Jump to content

User talk:I JethroBT/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Unblock request by User:Excelse

Concerning the unblock request by User:Excelse, see also my commentary here. As I was the opponent of this user in a recent arbcom case and have been warned on my talk page that even if I believe that other editors are acting inappropriately it is never acceptable to make personal attacks and inappropriately labelling edits as vandalism, shouldn't Excelse also be warned on his talk page, as his edits were more disruptive than mine? Onefortyone (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Onefortyone: I'm heading to a wedding shortly, and I don't have a great deal of time to look into this behavior until Tuesday. I'll echo Bbb23's sentiments on their talk page response to you; if you want to file another SPI or submit a report to ANI based on the behavior you've noted, you are welcome to. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Hello!

I followed your email about the IeadsLab and put in my 2 cents; now where are the results to be seen? BTW I read Asimov's I, Robot (and The Rest of the Robots) - much better than the film, in my opinion. It's also available as an AudioBook on YouTube if you'd like to listen to it. Cheers! Shir-El too 13:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Shir-El too: Hey Shir-El. Thanks for taking the time to participate, I really appreciate it. I haven't actually seen the film, but it sounds like I'm better off not having watched it. I haven't read The Rest of the Robots yet— I'll have to give that a look! I've been listening to audiobooks a little more these days, so thanks for the recommendation. As for Future IdeaLab Campaigns, I'll be publishing a report on meta here with the results around the end of January 2016. I'll also announce the first IdeaLab campaign we'll run at that time. Oh, and this talk page is my volunteer account, so if you want to get in touch with me about my WMF-related work, I'll usually respond a little faster over at m:User talk:I JethroBT (WMF). I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Books and Bytes - Issue 14

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
  • Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

Return administration

Plz follow back reply redingote bot Palashvai (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Asian Month Barnstar
Thanks for your great contribution in Wikipedia Asian Month 2015! --AddisWang (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@AddisWang: Thanks for your hard work and for the insane amount of article reviewing you've done! I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Season's Greetings!

Hello I JethroBT: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 19:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Season's greetings!

Hello I JethroBT: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Esquivalience t 21:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Steaz

No idea why it blanked some information, all I did was add the tag using twinkle. Maybe bug? Anyways, I am worried about COI because of the post on the article's talk page. Any reason for why it isn't COI? Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dat GuyWiki: Yeah, the tag was fine at the time, I was just reverting back to a better version of the page lacking the promotional material that was added. They're not really a "major contributor" because most of their additions have been appropriately revised or removed outright. I suspect the editor in question was trying to update the page to whatever expectations they have, which apparently involved removing info about their awards and listing a couple of random products they sell. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steaz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Target. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

 Wishing you a Charlie Brown
Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
Best wishes for your Christmas
Is all you get from me
'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus
Don't own no Christmas tree.
But if wishes was health and money
I'd fill your buck-skin poke
Your doctor would go hungry
An' you never would be broke."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914.
Montanabw(talk)

Happy Holidays!

Season's Greetings and Happy New Year!

Wishing you a happy holiday season and a Merry Christmas. May your new year be happy and prosperous. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Mrandrewnohome

Good close. As I said, I'm aware it's a minority opinion. It seemed like it was somewhat getting better but maybe I'm just trying really hard to justify the unblock I did after the first set of antics resulted in a block to get things under control. Who knows. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello I JethroBT: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Thanks?

Yes, I know that 'thanks for thanks' is, strictly speaking, completely unnecessary, but it's nice to see someone from my hometown. Dschslava (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dschslava: I'm never one to turn down thanks, so no worries there. Are you in town? You should come join us for an edit-a-thon sometime in the new year! I'm thinking about pulling one together in late January or early Feb. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: Unfortunately, I moved to San Diego about seven years ago, and the last time that I've been in Chicago was about six months ago for a layover. I assure you that I miss it every day. Dschslava (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

