but I don't think significant changes are likely. Please add this source to both articles, and thanks for following through! ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)06:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to check the sources and point out what was missing! What with the State of Things These Days, WP is one of the few places which gives me hope that people can build consensus around some version of fact-based reality. FourViolas (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative!
Hi, FourViolas! Thank you again for supporting the Sustainability Initiative, which aims at reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. Over the past two years, more than 200 Wikipedians from all over the world have come together to push the Wikimedia movement towards greater sustainability.
What's new?
We are writing you this message because there is great news: The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has finally passed a resolution stating that the Foundation is committed to seeking ways to reduce the impact of its activities on the environment. Also, we have created a cool logo and found a nice name for the project which you can see on the right :-)
What's next?
Currently, we are working with Wikimedia Foundation staff to make sustainability a key priority for the selection of a new location for Wikimedia servers in Singapore. Also, we have presented the Wikimedia Foundation with a green energyroadmap to have all Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy by 2019.
Please help!
Let's keep this project moving forward – and there are several ways in which you can help:
Ask other Wikipedians to sign the project page as well – this way we can show the Wikimedia Foundation that this is an issue that the community really cares about.
Talk to Wikimedians you know about the importance of reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement.
You recently deleted Kevin Rex from Owl Club Notable Alumni, commenting:
"Undid revision 790168735 by 216.165.95.75: Good for him, but this is a technical meaning of "WP:Notable": it means "at least two independent reliable sources have written about him", which is not true here."
but the wikipedia guideline page you cite explicitly states:
"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."
In fact, a section of the notable topics guideline page is entitled "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article."
Please undo your changes to Owl Club (Harvard) and refrain from making the same mistake in the future.
While WP:NNC is the general rule, when it comes to simple lists of members of organizations, alumni of colleges, etc., it's usual to limit inclusion to notable persons, unless that person has some special significance to the subject school/organization itself (e.g. Robert Stone). That's why, in the instant case, the list is headed "Notable members". EEng02:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, FourViolas. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for the ping. I agree that the article would be of interest to many readers of Category:Cruelty to animals, but I don't know much about categorization policy and thus don't have an opinion on whether this outweighs the perceived NPOV problem. FourViolas (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do not make bald conclusory statements against other editors, as you did to User:Praisekek777. The tort of "defamation" requires the defamer to make a statement that a reasonable person would interpret as a statement of fact, which nobody would ever think was true of the statement "smallest johnson in history". Praisekek777 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi FourViolas--how are you? I was looking at both the Dance and Psychology of eating meat articles today, so of course could not help but wonder how you're doing these days! You must be well into your undergrad by now--I hope Harvard is treating you well and that you're thoroughly leveraging it! Is it too much sticking my nose in if I say that I hope some brilliant academic or another has pulled you and all of your massive potential towards experimental psychology? :)
Incidentally, you may be interested that I felt inspired to comment at the meat psychology article (though my thoughts more centrally concern the carnism article). But you may not be super excited about my perspective; I fear that we are still very much of different minds on those two articles, despite the nexus of our common research interests and (I believe) value systems with regard to the underlying topic. Which guts me because, as I recall, they are substantially your own work and I wish I could give more full-throated support to them. But that's the way the cookie crumbles here sometimes, I suppose--you can't always agree even with the people your respect. Anyway, as I said, I hope you're well! Let's sometime soon pick up a long-neglected strand of those classical dances contributions we set out to make way back when! Snowlet's rap10:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
It's great to hear from you again! I was really thinking about trying to get a meat psych project going in someone's lab at some point, but I've been drawn into biomedicine, and am doing some work I'm very happy with. Hope you're doing well!
