User talk:Elaqueate/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Desiree Cousteau

I thank you for your civility, even though we disagree. Let me say that up front.

And obviously, I agree with everyone that BLP is highly important — look at my history of editing, and you'll see countless instances of my removing uncited claims about celebrities' and others' personal lives.

So given our general agreement about BLP, I ask you do me the courtesy of following my simple argument here with an open mind. I wish to demonstrate that I am not going against BLP.

The policy refers to contentious, defamatory claims. Having the article give an "other" name cited by a major reliable source is not contentious or defamatory.

Can agree that someone's reliably cited name in and other itself is not contentious or defamatory?

So the next part is: The name is cited to a reliably sourced, national report of public information about a public figure. It involves a misdemeanor arrest that factually happened. It's not even mentioned in the article itself. So what is the contentious / defamatory content? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, Tenebrae. Here's some things to consider.

Can we agree that someone's reliably cited name in and other itself is not contentious or defamatory?

Actually no, since this isn't true in all cases, I can't agree that a name in and other itself is somehow immune from concern. Including a name can be contentious, even in cases with more than one reliable source. "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" I can think of multiple theoretical scenarios where a name wouldn't find consensus for inclusion despite easy sourcing (children's names, victims of crime, a nickname that was considered defamatory and non-notable, basically any situation where there was a consensus that potential harm to a BLP outweighed the perceived value of the content to the encyclopedia).

The name is cited to a reliably sourced, national report...

One story is not enough to cite contentious and challenged material in a BLP where there are presumption of privacy issues. That's policy for the famous and unfamous. We have exactly one story. (I know it ran word-for-word in at least one other paper, but we only have a single written and produced report.) That's not clear evidence that we even have a correct spelling, let alone that it was a significant name for the subject. There seems to be exactly zero evidence that this story was ever corroborated by any other reliable source ever, let alone the subject or possible agents of hers. Stage names in this industry are most generally taken to conceal identities; if we have to choose between presuming she was intentionally protecting her privacy by concealing her identity over decades, or that she had no problem with it, then BLP indicates presuming a desire for privacy. That's the presumption that risks the least harm. Presuming no desire for privacy only from a single report that showed no voluntary cooperation with the subject can be considered contentious. BLP requires multiple reliable sources to back up contentious claims, even in the cases of celebrities. I think we only have a possible one, here.

It doesn't actually matter if the material is negative or positive. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. and please note that here I'm not even talking about the incident of the unconvicted charge, but the allegation that this is her name, We have a single written account, If people think there's even a chance that adding a potentially real name might cause harm to a BLP, then BLP requires us to at least have multiple sources independent of each other. (And even then, there could be a consensus not to include it.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate you taking my points seriously and responding to them thoughtfully and at a reasonable and not-dismissive length. You're editing in good will and your intentions are honorable, albeit, I believe, misguided.

I say this because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics of journalism — an extreme view that basically challenges some enormous percentage of the cited sources in Wikipedia for no valid reason. You know, of course, that pre-Internet print publications are spotty online; Google bringing old newspaper on is a researcher's godsend, or at least those researchers who don't get expensive subscription databases at work. So while this was one story, this was one story syndicated nationally and probably internationally: AP stories, especially involving celebrities don't just appear in one or two newspapers. It likely appeared the very low hundreds. That's just a fact of the syndicate's (a nonprofit consortium of paper that contribute) economics.

But let's say by some statistically improbably fluke it only appeared in the two 1981 newspapers that happen to be online. The number of places in which it appears in has no bearing whatsoever: It was distributed at the very least nationwide, by editors and writers stake their reputations and livelihoods on their work. And that's not particularly difficult work with basic crime-beat reporting. Here's how it generally works: The assigned reporter(s) show(s) up daily or nightly at the police station or local prosecutor's office where public-information arrest reports are available. Police take IDs from people arrested, photocopying them as evidence. The reporter can't see the evidence files, but 99 times out of a hundred, any literate police officer copies correctly the typed or printed name from an ID. For anyone to suggest, "Oh, maybe they got the name wrong" is to suggest that the vast majority of police and journalists are idiots. Getting a name wrong can have a negative effect on a case. They're careful. And it's a reporter's job to be equally careful. And writing down names isn't rocket science. You know, I'm not an astronautical engineer or a corporate CPA, but if an astronautical engineer says a spacecraft's parts are called this-and-that, or a CPA tells me she's reporting numbers to the SEC for public consumption, then it's reasonable to trust their professional accuracy, skill and integrity and cite their statements as factual. Someone may not like what a reporter reports, but to claim for no realistic reason that it's incorrect is unreasonable. It's similar to right-wing politicians claiming that scientific reports they don't like might be wrong. Yes, anything might be wrong, and a bus might come through my living room. But that's not a reasonable stance.