TH1980

Hi, can you take a look at TH1980's edits to History of Japan? They're clearly disruptive---every aspect of that information had been questioned on the talk page, from its mischaracterization, to its undue weight, right down to its contentious positioning in the Shōwa section. He's fully aware of the issues---there's no room for assumptions of good faith here, especially as it is typical of his "editing" style to revert those who remove what CurtisNaito has added. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Some open-ended thoughts on their behavior (and yours) after reviewing their contributions (FYI, I've tried to look a lot of the article and talk page history, and I'm also pretty tried. I'm always willing to accept I've overlooked something and revisit my opinion, but I suspect we fundamentally do not see this situation in the same way. TH1980, feel free to chime in here as well. I'd rather discuss this here than more on the article talk page.):
  • My initial read was that TH1980's involvement with the article wasn't terribly deep (at least not relative to others active on the article and talk page). They've made 19 edits between August 2015 and this December.
  • The edit warring from 30 August to 1 September on the "better source needed" on the Diamond source was disruptive. Without commenting on whether the source was appropriate or not in context, the behavior was problematic and either he, Hijiri, or one of the few others participating there should have started a discussion over at RSN; I even note that Hijiri suggested exactly this course of action early on during that dispute, though it never actually happened. An editor found an alternative source that folks seemed to be satisfied with, and that (eventually) seemed to put an end to that issue.
  • TH1980's various copyedits seem fine to me, certainly not problematic. If they introduced an inaccuracy of some sort in these copyedits, there's nothing suggesting to me that it was intentional, and they certainly haven't edit-warred over it.
  • I see some content edits that look fine to me as well (e.g. [1], [2], [3]) and others less so (e.g. [4] [5]), but the latter doesn't fall into "clearly disruptive" territory as much as there are concerns about scope or due weight there that you and others have mentioned. And look, I know the article really needs folks able to commit to broader research; Murakami's legacy, for instance ([6], [7]) should be contextualized in the scope of Japanese history. If there are sources supporting his contributions to sci-fi or magical realism or whatever, that info IMO is better placed elsewhere, say on Murakami's bio rather than on this broad historical overview. Also, I suspect that if the discussion was more focused on "how can we use this information" rather than a presumption of how any contribution that TH1980 makes to the subject is disruptive or unimportant, it may have saved everyone a lot of trouble.
  • Outside of the Diamond dispute, TH1980's interactions at the talk page appear don't strike me as disruptive; it's usually tacit agreement with Curtis or a basic suggestion here and there. I do see that they are dealing with editors who cannot help but see them as anything but disruptive. Any suggestions TH1980 makes seem to get disregarded out of turn with comments from you or others like "No one's buying your spiel." There's fundamental distrust there, and I'm not sure it is warranted. Later, TH1980 sought an RfC and you shut that suggestion down multiple times. Reverting or disagreeing with contributions for reasons based on due weight / scope is one matter; your outright rejection of even the possibility of an RfC feels a lot like asserting control, and I'm concerned about it.
So, we can talk this out more here if you want. Maybe there is a way we can communicate better on the talk page. I've been thinking it might be a good idea for folks to post drafts of substantial article additions for comments / edits on the talk page before they get added to the article itself. I don't want to stop anyone from going to ANI if they want to, but I'm generally a fan making people's lives less stressful, not moreso. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
TH1980's interactions at the talk page appear don't strike me as disruptive: on the contrary, his comments are designed to draw attention from actual issues being discussed—the attempt to bury the sourcing and weight issues with calls for an RfC is but the latest. He uses his claims to having done a "thorough" copyedit and source check (both of which are flat-out lies) to bury objections to the deep and many issues with the article's content and sourcing. At the Arb case he's gotten hismelf involved in he tried spreading his lies about his "thorough" copyedit as well, but was smart enough to retract what was obviously an incriminating comment. He's also helped CurtisNaito editwar at the History of Japan talk page to put the page back up for GAN ([8]). Like CurtisNaito, he manages to put a congenial sheen on his comments, but when taken in the context they're made in, it can be seen how disruptive they're meant to be. I'm a latecomer to realizing this game—I certainly wasn't the first, and I'm confident I won't be the last. TH1980 is not working towards the improvement of the article, but is playing an obnoxious internet game. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: Hm. That calling for an RfC "buries an issue" is questionable when its very purpose is to bring in other editors to help sort things out. Reviewing their talk page contributions, TH hasn't used their copyediting as an excuse to distract from discussion there. Most of their comments are brief and to the point. (On another note, he has recently said he is done with the article. But then again all of you have more or less said that at one point or another, and yet you are all still active there.) This issue with GAN is really a nonstarter for me at this point. Everyone agrees it's not ready. I know you think there's this whole "putting on a nice face while they are being disruptive / lying and I can clearly see it" thing going on here. If I might offer a different explanation, it's that any time some explanation is given for a revert or disagreement with an idea, it's done with enough hostility and outright dismissal that it is hard to take seriously. I, JethroBT drop me a line 11:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