No hard feelings about the articles, of course. These discussions always have a lot of questions overlapping—is "carnism" good science? is carnism a good article? is carnism good ethics?—and I'm definitely grateful for your perspective. I've been meaning to get back to Psych of sometime; there have been several interesting reviews published in the last few years, and I left off in the middle of a confusing ref rearrangement that I never tidied up. Dance would be nice too! I'm sure I'll really find time now that I'm getting into senior thesis work. FourViolas (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Medical science? That's awesome! I would have bet you were going to gravitate towards the hard science end of the spectrum, but somewhere with a human component! Perhaps I'll see you on the physiology articles next! Snowlet's rap07:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marielle Franco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Miranda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Based on comments like one you made here, you appear to be turning Wikipedia into a battleground, to correct what you see as my errant understanding of "ethics" and "morals". See WP:BATTLEGROUND and please be aware that if you continue this inappropriate behavior, it will likely lead to an interaction ban. Please think twice before continuing down that road. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning, and sorry to hear you took it that way. Frankly it's all the same to me how you understand words, but where I have reason to believe other editors' terminological usage is nonstandard I sometimes point this out in order to facilitate others' understanding of the discussion—this is a necessary complication of writing an encyclopedia where all the editors have different amounts of technical training in various areas. I'll try to do so more tactfully in the future; hope this won't interfere with our productive collaboration. FourViolas (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I do listen to them. I don't agree, but i hear them. The purpose of the notice, was that our past disagreement about "ethics" vs "morals" had nothing to do with deleting or keeping that article nor does it have anything to do with the question about what to name the page or what to put in it. I could be wrong but the inappropriate, "not-what-Jytdog-says" approach diff above is pretty good evidence. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Not interested in litigating this further, but responding for the record in case this comes up in the future.
The relevance of the past discussion had to do with the way Jytdog was repeatedly insisting that the phrase "the ethics in the Bible" implies the existence of a singular, coherent ethical system throughout the Bible [17][18], which of course there isn't. However, this assertion seems to turn on the idea that "ethics" is a singular noun, or else usually used in the strict, unified sense of "doctors should always follow the code of medical ethics". This confused me, because in my experience "ethics" is usually an uncountable and occasionally singular or plural noun, and in humanities writing rarely has the limited "code of medical ethics" connotation.
This reminded me of a similarly confusing past discussion we had had in which Jytdog repeatedly insisted that there is a distinction between the terms "ethics" and "morals", apparently along the lines of academic ethics and moral rationalism vs. theology and possibly moral intuitionism; such a semantic distinction is occasionally made by philosophers (more often to distinguish normative ethics from applied ethics, as Wiktionary notes), but is not standard. I linked to this discussion to give other editors a heads-up that terminological disagreements with Jytdog could be an sticking point in discussion of the ethics in the Bible page, as indeed they have been. FourViolas (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
At the talk page, you remain focused on me rather than on improving the article. I again urge you to disengage from your focus on me. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
You just wrote this, after you wrote the remark above. This is a very clear demonstration of battleground behavior, where you are reading a past disagreement and your concern about some specific confusion you believe I have, onto peripherally related issues. The poor content at "sexual ethics" is unrelated -- to me -- to the distinction (or lack thereof) between ethics and morals, but you are responding solely from the perspective that it is. If you continue, I will bring this to ANI. This is a behavior issue and it is unambiguous. Please reconsider what you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
My belief that it's POV to presume that tumah is a concept belonging to "anthropology, not ethics" is independent of my belief that "ethics" and "morals" are standardly treated as synonyms in modern philosophy. The fact that you're the editor arguing against my belief in each case is a coincidence, and absolutely not the reason I have been opposing your recent deletions based on them. FourViolas (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Please step back and reflect. You are the person who has constantly brought up that very brief discussion at my talk page. That is why this is fairly unambiguous and why if you do not disengage from me and your assumptions about me, there is a reasonable chance that the community will grant me an IBAN. Go look at your own diffs. If you do not stop, the community will be doing so. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