In any event, Wikipedia's standard is WP:VERIFY, which an Associated Press report reaches. Only someone who has no idea how journalism works, or someone with their own, even well-meaning agenda, would say it does not reach the WP:V standard.

And I respectfully disagree that "Deborah Jane Doe" is contentious or defamatory. No one's falsely claiming her name is "Stinkybreath." We're stating a verified neutral fact — "truth" not being the Wikipedia standard nor philosophically achievable — that "Here is an 'other' name this person verifiably, confirmably used."

I've gone on too long — forgive me; I didn't mean to — but I can't give a four-year-degree study in journalism here, and if one doesn't have that one shouldn't presume to comment on the reliability of the press. This is one of those Wikipedia cases you frequently read about where armchair historians believe their pet theories trump the edits of an actual historian. All it takes is two editors without proper background and training but who believe the same thing. And the end result is a stifling of intellectual freedom, a censoring of factual information, a whitewashing of history and, remarkably, as I saw in the RfC discussion, a maddeningly ignorant attack on the professionalism of the press at journalism's most basic level — reporting publicly available information. It's publicly available for a reason, but I'll never be able to convey how important that reason is. You're probably thinking I'm being corny and melodramatic. And if so, you'll never be able to see how sacred that reason is.

Again, my apology for going on so much. My doctor is the same way about TV medical shows, and my attorney just laughs at screen depictions of lawyers. What some people at the RfC discussion stated about journalism makes me more depressed than angry. In this admittedly very small instance, a great disservice to the world of knowledge has been done. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with my understanding of journalism here. I understand how wire service reporting works and I never implied the AP story only ran in two papers total. That's immaterial to the point that I was making. It's the same report from a single ultimate source running in multiple markets. Wikipedia BLP policy requires more than one sourced report. This is not an indictment of journalism. This is a policy of getting more than one report for certain claims about living people. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. and If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. A single-sourced report is impossible to corroborate, and corroboration between multiple independent sources is required on Wikipedia for certain claims about living people. You may or may not like or understand the policy, but it's not somehow anti-journalistic to ask that a certain type of claim in an encyclopedia be sourced to more than one report.

For anyone to suggest, "Oh, maybe they got the name wrong" is to suggest that the vast majority of police and journalists are idiots. Did you write this with a straight face? Suggesting the bare possibility that a single isolated AP story might have been one of the 99 times out of a hundred that a name was misspelled (from the original report, the reporter, or the person who transcribed the story) isn't calling all journalists' intelligence into question. I don't doubt that everyone involved has a motivation to be careful and a maintain a professional practice to reduce the chance of error. But occasional errors are a basic fact of daily working journalism, no matter how careful the reporters are, otherwise there'd never be a corrections section in every reputable newspaper ever. Implying that all names are spelled correctly in an individual AP story and that it should be treated as if infallible when there is no second source to check it against? That's bizarre and not what a reasonable person would expect a working journalist to say. We're not talking about denying hundreds of climate change reports; we're talking about a single article. It's the opposite of unreasonable to be skeptical about a claim only made in a single article in 1981. If you feel that the reputation of the profession of journalism has been unfairly impugned by a suggestion that not all of the names in a newspaper story are always spelled correctly every time, then the problem isn't with other editors.