all of you have more or less said that at one point or another, and yet you are all still active there—what? Who is "all of you"? Sturmgewehr88, Signedzzz, Nishidani, and MSJapan have all left the article. Perhaps we should ask them what rôle I played in that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: Yeah, "all of you" was rather unspecific, sorry. I was referring to Hijiri88, TH1980, yourself, and Curtis. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Which makes the point—editors are being driven away, and we don't have to speculate who has driven them away, because we know already: the superficially "congenial" editors (including one who objected to the GAR on the grounds that "no one has found any actual problems with the article" and he had "corrected all the typos and grammatical errors"). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Every editor who has taken CurtisNaito's side in the dispute (there's only one) is still on the page and is the subject of this thread; every user who has been driven off the page was driven off by CurtisNaito and TH1980, because they opposed CurtisNaito's edits.
But I'm actually here because Curly Turkey neglected to mention a key point related to TH1980's activity on the page, and that is its place in TH1980's long-running hounding campaign against me.
Kinda long-winded explanation. Collapsing so I JethroBT, who is clearly a good-faith sysop willing to listen to reason, doesn't think I'm trying to BLUDGEON anything.
Literally every Japan-related edit the user has made in the last ten months (and something like 60% of his overall edit count during that time) has had the effect of undermining me. This is why his "copyedits" are always so minor and superficial, and his content edits are all sourced to books he found on GBooks. It is also why, across a half-dozen articles in which I have taken a variety of stances, he has managed to disagree with me every single time. On the "Korean influence" article and the Diamond dispute on the "History of Japan" talk page he took a fringe view that made him look like an anti-Japanese Korean nationalist, but on the "Iwane Matsui" FA review and other articles related to the Sino-Japanese War he has taken an anti-Chinese stance more typical of a Japanese nationalist. His edits related to Kurosawa Akira and modern Japanese literature seem to be mildly dismissive of Japanese culture, but in a completely different way to his "Korean culture" edits.
It's conceivable that he legitimately holds to one or even two of these extreme POVs, but that's a whole lot of hoops to jump through, and doesn't explain why he shows up every single time I'm involved in a medium-to-large scale dispute. More likely, he is simply Googling whatever sources he can use to support whatever position I'm not taking.
I don't think I should have to point this out, but this view also has fairly broad (unanimous, thusfar) support among ArbCom.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Acknowledging the topic ban and interaction ban, I just wanted to reply here acknowledging your comments, and I will keep them in mind. No need to reply back. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
TH1980 only showed up to the article to either support CurtisNaito or to hound Hijiri, or both. The "copyedits" to the article were almost all minor or part of an edit war. We found OR/SYNTH after he claimed he had made a "thorough" source check. His comments on the talk page were all intended to support CurtisNaito. He accused a number of editors of being a cabal that does Hijiri's biding. He just accussed me of threatening and intimidating him. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Sturmgewehr88 Hey, just coming back from holidays. I'm not sure the comment you made there was really necessary beyond the sentiment about IBANs not being necessary/helpful in this case. It's understood that bad edits will be reverted, that we shouldn't be following each other around, and that folks are generally here to build an encyclopedia, so there's no need to call it out unnecessarily. That's when it comes off as intimidation, even if you don't intend it that way. That said, I understand that TH1980's behavior with regard to Hijiri has been problematic. I also agree that TH1980's copyedits were not thorough, but they also do not appear problematic. It looks like the ArbCom case has addressed the former with an IBAN. We'll see how that goes. For now, I don't think there is much else to do here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I see. I just felt that since I was stating that an IBAN was unnecessary I also needed to explain why. But yes, the case will have a result soon. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
but they also do not appear problematic: They were problematic—I pointed out the problems with them (i.e. every aspect of them) the first time, so there's no excuse for him to have brought them back the second time. It might be good to consider why editors who had little previous interaction with each other have all come to the same conclusion about TH1980. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: Are you referring to something other than the Murakami matter here? I already acknowledged that was problematic above, I'm happy to issue another IDHT block if it or something like it happens again. But there was no first and second time with regard to the copyedits. TH1980's copyedits – which make up six edits to the article – have substantially remained in the article ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]). And like I said, these appear constructive and helpful, even if it's not "comprehensive" as was claimed. If you stated there were problems somewhere, I probably missed them; it's been a lot to read, after all. But I don't see any intention to disrupt or obvious issues with these edits, and so I don't think any administrative action beyond what's happened is required here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
They are difficult to understand out of context (and the context involves other articles). It'll take me time, but I'll be putting together the diffs and the context for a case against them both over the next few months. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
   – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: ...and I'll bet those 1885 editors issued warnings in proper calligraphic form! Happy New Year, Cullen! I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Back then, warnings were written on shingles with hot tar. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Ah, the old-fashioned tar chock full of asbestos, right? Guess that got the message across over time. :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