btw, our brief discussion has clearly bothered you. It is also unfortunate that instead of exploring that more with me, you made judgements about it and now feel compelled to police me. That is your deal. The policing behavior has made it my problem. I left academia in part because of petty crap like this. I would be happy to discuss the underlying issues more with you, in some other thread, but your current approach to managing your being bothered, is not OK here in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, if ever there was proof that there's no one you can't end up in a tussle with, this thread is it. You sound absolutely nuts spouting off like this at a gentle soul like 4V. You have an uncanny knack for making enemies, but 4V isn't one of them. Not everything's about you. Give it a rest. But if you insist on having the last word yet again, my advice to 4V will be to leave it at that. EEng19:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I was reading over your comments in this deletion discussion, and wanted to ask you to share some thoughts. You said in your comment, "There is no requirement that politicians have to be 'more notable than most other' politicians at the same level, only that they have received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources." This seems to be true, of course, but I have noticed that with regard to politicians, unless the subject has actually been elected to at least a state-level office, it seems like no amount of coverage with regard to politics is usually considered enough to retain an article on such a person, even if the news coverage on the subject includes things like their date of birth, employment, personal history, etc. I can see why this guideline exists: we don't want Wikipedia to become flooded with promotional articles on every person who has ever run for office! But then again, if there is lots of coverage in the news on a person who is a politician (but who has not yet been elected to at least state-level office), it sometimes seems to me like an article on that subject should be retained based on the premise that there is in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent verifiable secondary sources. I have nominated a few politician articles for deletion myself based on the premise that the subject is an unelected politician, and so far all of these have resulted in a consensus to delete, but your comment has made me question the approach I made and the response others have given in support of those nominations. Am interested in knowing your opinion on this so that I can get a better handle myself on what kinds of articles we should and should not host with regard to politicians. Will be watching your talk page here for your response. Thank you! A loose noose (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for asking! In my personal opinion, the plain language of GNG and WP:BASIC mean we should presumptively keep articles on people about whom sufficient sources exist to write decent articles about (unless there are issues relating to WP:AVOIDVICTIM and the rest of that section). "Notability" shouldn't be a value judgement we get to confer or withhold from on high: it's just an answer to the question "is it possible to write a policy-compliant article about this subject?"
I also think Wikipedia should be a place where people can get useful, unbiased information about important topics, and I think that in democracies it's useful and important for people to be able to know the basic biographical information about the people they're voting for without relying on biased campaign websites or combing through old news stories. Therefore, I approve of the standard, only a little higher than BASIC, set by NPOL#2: written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists). I think this is generally enough to make a useful, non-PROMO page out of.
That said, I don't know if this is a majority opinion. There seems to be a consensus among the editors who currently watchlist WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians that these standards are not high enough, and that, as you say, any amount of coverage of a politician as a politician is insufficient to make them notable until they have assumed a state-level office (even if, e.g., they've won a primary and are unopposed in the general), on the grounds that such articles typically violate one of various WP:NOT principles; this is approximately what the essay WP:POLOUTCOMES says, and you can see further discussion following my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Innamorato. There's a case to be made for this standard, but I think it needs to be taken to the community for discussion before becoming the new de facto' NPOL guideline, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I haven't found the motivation or time to push this further, though. FourViolas (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I actually caught your comments on Sara Innamorato before you even mentioned her, and am finding myself agreeing with you the more I consider this perspective. Which now means I am feeling more than a little conflicted (and maybe somewhat guilty for my own recent pursuit of the "unelected politicians must go" angle). I read what you said about there maybe being a need for some real discussion/ consensus on what these apparently contradictory guidelines mean. I don't know that I have the skills set myself to set this up, but I can totally see your point about the practicality of having information on politicians— including unelected ones— which covers their published political views, policy positions, etc., so that voters can make informed decisions about them (actually, now that I think about it, this seems like critical information to provide when we can, and I don't see any reason right now why any of it should be excised as "promotional": if Bob Jones is against abortion or supports coal mining, I want to know this before I go to the polls to vote for him and help GET him elected!). You pointed out that the "routine" coverage which won't get anyone a Wikipedia article is meant to include wedding announcements, and things like obituaries, but it does seem like the discussions about politicians are way more non-routine than these (unless all we have are voter turnout percentages, which I will grant are routine coverage).
So the guidelines for politicians state pretty clearly that unelected persons can qualify of they happen to pass GNG. Those guidelines don't say "we shouldn't have any articles on unelected politicians". But then as you said, POLOUTCOMES (as well as a paragraph in WP:AADD, and probably a few other places) says that in practice, no amount of political coverage will get any unelected politician a Wikipedia article (with, of course, a few exceptions). I am not sure why politicians got so singled out here! But I am feeling uneasy about how all this works. Hm.