You have provided no other source that verifies this name was ever used anytime or anywhere else. You should understand this is a problem, and it doesn't matter how incredibly rare you think it might be for AP to make a mistake or report someone else's mistake, or how you personally think all police booking procedures work throughout the U.S.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not the one misunderstanding. A name is not an exceptional claim. Saying she was the #1 star of the year or that she holds a record in the hundred-yard dash is an exceptional claim.

Using the word "infallibility" suggests a standard no one in the world can achieve. That's a misunderstanding of WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia doesn't say: "This is truth." It says, "This is the historical record, and here's the reliable source. Judge for yourself."

I could say more, but there's no point. A sad fact of Wikipedia — and I'm speaking in general, not about any one person — are all the armchair historians with no training or perspective outside of Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Using the word "infallibility" suggests a standard... Yes, we agree. Journalists are obviously not infallible. Did anyone say they were or should be? I never suggested infallibility should ever be a standard for anything, only that multiple reliable sources be used for some claims in a BLP.

Do you know why names are usually not exceptional claims? It's because they're usually verifiable by being widely reported. And a claim to know a person's name becomes an exception when it's the only reported instance in history and matches no other source. If it's a part of the person's life that's significant for Wikipedia, it wiIl usually be reported more than once. Corroboration is a good practice, and not just for journalists.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates RfC

Hi,

You questioned whether my RfC was tendentious. Perhaps you see the RfC, which I started based on an admin's suggestion, was speedily closed, which is a good example of the problems with this debate. Just some facts you might be interested in: 1. My first RfC was deleted and I was reported to the obvious vandalism board after I deleted the closer's warning about it from my talk page. That was 2. One edit had 2 to 1 in support, with 1 ambiguous. The 1 then reverted the edit 3 times and reported me to the 3RR board. 3. The next edit had 3 to 3 support/oppose. The same editor discussed reverting to the last noncontroversial page, but then suddenly reported me to ANI, which you apparently know about.

So debate is actually me trying to have a debate and others just trying to shut it down, likely due to OWNERSHIP issues. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Tedious, not tendentious. I said it looked tedious.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of "falsifying" something. The RfC was not listed on the current RfCs page, I assume because opposing editors closed it then reopened it without the RfC tag. I was just trying to get it listed on the main RfC page. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You changed the timestamp on one of your comments to a false time, please don't do that for any reason. RfCs can take up to 24 hours to be listed; it's already been added to the Biography and Media lists. Changing the time on one of your comments does not speed up anything. It specifically has nothing technically to do with getting the RfC picked up on the RfC page. It only confuses the chronology and apparent order of comments. I hope it's something you never try to do it again.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Well the ones who improperly closed then reopened the RfC should have fixed it, so I didn't need to try figuring it out. Maybe you should speak to them. Useitorloseit (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I fixed what you made inaccurate. There's nothing for me to fix at this point about anything anyone else did. It's not your fault you did something wrong, but you can take comfort that everything's correct now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, it wasn't my fault. Useitorloseit (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No more than others who make good faith mistakes. Don't spend too much time worrying about things that were easily fixed. But a falsified timestamp is one of the few times someone can revert you like that, so you know for the future.__ E L A Q U E A T E 06:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks at Jefferson Davis

Thank you for your recent edit at Jefferson Davis reasserting the historical Confederacy 1861-1865.

Beyond efforts to assert the Confederacy still exists, along with a political agenda to secede individuals, counties and states in the modern era, neo-confederates also repeatedly try at Wikipedia Civil War articles to remove the First National Flag of the Confederacy and replace it with their modern banner, the Third National Flag, or the Blood Stained Banner (BSB).

David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the “Bood stained banner” was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB.