AfD close

Masterful. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller: Thanks. I generally try to keep them a bit shorter, but it couldn't be helped. Also, I haven't listened to much Van Morrison, but the inspiration for your username is pretty catchy! I, JethroBT drop me a line 10:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't get that link to work, but yup, it's a cracker. I've got a link to a good version on my userpage, but I think my favourite one is the one on the Live at the Grand Opera House Belfast album. It's brilliant to drive [fast] to! (And that's a pretty good album, too) --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for your careful close. StAnselm (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was a very disappointing close, emblematic of the way the verifiability policy seems to take a back seat to everything else these days. Of course, it's also somewhat annoying to devote a lot of time explaining my position only to be ignored completely. But whatevs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyk (talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 January 2016‎

Some Cool Images for you

All free. Hafspajen (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Happy New Year 2016!

[[File:|200px]] Happy New Year 2016
Message ~~~~

Add picture and you are ready to go- Hafspajen (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Hafspajen! I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, I JethroBT!

Happy New Year!

I JethroBT,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 07:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks from me too and happy new year

Thank you for the close of the Articles For Deletion of S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). I joined Wikipedia some time ago. I played cricket (or a form of it at least) in South America during college though it's not a sport of choice where I come from. So cricket interests me. Plus the extent of learning I am getting here while creating articles on cricketers is quite satisfying. I wanted to request you for some guidance. Did I do something wrong by commenting on the Articles of Deletion forum? Was any part of your closing statement directed at my comment? As you did not name any person in your statement so I am not sure. I am sorry in advance if commenting there was a mistake on my part. Being new here I am still grasping the vastness of this place and the way it operates. Before going let me wish you – Feliz año nuevo! In other words, Happy New Year! Thank you.Xender Lourdes (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xender Lourdes: Hey there Xender, thanks. I do taiko (a kind of Japanese drumming) in my spare time; the instrument is not very popular here in the United States, and I've edited that topic a bit, so I know what you mean. Let me reassure you that nothing was wrong with your participation at the AfD. I'm glad you chimed in there, particularly on such a contentious discussion. I understand why might have be hesitant about whether to participate or not-- it wasn't a very friendly environment. Nothing I said there was directed at your conduct.
About your comments on the AfD: 1) You may want to post your comments about the content of the article on the article talk page, because the AfD is more about whether the article ought to be included rather than discussing the specifics of its content, and 2) if you have access to Sri Lankan libraries and relevant news archives to develop some of these articles on cricket players, I think it would be great to check those out over the next few weeks if you are able. Also, if you're interested in participating more in Articles for Deletion discussions, this is a helpful essay to review so you know what arguments are (and are not) likely to be useful. Thanks for your work, and Happy New Year! I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you I JethroBT for clarifying that. Thank you for understanding. I have read the contents of the essay on Articles for Deletion discussion. I will try my hand in such discussions as long as I don't break anything like a rule or a standard out here. I will come back to you if I need any help in the Articles for Deletion discussion. I hope that is okay with you. Thank you and enjoy the new year. Xender Lourdes (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again JethroBT. I just wanted to inform you that I got my first DYK on the Wikipedia main page today. You played a part in it as as I learnt from your guidance, specially the details on discussions on AFD as that made me learn when articles can be deleted. Thank you. Xender Lourdes (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
And I got two more DYKs after that. Today I got my first good article. Sorry for pestering you but just wanted to share with the editors who have helped me settle in. Xender Lourdes (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
No apologies needed. Thanks for sharing, and I'm glad you are doing such great work! I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Chris!

Chris, I wish you and those dear to you
golden days of love and joy in a

Happy New Year 2016!

Best regards,
Sam Sailor Talk! 04:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Pass on!
Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages.
Information icon Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.
(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aída Fernández Ríos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Santiago. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, I JethroBT!

Happy New Year!

I JethroBT,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Peppy Paneer (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 November

Thanks for your uninvolved edits over at this move review to help reduce the wall of text for this one. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

Your fix to Jimbo Wales' talk page.

Yes, you were right, there was something to fix. But look a second time, see the greater picture, and deduce that a greater fix was required. Cheers. Pldx1 (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Pldx1: If it's about the headers creating a ridiculously long TOC, yeah, that's not ideal. But if you could be more explicit about the issue, I'm happy to go ahead and fix it. Or if it's easier, I encourage you to do so. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
For an unknown reason, User:Carrite copied twice the James Heilman Removal FAQ, once with level 3 sections, and the other with level 2 sections. The resulting TOC being rather horrible, I have changed all these sections into level 4 sections, waiting for a correction by Carrite. In fact, I am surprised that no one else remarked/reacted to this duplication. Now, suppressing the second copy (subsections from 16 to 30) would solve the problem. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@Pldx1: It was probably just a mistake, and I suspect some folks probably just navigated to the link. I've taken another stab at fixing that hatted section; I think it looks a bit better now. Take care, I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I must have double clutched on the COMMAND+V or something... best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month

Hi, thank you for participation in Wikipedia Asian Month. Please fill out the survey that we use to collect the mailing address. All personal information will be only used for postcard sending and will be deleted immediately after the postcard is sent. If you have any question, you may contact me at Meta. Hope to see you in 2016 edition of Wikipedia Asian Month.--AddisWang (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

You've got mail!

Hello, I JethroBT. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

PLease help

Hi I JethroBT! Thank you for the opportunity that through the Teahouse I can write to you. I am working now on a 6 years old article that was not properly sourced, and thou I am very new here, I still found more than 40 new sources that I have already built in. However, I have almost no one who would control what I am doing. May I kindly ask you just to take a glance to the article and let me know your thoughts? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme and https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme My other problem is that this tag "Find sources: "Zoltán Deme" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images" proved to be useless for reaching the sources of the 1960-1980 decades, especially the sources of the past communist countries in East Europe where most of the libraries very poorly digitized. For example "Scholar" gives 1 citation, though just with 10 minutes research I got immediately 20 citations! [[15]] page 65 [[16]] p.2 [[17]] p.23 [[18]] p.1 [[19]] p.289 [[20]] p.5 [[21]] p.2 [[22]] p.353 [[23]] p.35 [[24]] p.1 [[25]] p.46 [[26]] p.75 [[27]] p.63 [[28]] p.84 [[29]] p.64 [[30]] p.1 [[31]] p.48 [[32]] p.317 [[33]] p.196 [[34]] p.101. (Plus I got many items, as "required reading" in the universities, like [[35]] p.1 [[36]] p.1 [[37]] p.48 [[38]] and so on). For other example, Books, Google Books gives 3 items, while this site (and others) show the pictures and data of more than 20 items! [[39]] [[40]] [[41]] This misleads almost everyone, presents the subject non-notable with only one citation and three books, thus, I had to go over this problem and collect printed material. Would you kindly investigate the improved article, is my work now sufficient? I saw your contributions, so any advice or any proposal I would accept from you! Thank you for reading this message, with hope and kind regards, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@89.133.187.29: Hi Norbert, I'll take a look and see what I can do. I'm a bit busy today, and will try to review this over the weekend. Thanks for doing so much research to find sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your time and help! Yours, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Norbert, having reviewed the deleted contents of the article and a selection of the sources, I am inclined to agree with some of the concerns about the article. Many of the existing sources in the article at the time of deletion were to other-language Wikipedia sources. That someone is present in many citations can be an indicator of notability, but what difficult to see is if there was any actual prose about him. We don't necessarily require that sources be in English, or even that they are available online, and so if such coverage exists, let me know. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Did You Know