I understand you are a college student, and that your time for and interest in futzing with stuff like this is probably limited. But I also feel like I want to do something about this if I knew how to get started creating a discussion, how to notify "the community", and have the outcome (whatever it eventually is) be well-advertised. If you are willing to give me some pointers and support on that, I'd like to maybe give it a try! Let me know what you think, ok? Cheers! A loose noose (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I would start by reading through WP:Centralized discussion, as well as archived discussions on relevant policy pages like WT:Notability (people): the most recent sustained discussion of this issue seems to be here, although that discussion seems to have fizzled out inconclusively. Then if appropriate—i.e. if there hasn't been a centralized discussion with a clear conclusion on this before—I'd start a new section on WT:N(people) called something like "harmonizing guidelines and essays for notability of politicians", using the {{cent}} tag. I'd clearly lay out the ways widely-cited essays seem to differ from deletion guidelines (point to GNG and NPOL#2 vs POLOUTCOMES and AADD, and link to some AfDs that turned on the question at hand—i.e. people agreed that somebody would have passed GNG, but deleted anyway because all coverage was election-related) and ask a clear question, like "Should politicians who have been the subject of multiple feature news articles by journalists be considered notable, regardless of whether they have ever assumed high-level office?" Then put arguments and anticipated counterarguments in a Support !vote below, and let the discussion run its course. We could sandbox a proposal together ahead of time if you'd like. FourViolas (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I would love to sanbox a proposal together with you (that sounds kind of weird, don't take it the wrong way!). Shall we use my sandbox? How about if I do some of this legwork here, bone up on the relevant discussions and policy pages, and put together something for you to look at/ review/ edit at will. I can notify you once I have something worth looking at! Give me a few days here, I'd like to do this right (I have never attempted to create a discussion like this before, and the prospect is a little daunting, but i am up for it). I will be in touch soon. Thank you for being willing to work with me on this! A loose noose (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so I have put together an initial draft of the discussion for you to take a look at here— check it out and let me know what you think! I am concerned it is too annoyingly long for people to read, and I am concerned that the example deletion discussions I chose were not necessarily the "best" examples (if you have alternate ones that you think would be better, just say the word), bu t I do think it brings up the point (and maybe belabors it?). I haven't made a list of which other editors should be pinged, but I doubt that will be hard to compose. I will be eager to hear your thoughts on it. Thank you again! A loose noose (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, sorry! I was really up to my eyeballs in problem sets and lab reports for a while. Thank you for drawing this up! It's very articulate and lays out the issue thoroughly.
I don't have a lot of experience with centralized discussion, but my intuition is that you're right: it's a bit long, and at this length will probably not attract participation from anyone who isn't already pretty invested in the topic—whereas the point is to get the broader community's opinion. I think we should try to get it down to a minute or two's read, following the outline you have:
Lay out the apparent conflict as concisely as possible: quote the relevant text from NPOL, GNG, and BASIC (People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below) on the one hand and NPOL and AADD on the other, and in a sentence or two summarize how the "guideline standard" and "essay standard" differ.
Assert that this discrepancy matters, because lots of politician AfDs are being closed according to the essay standard. Then provide the examples you've collected and summarized, and the link to the complete archive, in a {{collapse top}}...{{collapse bottom}} section. I think your examples are great, good digging!
Pose a clear question, like the one I suggested above (to focus and summarize for skimming people), then offer two answers. Yours look like the right ones, but here especially I think we should aim to be as concise as possible to make it easy for people to grasp what's being proposed: something like 1) No; we should elevate the essay standard, that ordinarily only politicians who have assumed the equivalent of U.S. statewide office should have articles, to guideline status in NPOL. 2) Yes; we should affirm the guideline standard, that political candidates do not require more or different kinds of coverage than other individuals to qualify as notable. Then move your very thoughtful evaluation of arguments and counter-arguments to your !vote, as they're more like useful evaluative guidance than information essential for an editor to form an opinion on the proposal.