In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the First National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

How about this

You stop stalking my edits and dropping passive-aggressive diffs alleging past-wiki-crimes. Leave me alone. Striking this. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this a bit cheeky to use as an example? Another example comes from categories, where Category:Men_by_occupation has 23 subcategories, while Category:Women by occupation has 104. The reasons for this are varied, and equality would not be expected due to our rules around such categories, but it is nonetheless a strong difference in coverage that probably does not reflect the current state of scholarship that looks at the intersection of men, women, and work. Most of those subcats are distinguished, which means having more of them is not an indication of bias against men, but the opposite. There are many more instances of a need for a special category like Category:Female football managers because the main category is overwhelmingly populated by male examples. The only way this particular example would achieve parity away from having more women-by-occupation subcats than men-by-occupation subcats is if Wikipedia covered more predominantly women-populated categories. The 23-104 split is caused by less frequent subcats for (or low article populations in) women-dominated occupations, resulting in less instances of Category:Male nurses. Even in occupations where employment is reaching parity in the modern age, the population of women notable enough for an article is less frequent as well. The "by occupation" subcats generally grow in inverse proportion with the amount of Wikipedia coverage (less coverage somehow overall, more mathematical chance of a special distinguished subcat), setting aside paired examples like actors/actresses, of course. I think you know all of this, ultimately.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we have things like Category:Male novelists, for example, so it doesn't have to be "only when there is a minority in field X, create a sub cat for that (whatever)" Anyway, I'm dropping that issue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledged that. I was talking about how it generally shakes down with the chunk of subcats that remain after ...setting aside paired examples like actors/actresses... but don't worry about it at this point. Good luck. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if I was nasty above, I was under stress and lashed out unfairly. I apologize.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hope you are well in your life. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Canadian poets

The category also already contains subcats for Category:19th-century Canadian poets, Category:20th-century Canadian poets and Category:21st-century Canadian poets, so it's completely diffusable on those grounds. I regularly recat a bunch when I have the time, but there are too many demands on my time (both onwiki and offline) for me to be able to comprehensively recat all of the 362 articles that are still in the parent in just one sitting — but at any rate, we don't require all the diffusion work to already have been done; rather, we merely require the category to be diffusable.

Also, I didn't create the subcategory for women poets — it was created by User:Gareth E Kegg in 2012, alongside 41 other countries that also have their own dedicated subcategories of Category:Women poets by nationality (and thus singling the Canadian one out as some sort of unique issue wouldn't really be accurate.) The only thing I've ever actually done to the category at all, apart from contributing to its population, was to remove a BLP that somebody incorrectly posted directly onto the category page. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Bearcat. I should say I certainly don't think you're responsible for all of it. There's nothing wrong with there being a subcat, and there's nothing wrong with diffusing into the century subcats, but there certainly is something wrong if only women (or all of the women first) were shifted out of the parent cat. Right now Category:Canadian poets and Category:Canadian women poets look like the worst case scenario from the category-gate thing. That's how it will look to anyone researching Canadian poets. I understand how it's "theoretically" diffusable, but the problem is it was only done to women across the board.

This diff is fine, but not if it's done en masse by editors to women alone, leaving a parent section filled with men. I don't think this sort of thing should have been a replacement, but an addition of the subcat. And I absolutely don't think there's any good faith problems here, but if the goal was for everybody to ultimately be sent to century subcats, why was it only done to all of the women? There was (is?) a broad systemic problem of people tucking the women in a subcat and removing them from a parent cat and not doing that to the men. At that point it doesn't matter that it theoretically could have been done to the men as well, right? The point is it wasn't. I can help fix it but I feel like if you're saying that the "requirements" were all met and we still end up with a worst case scenario, then something's wrong with the requirements or their interpretation. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It would certainly help greatly if you or someone else were willing to assist in getting the men properly diffused into the century categories. But I just can't do 362 articles all by myself in one sitting, especially when it's a complex job that can't be easily automated into a quick-click AWB batch. I get that the current situation may not be ideal even if it is just temporary, but if just killing the women subcategory entirely isn't appropriate, and getting the entire parent category properly diffused in one sitting is an unrealistic expectation to place entirely on one individual, then what exactly do you propose as a functional alternative? Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I would never make claims on your personal labor. I'm just seeing that it's not enough to tell people they can strip out the women (or others) as long it's theoretically possible that a class of people won't be left behind to dominate the main cat. Not if it leads to the exact situation whether there's guidance or not. The answer to what should be done now is probably, editors going through the lists recategorizing and adding non-diffusing templates to the specific women's cats. That's just grunt work, and "fixing a big thing that just happened over time" in manageable and fun little work-pieces. I can probably work on it over weeks myself or with others. It's not a specific responsibility, just a Wikipedia-wide one. And you're right that it's across many nationalities. The Israel-women poets looks like it's not bad, with a co-ed parent section and women's subcat. Others are as bad as the Canadian one.