Hello! Your submission of Georgiana Simpson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Philafrenzy (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
  • #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
  • New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Georgiana Simpson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Philafrenzy (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Georgiana Simpson

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago!

Come join us on Saturday, March 5th between 12PM - 5PM for the Art+Feminism 2016 edit-a-thon at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago! We'll be focusing our efforts on women involved in the arts, and a list of articles for artists in Chicago and the U.S. Midwest has been compiled at the project page. The event is free, but only if you register at the project page ahead of time. I'll be there, and I hope to see you there too! I JethroBT (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The Chicago Barnstar
You have been doing a great job at setting up meetups. Keep up the good work. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, please post the next meetup atop WP:CHICAGO--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello I JethroBT,

I hope I am doing this right - I have never posted on someone else's Talk page before... I have never noticed any other display problems with Wikipedia before, or with any of the 'editing' pages. What pages would you have me view for display errors of this 'text entry field' type?

Housiemousie (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Housiemousie: I've replied back on the Teahouse. We can keep the discussion there-- other editors who are active there may be better help to you than me. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

About the Upcoming Event

Hey there I JethroBT,

I got your message about the upcoming event in Chicago. I don't know if I'd be able to make it, and it seems the page uses a different signing method than I've been accustom to. Just thanking you for letting me know of the event regardless.

Back Home (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Event

Hope all went well. I had every intention of joining you but my wife had a little fender bender that morning and we had to deal with that. Thanks for your efforts. Buster Seven Talk 16:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7: Oh no, I'm real sorry to hear about the car trouble! The event went pretty well, and we had a great turnout. I'm sure I'll catch you at another event. :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Vehicle---$1852.00 Concrete pillar---$0.00. Buster Seven Talk 19:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Final bill---$6575.00 from minor crash at less than 8MPH. Moral:stay out of unfamiliar parking garages. See you next time. Buster Seven Talk 12:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

WIR A+F

Hoping you enjoyed the recently-held in-person Art+Feminism meetup,
we cordially invite you continue your participation by joining the
virtual worldwide online event
hosted by Women in Red.
March 2016 (Women's History Month)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Question for you...

I can't for the life of me figure out what I'm doing wrong closing discussions. Can't recall ever having this issue before so it could attributable to a massive brain fart. Ok - so whether I use {{atop | yada yada {{nac}} ~~~~}} or {{archive top| yada yada ~~~~}}<nowiki> the close box fails to appear. When I remove the 4 tilde sig, the box appears. (no, I don't use when I close *lol*) Your input will be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

@Atsme: Yeah, I've run into this too. It seems like Template:Archive top doesn't like other templates or hyperlinks to external websites within it, or else it doesn't display at all. It's frustrating, but these need to be avoided entirely. I would literally write (non-admin close) at the end to replace that template from the above. Hope that resolves the issue. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, here's what I figured out as the correct way to structure the code {{atop|result= yada yada {{nac}} ~~~~}}. You can also write-out "archive top". I was inadvertently leaving off "result=" Everything works just fine now. Atsme📞📧 02:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Drumpf

Can you close Donald Drumpf by redirecting it to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)? --Frmorrison (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Frmorrison: All done. Sorry, I got it in my head somehow that I closed this one already! I think I was reviewing so many issues related to these articles that I just lost track. Thanks for the reminder. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The wording of your close is currently incorrect. "Donald J Drumpf" was merged, while "Donald Drumpf" was a redirect pointing elsewhere. Changing the word "merge" to "redirect" (or saying "The result of the discussion was retarget to Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)) in the close would probably be a good idea for clarity and to avoid further confusion. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Godsy: Done, thanks for pointing this out. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice

I've reverted your addition of religion to Sanders' infobox as unsupported. You claim "some sources where Sanders talks about being Jewish contained sufficient context to make it clear that religion or faith was being referred to specifically" [42] and reiterate that claim in your close "However, in this case, there are multiple sources, both primary and reliable independent ones, that very clearly refer to Sanders' religion as Jewish." [43] without ever identifying these sources. These sources, if they exist, still haven't been identified. Further, your close goes against consensus here at NOR, here at Talk Infobox, and the following two RFCs [1] [2]. I urge you to review the linked discussions before taking further action. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden, as the author of those two RfCs and a person who also disagrees with this particular close (Note: I always abide by the decision of the closing admin whether I agree with it or not), I must advise you that you are going about this the wrong way. Don't try to revert a closing of a discussion that is clearly an extension of a closed RfC. Instead, do the following: First, calmly and rationally discuss your concerns with the closing admin on his talk page (I would start by asking exactly where Bernie Sanders self-identified his religion using direct speech per WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R, calmly explaining that saying "I am Jewish" is not the same as saying "My religion is Judaism" -- "Jewish" may also refer to a culture or an ethnicity). If he remain unconvinced, go to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and follow the instructions there. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@James J. Lambden: As Guy as said above, it's disruptive to revert an RfC close without talking to the closer first. The kinds of cases I would do it in is where the close omits a rationale, is obviously disruptive, or if it's done by a non-admin when the decision could require administrative action. I should also mention that Template:Archive top prevents the inclusion of hyperlinks, otherwise the archiving template does not function properly at all. Otherwise, I would have included the specific links. The sources in which Sanders' religion is clearly being referred to in direct speech are:
  • [44] "I’m proud to be Jewish"...Though, (Sanders) added, "I'm not particularly religious." (i.e. this is not the same as "non-religious")
  • [45]:
COOPER: You know, I want to follow up, because Jason also mentioned faith, which is something you've spoken a little bit about. You're Jewish, but you've said that you're not actively involved with organized religion. What do you say to a voter out there who says -- and that who sees faith as a guiding principle in their lives, and wants it to be a guiding principle for this country?
SANDERS: It's a guiding principle in my life, absolutely, it is. You know, everybody practices religion in a different way. To me, I would not be here tonight, I would not be running for president of the United States if I did not have very strong religious and spiritual feelings. (Note: That this statement about religiousness might seem in conflict with Sanders' direct speech above is not relevant to the question of whether the term "Jewish" refers to his religion or not.)
That the term "Jewish" refers to his religion is further supported by several other sources ([46], [47], [48], [49], and a primary source, [50]).
I also reviewed the RfCs you linked above prior to closing this RfC, and I disagree that either of them are in conflict with my close. The NOR and Infobox discussions have not been closed, and because you are involved, it's presumptive to conclude consensus in either of them. The one regarding due weight is not relevant because Bernie's Sanders' Jewish affiliation has been the subject of a great deal of coverage related to his presidential campaign. The other one (Is Bernie Sanders Jewish or is he "Jewish"?) is not an RfC as much a claim that some folks are engaging in original research (and they are), but it doesn't change my evaluation of consensus, because the above evidence makes it clear that we are not talking about an affiliation that is non-religious in nature. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Just so that everyone reading this is clear, I accept and will abide by the closing decision even though I disagree with it. I am willing to discuss the reasons that I disagree on the closer's talk page, but I have no intention of filing an appeal. Frankly, the actual content of that particular infobox is not that important an issue to me. I do tend to get sucked in to discussions where it looks to me that the sources do not support the claims, but that is likely a side-effect of my high-functioning autism. See Asperger syndrome as well as Asperger syndrome and interpersonal relationships.
JethroBT, Please explain, in detail, if there are any other sources where you believe Bernie Sanders self-identified his religion using direct speech per WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R. If possible, quote the exact words in the sources that you believe to be direct speech by Bernie Sanders himself that self-identifies his religion. The two quotes you supplied above appear to be completely compatible with a cultural or ethnic Jew refusing to say whether or not he is a member of the Jewish religion. In fact, I am having a hard time seeing how Bernie Sanders could possibly refuse to say whether or not he is a member of the Jewish religion without you interpreting anything he says about being a cultural or ethnic Jew (such as "I'm proud to be Jewish" followed by a clarification that he is not talking about his religion) as religious self-identification. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: I disagree that those statements are compatible with that interpretation. When the context of the conversation refers clearly to "faith" or "religion," a cultural or ethnic interpretation of the term is not reasonable. Even those statements around I am very proud to be Jewish were prompted by Anderson Cooper in the following manner, using the term Judaism specifically ([51]):
COOPER: Let me follow up, just this weekend there was an article I read in the Detroit News saying that you keep your Judaism in the background, and that's disappointing some Jewish leaders. Is that intentional?
SANDERS:No, I am very proud to be Jewish, and being Jewish is so much of what I am.