I'll still be busy for several days to come, but could try to implement these suggestions so you can see what I mean maybe next Wednesday if you like. Thank you! FourViolas (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
So good to hear back from you! I agree with everything you have stated above, and if you would be willing to implement your suggestions in the sandbox text, that would be amazing. Next Wednesday would be fine with me! A loose noose (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey there! I've been checking my sandbox dutifully but nothing has changed— hope you haven't forgotten about our discussion above, though I certainly understand if you've been busy. I'd still like to make headway, and am anxious to have your assistance doing so (given the scope of it all). It may be starting to seem like old news by now, but are you still in? <Smiley face> 09:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems like it would be useful to get the discussion started soon, as campaign season is in full swing and this discussion keeps being had over and over in different AfDs. Shall we? FourViolas (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Yay! Absolutely! Give me just a couple of hours (now) to look over what you have done, give a summary of the AfD on Mr. Rutherford, put together what I feel like is a list of people who should be pinged, and then I will (drum roll...) put it into the centralized discussion page (you yourself, of course, will be among those who will be automatically pinged when this happens). Question for you before then: to what extent would you like me to "co-present" this with you? I am happy to be the person who opens the discussion, of course, but would you like me to say it as "Four Violas and I" or would you prefer to just be a respondent within the discussion? I don't want to take any more credit than I am due, and you really were my inspiration for even giving this a shot at all, but I also am aware that you might be happier (?) being a discussant rather than a co-presenter of the discussion. Either way is absolutely fine with me. Am heading over to my sandbox now to putter it around! Thank you!!! A loose noose (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
(...and as I am reading over that text right now, I see you used the word "we" in the examples section, which I am going to take as a sign that you would like to be presented as co-author of the proposal, which actually makes me feel much more comfortable. "It's so much more friendly with two", as Piglet once said! On the other hand, we can't flip back and forth between "we" and "I", which is what the document has in it right now. Maybe I should present this as me/ I/ my and let you take credit in the discussion as you see fit? A loose noose (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC))
So I just created as list of people to notify and put it on the bottom of the sandbox page— do you think this will be considered canvasing? I picked names very indiscriminately, trying hard to make sure that I covered all of the regular recent participants. Just don't want to get a reprimand for it! ALSO: I had a look at the discussion for Mark Rutherford— I am not sure it pivots on our central point here as well as most of the other deletion discussions, given the paucity of sourcing on him generally: if you really think it belongs, though, then please feel free to add it along with a short summary/ analysis in the collapsible section on those discussions. A loose noose (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks perfect. I am going to go ahead and put it up for consideration. It is absolutely a joint effort. I hope this goes smoothly! A loose noose (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Holy mackerel, I just posted it and added it to the centralized discussion template. PLEASE double check me and make sure I did this right! New turf is scary turf!!! A loose noose (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
So the discussion we started continues. And I find myself getting a little overwrought reading the text, because I remain confident that the assertion we made is the "correct" one (in terms of what it should take for a political candidate to warrant notability) but am disappointed at the degree and intensity of the opposition (It looks like bearcat in particular has spent a LOT of time writing up why we are wrong, almost to the point that it looks desperate). I don't have a sense yet about which way this is going to go, but I am glad we got the discussion started and am still hopeful something meaningful will come out of it. Let me know if you can think of any additional steps we (or I) can take to help other editors" see the light." I am hesitant to get more involved than I already have been so far because I don't want to end up looking like bearcat does there. But a worthy cause is a worthy cause. Fingers crossed, no?? A loose noose (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems we weren't as clear as we could have been—there's a lot of feedback objecting to the way we perceive the problem, or even rejecting the idea that there's a conflict (which seems strange given the plain language of the guidelines, but I guess a lot of people subscribe to the idea that guidelines should be read as vague suggestions rather than literal instructions, a position I admit is defensible according to the WP:DEL-REASON policy).
Nonetheless, I think the questions under consideration are on the table one way or another, and within a few weeks it'll be clear whether there will be a consensus or not. There are good arguments being put forth on various sides—I actually think BC in particular is putting forth a very clear and well-reasoned position, probably the most compelling one for anyone who doesn't share my minimal definition of notability as policy-compliability rather than a more subjective sense of "encyclopedic importance".
