User talk:ChronoFrog

Please do not edit other people's talk page comments again, as you did here. Electoralist (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wiki protocol, I was within my right to remove those passages, as it was making the thread harder to read (not to mention the fact that it's a non-reliable source to begin with).ChronoFrog (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're wrong since it's not a personal blog but a magazine's blog. See Wikipedia:Sources: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources" See also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")"

As for being "within your right" to edit my comments - please quote the passage of Wikipedia policy you are relying on to make that assertion). Electoralist (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Razib is a professional geneticist. He is not a scholar or expert on Jewish identity and culture, nor has he ever claimed to be one. So in this context at least, it's non-RS.

As far as my deletions are concerned, I don't remember the exact rule, but I'll try to find it. If I am wrong, I apologize. I still don't see the need to paste it within the thread though, when it can easily be accessed by clicking the link.ChronoFrog (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

" in this context at least, it's non-RS." a) this is a talk discussion, not the article itself. b) I suspect most editors would disagree with you that the comments made by a genteticist are not a reliable source in an article (or template) on ethnicity. In any case, it's considered extremely bad form to edit other people's comments. Please don't do it again. Electoralist (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. Wiki protocol still applies to talk page discussions. His article may be apt when discussing the genetics of Jews, but not our culture or identity (unless he is actually a scholar or expert in these fields), and per that criteria, it is useless for this particular discussion. Consistency, collective self-definition, and reliable sources (particularly the UN's criteria on Indigenous Status, which is what we usually employ when discussing matters such as these) are what is needed.ChronoFrog (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your opinion but it's not your decision. As for wikipolicy, it seems your making it up as you go along. Perhaps you should try actually reading the policy first? Electoralist (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my opinion. It's the policy of this site, which I have studied in depth and memorized (to the best of my ability) before I started posting here. If you don't agree with it (and you obviously don't), take it up with the admins, not me.

And do not condescend to me on my own talk page, thanks. One thing I do know for certain is that I am at liberty to remove your comments from my page, if I choose to do so. Tread lightly.ChronoFrog (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given your continued inability to either cite actual policy to support your policy claims or cite sources for your factual claims, I am dubious. Electoralist (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need me to source? Tell me and I will provide it, when I get off from work that is.ChronoFrog (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) I asked you for sources several times in the discussion and the best you were able to come up with is basically saying "I'm Jewish" or "sources, I don't need no stinkin' sources" (paraphrasing). Electoralist (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop being recalcitrant and just tell me what you want me to source? I was under the impression that everything I wrote was self-evident, but if you want citations, I'll be more than happy to provide.ChronoFrog (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread on Template:Ethnic slurs

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Review of RfC on the classification of Jews on Template talk:Ethnic slurs". Thank you. Deryck C. 14:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jews

Your edit on the Jews article has been reverted by three editors now. I hope you understand that means that there is something wrong with your edit, objectively. In any case, restoring it twice now already is behavior that comes close to edit warring, and I want to urge you to stay clear of that path. Debresser (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Withdraw RFC as poorly worded". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 October 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Withdraw RFC as poorly worded, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)