And as for interpreting, if the argument is that "Sanders is not clearly referring to his religion in his public speech," then, as with other arguments in that discussion, it is the closer's responsibility to evaluate if the claim is valid. My conclusion was that it was true in some some, but not all of the sources presented in that discussion. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I think I have made my argument, and it is a fact that roughly half of the respondents to the RfC agree with you and roughly half of the respondents to the RfC agree with me -- exactly the situation where someone uninvolved has to make the decision -- so I fully support your decision. I am unwatching this page now, so please drop me a line on my talk page if anything comes up that I should be aware of. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@James J. Lambden: I share your concern that the RfC closing rationale lacked sources of direct speech self-identification, and I find the excuse about "hyperlinks" to be inapplicable, as sources without hyperlinks weren't supplied either. I also find the assertion, it's disruptive to revert an RfC close without talking to the closer first, to be a bit of a straw man: The RfC close was never reverted, and it remains closed as I type this. What was reverted was the additional (over and above the act of closing an RfC) editing of the Wikipedia article, which inserted unsupported content. While the RfC was closed in favor of adding such content, the RfC in no way obviates the Core Policy Requirement: any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. It was the insertion of previously challenged content without sources that was disruptive, not the "best-practice" removal of the unsourced content.
@Guy Macon: I'm not as willing as you to abide by the closing decision even though I disagree with it. Like you, I don't have a strong interest in that particular article, but I would like to see this RfC closure cleaned up and made rock-solid for another reason. During the course of discussions in this RfC, it was pointed out that many other political BLP articles were using the '|Religion=' field in possible violation of policy. I plan to visit those articles with the intent of bringing them into compliance, and would like to be able cite this RfC closure (as well as related RfCs initiated by you in the past) during the inevitable discussions which will arise.
@I JethroBT: I disagree with your RfC closure based on objections much more substantive (I'll explain later tonight) than the "has publicly self-identified with the belief" issue, but since you are discussing that specific point here, I'd like to bring a couple things to your attention. On your two sources in which Sanders' religion is clearly being referred to in direct speech, I can completely understand your confusion with your first example, because the misleading Christian Science Monitor article asks, "How does Sen. Bernie Sanders’s religious heritage inform his politics?" You can't be blamed for assuming any response Sanders gives to such a question would therefore be about religion. However, it turns out Sanders was never asked about his religious heritage. In the context of dual-citizenship with Israel, he was asked only about his "Jewish heritage": CSM Breakfast (16:30 mark). This was discussed on the Talk page, but I guess you missed it. As for your second example, Sanders never self-identifies with the Jewish religion as a religious belief in his responses, and to guess that he might have is original research. In fact, the way Sanders steers his responses to questions about religion back to his cultural heritage, including in this example, has been described as politically "savvy". “Look at the way he reframed the question so it was not a God question anymore, it was a human interaction question. That his faith is based on our responsibility to each other, vs. to a higher power. This was very effective for a politician because, given the religiosity of the [overall] voting public, answering in the negative would not help him.” What you have personally interpreted as a direct speech declaration that his religion is Judaism, others have interpreted as Sanders "navigating the religious question" consistently and carefully, as he has in every interview/debate/speech. Regardless of whether Cooper frames his question with the word "Judaism", or the student Fine frames her question with the word "faith", or Cuomo and Chris Matthews frame their questions with the word "religion", or Kimmel frames his question with the word "God", Sanders unfailingly responds with a version of his very consistent "we're in this together" answer which isn't specific to any religion, faith or denomination. He'll insist he's spiritual, has 'faith', believes in a higher power "as everyone does" in his own unique way — all of which he knows he must do at a minimum, lest he commit political suicide. But don't confuse the context the questioner initially tries to set up with the context in which Sanders actually responds. There is a reason the New York Times declared, "Mr. Sanders responds to questions about his beliefs by turning the conversation toward political ideals." All of this was previously discussed, but I can't fault you for missing it in that swamp of a discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Rewatching page (I read the above when pinged). Nothing really to add at this time. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Xenophrenic: It's common practice for RfC closers to make the changes specified in their close. When folks don't even try to engage in discussion before reverting those changes, it's disruptive. Using verifiability as justification would be appropriate if there were no sources to support the claim, but that just isn't the case here.
I appreciate this is a complicated issue, and acknowledge that Sanders has frequently been unclear in his statements regarding his religious affiliation. Having now seen the CSM video, I agree there is ambiguity given the context in which the question was originally asked. However, you've now also said that the context of questions asked in other sources that use "faith" and "religion" do not matter as it relates to Sanders' religious affiliation, and I find that position untenable. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is that they do not matter, but rather that according to your interpretation it appears to be impossible for Bernie Sanders to refuse to answer or to be evasive when asked about his religion. As a thought experiment, try to compose an evasive or changing-the-subject answer to those questions that you would not have determined to be direct, plain-speech self-identification as being a member of a religion. Is there any possible answer other than a politically-suicidal direct "no" that you would be willing to interpret as not being a direct "yes"? There is a long list of established editors who have looked at this and do not see any source where Bernie Sanders himself self-identifies with direct speech. With all due respect, your citing "a primary source, [52])" which is not direct speech leads me to believe that you are willing to accept sources (a press handout by an anonymous Sanders staffer) that cannot possibly be interpreted as self-identification through direct speech. Your citing a source[53] which specifically says "To date, the Vermont senator has largely been able to skirt the issue of his faith." as evidence that Bernie Sanders has not skirted the issue of his faith but rather as self-identified his faith using direct speech puzzles me. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course RfC closers can implement changes supported in their close — unless the change violates policy, and I never suggested otherwise. And it is also true that when folks don't even try to engage in discussion before reverting those changes, it's disruptive — unless folks are specifically instructed by policy that the challenged or likely to be challenged unsourced addition should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. At that point, the disruption is caused by the introduction of the unsourced contentious material. I find it odd that I even need to explain that. As for your assertion that appropriate sources exist to support the claim, then would it have been too much trouble to have cited them as required? (I'm still waiting to see them, myself.) I think you and I also disagree on whether Sanders has frequently been unclear in his statements regarding his religious affiliation. I think he has been quite clear that he is religiously unaffiliated (all sources linked just above notwithstanding). I am still eager, however, to see a source where Sanders self-identifies in direct speech as religiously Jewish.
Let's not misunderstand, please, I did not say that the context of questions asked in other sources that use "faith" and "religion" do not matter. What I did was contrast your personal interpretation of what Sanders said with how published sources interpreted what he said; needless to say, you and the published sources differ. It is reliable sources, not me, which have observed that if you ask Sanders anything related to Jews/Jewish/Judaism, regardless if it is framed as a religious or ethnicity question, it will trigger his nonreligious announcement of his pride in being Jewish, and then he'll explain how his learning of the Nazis and the Holocaust impressed upon him the importance of politics, and inspired him to fight for the lesser among us. It is reliable sources, not me, which have observed that if you ask Sanders anything about God/spirituality/religion/faith, it will trigger his nondenominational declaration that of course he has faith-spirituality-belief, which consists of the view that we are all in this together, what affects you also affects me, and that it's our responsibility to take care of those more vulnerable than ourselves, to treat people with respect and to treat others as we would have them treat us (insert paraphrase of 'Golden Rule' here). I think it's called "staying on message". But as I mentioned earlier, the verifiable self-identification in direct speech issue is not the biggest concern I have with the close of that RfC. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Xenophrenic: I'll need a little time to review your comments here and at User_talk:Xenophrenic/sandbox2. You probably get some flak for writing long responses, but as your userpage notes, there are times when writing more substantively is unavoidable and important. For now, I want to let you know that these were the kinds of arguments I entirely or partially discounted: ([54], [55]). They're assertions about his religion lacking substance, though granted, I should have been more specific and said Many individuals also pointed out that some arguments opposed to inclusion ... simply asserted that his religion isn't really Jewish without any substantiation. I'd also like to note that folks whose arguments clearly did not acknowledge that the term "Jewish" can refer to something other than religion were also discounted (e.g. [56] [57]). If you feel like my appraisal of these arguments was absurd, that's fine (we will have to disagree), but I'd prefer that you just ask me to clarify next time. When I disagree with another editor, it is rare that I think it's helpful to call their arguments absurd, even if I felt that way. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I referred to a statement of yours as absurd, and I apologize for any offense that caused. Offense was not my intent, and I shall modify my comment accordingly. I did intend, however, to use strong wording to convey my feelings about the perpetual rebuttals to the straw man argument that Sanders "isn't really Jewish" — an argument that was never actually made. No one ever argued that Sanders was not Jewish. A word search on the RfC page shows 32 instances of the phrase "not Jewish", and nearly 30 of those are from one editor demanding that other people quit saying that Sanders isn't Jewish (even though nobody said that). I recall Guy Macon reminding these few individuals upwards of a half-dozen times, to the point of exasperation, that no one was arguing that Sanders is not Jewish. Another editor I mentioned in my comment likewise said:
I'd like to point out (e.g. for the closer) that many !voters including the last several insist Sanders is "Jewish", whereas no one disputes that he's "Jewish". He very clearly is Jewish in many senses. For example, no one disputes he is Jewish in a secular, cultural, ethnic, social, or genetic sense. The RFC question is instead whether he is Jewish religiously, i.e. whether he has a religion that is Jewish, and whether it's okay for the infobox to say "Religion: Jewish" without elaboration. Creating a straw man that the RFC question asks if he is Jewish really doesn't help, and !voting on a question that has not been presented isn't really useful, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I still insist that appraising arguments which do not exist (but were raised as straw men many times) is absurd, so I am relieved to learn that you meant to say in your close statement that you appraised and discounted a completely different argument: "that his religion isn't really Jewish". With that clarification, your statement becomes infinitely less absurd. It does spark a whole new line of discussion, however. By the way, is the third of three diffs in your last comment to the correct example? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong diff from the same editor; corrected above. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
As you have correctly noted, I have admitted on my User page that I am prone to writing detailed, lengthy responses. But I also mentioned that I can be succinct. The sandbox notes are a lengthy (and growing) list of reasons why my position changed from being like-minded with you to disagreement with you. If it would help you to have an "in a nutshell" summation of that note page, here you go:
The pages of sandbox detail was just to clarify my position, to make it easier for you to find any flaws in my reasoning or points that I failed to consider. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I_JethroBT/Archive_15&oldid=1151040554"