Overall, rather than thinking of ways to enlighten other editors, I'm trying to focus on thinking about positive ways we might want to organize our political coverage in the future depending on how this RfC turns out, given what I think is both of our primary concern: maximizing voters' access to high-quality, neutral, politically relevant info about candidates in important elections. If we end up merging candidates' pages to places like United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018, is there a way to revise the template for the target pages to make useful and informative prose more prominent among the heaps of annoying cookie-cutter tables and subsubsections? How should we address the way incumbents' pages are often overstuffed with promotional self-cited material added by campaign interns, while challengers get barebones stubs (compare Phil Scott (politician) to Christine Hallquist)? And so on. I haven't done that much editing in political areas before, so I don't know if WP:POLITICS has tried to address these in the past.
Anyway, Wikipedia works by consensus and is not about winning. I'm hopeful that the RfC will produce a few specific tasks for improving our politics coverage that I can get behind, regardless of how the community wants to partition articles, and then we can work from there. Maybe we can end up on a task force together! FourViolas (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I take your point about "winning", though it does sometimes feel like a battle of sorts! That is a very difficult mindset of which to let go when one feels certainty about certain facts or truths. But therein lies the magic of consensus, I suppose. You and I do share a set of concerns, and a task force assignment sounds interesting to me, though I would settle for some agreement that in-depth coverage of a person in light of their campaign coverage means they warrant an article! Not long ago I nominated an article on a US Navy pontoon boat for deletion: the 30-foot long boat had been involved on nothing notable, but it WAS a Navy boat! The article was eventually merged into another article. Christ, if we can't even delete an article on a 30-foot long piece of wood that the Navy made float in WW II, how can we justify deleting a number of articles on politicians who actually DID things and SAID things worthy of being reported in news sources?? It's stuff like that that makes me sigh. A loose noose (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, FourViolas. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi do you still have access to Harvard's resources? if so can you obtain excerpts from "The shorefolk : aspects of the early development of Swahili communities" by Richard wilding. P. 5, 32, 33 and 65. The lines specifically mentioning the Harla. Thanks! Betamhara (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Sorry, the only copy currently listed as unavailable due to Library processing: Tech Services Work Order, which probably means librarians are in the process of scanning some pages for somebody else. I can check back in a week or two and see if it is free. FourViolas (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Didn’t you graduate? Jeesh, I remember when you didn’t even know where the library is. Anyway, I suggest you just request it as normal; they’re good about expediting when someone else wants the book, but if it’s not back in a week write widren@fas. EEng23:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Adding "meat-eating" in the article on cognitive dissonance
Hey, 4V! It's very good to see you are still with us on the project after five good years now! I saw your comments at Talk:George Floyd and felt inspired to drop by and say hi. Your perspectives/policy read there suggests to me that you have become precisely the kind of nuanced and insightful editor and community member I always figured you'd be, from your earliest contributions. I hope that comes off as more sincere and flattering rather than patronizing. I just wanted to let you know, one editor to another, that I was impressed with your ability to isolate the relevant policy considerations and render them into an opinion about the best course of action that was both practical and well-written.
I'm thinking back on the timetable and trying to figure out if you are into grad work at this point? Or did you just now finish your undergrad, this last couple of months. Well, regardless where you are in your credentials, I hope some influential Harvard wordsmith didn't tempt you completely into social psychology and away from more consistently empirical pursuits. ;D I'm only having a little partisan fun, of course: whatever you have moved into, I am sure you are doing interesting and useful work. I just hope we get to keep you all the way through your post-doc and beyond! Snowlet's rap19:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh sheesh, I should have looked at your user page first: seems I needn't have wondered at all if you'd moved into a practical field. Good on you--I mean, you really found the sweet spot between fascinating and intellectual rewarding subject matter, practical and myriad application, and true moral progress for all of us. Colour me increasingly impressed. Snowlet's rap19:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I completely forgot something I intended to mention: there was a recent discussion at Talk:Dance where a new and very ambitious editor had proposed some rather substantial (but on the whole, I think probably beneficial) changes to the article. They've since seemed to have reconsidered biting off more than they can chew with the undertaking for the present time, from what I can tell--and with my current schedule, I won't be racing to fill that void any time soon--but the topics raised I think will be of interest to you. Snowlet's rap19:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Psychology of eating meat, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Psychology of eating meat and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Psychology of eating meat during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 18:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harvard College may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Black Strap Molasses (song) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