I don't know how to prevent it in the future. I can try using powerful and useless hindsight. The problem wasn't with the tagging of an article with the Women-specific sub cat, it was specifically with individual decisions to remove the parent cat at the same time without diffusing, and without doing it to articles involving men. I think it is a systemic problem, of the "it's easy to move women first and I'll get around to doing everyone else never" type. But it's a systemic problem that leads to predictable cringes and predictable outcomes.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

EQ is correct this needs to be fixed, Bearcat you should never remove a woman from a neutral category to place her In gendered one - better to keep the neutral parent even if it's not the best destination. Ideally all the poets should be cleaned out of the main cat and put into the by-century equivalents. Pinging @Johnpacklambert: and @Xezbeth: in case they want to help deghettoize this part of the tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, I have been working on trying to fix categorizing problems at Category:American poets. That is a lot more messy, because it seems people want to diffuse it by both state and century. I have reservations about state being a good idea. Too many modern poets are academics who have spent their careers at 4 universities in as many states for this to seem a logical way to link things in my mind. There is still work there, but I have found the worst offenders seem to be in articles on poets who are both women and African-American, that used to be in an African-American women poets cat, and when that was upmerge to its parents no one checked to see that articles in the parent were also in a race and gender neutral cat. In fact, my general guess is that at present Category:African-American poets is a worse case of not putting people in an ERGS neutral parent than Category:Women poets. In general my experience is that race categories are more fully separated than are gender ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

yeah that's true - the ethnicity cats are generally more likely to be ghettoized when I find them. If you have a chance when you're done with American to fix canada (only 300 or so articles) that would be nice. As for states for American poets, yeah it's not ideal, maybe put the state tree up for deletion?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:FILIBUSTER

You seem unclear on the meaning of filibuster (see also wikt:filibuster, and more importantly WP:FILBUSTER WP:FILIBUSTER for its pertinent application at WP). Filibustering is the use of never-ending argument to prevent a process from continuing. "Your response was longer than mine" or "you responded to arguments I might have ignored" is not filibustering, it's just your personal preference. My intent was quite the opposite: Speeding up the process of everyone realizing the ANI filing was frivolous noise and closing it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"Wanting to accelerate to a close" seems indistinguishable from "just wanting something to stop". 8kb responses can be seen as a way to obstruct further conversation. Maybe WP:CHUNK would have been a better allusion to the principle, but even that might only invite a gargantuan and defensive response where there's no need for it here. My good faith advice to you stands: no matter how right you think you are, giving any appearance of avoiding discussion over page moves will probably lead to more drama, regardless of how legal you perceive it to be, and I say that as someone with no beef of any kind with you. Good luck in your future editing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll actively solicit more of your input on this. I understand what you mean, "wikipolitically", about appearances and people's assumptions likely being a source of future drama, but my approach to moves has actually changed each time a group of objections has been raised, yet for some it is never enough, because it seems to have become a personal matter instead of focusing on what's best for the encyclopedia. I'm not interested in getting into and WP:WINNING admin noticeboard disputes. You can check how many I've ever filed, how rarely I ever comment in them (or at WP:RFA, or in WP:RFC/Us, or any other editors-as-personal-targets forums). I suppose I am interested a little, procedurally and wiki-culturally, in seeing policies and behavior guidelines applied and enforced fairly, so if I have to keep defending at noticeboards my actually effective and good-faith work (I could list some bullet points of all the pro-WP:ENC/WP:5P results of my recent work in spite of all the drama raised by my detractors, but that would add more length and might just seem defensive), before enough people notice that I'm being scapegoated, by a recurrent faction, who are generating more heat than light as the recent ANI close stated, then I'm not sure what to do about that. No one ever seems to have any answer to this, other than "go away", i.e. stop working on any topic with the same people, stop using features of the system that someone else questions your use of, leave the entire project for a while, or some other variant of "give in to organized bullying and flee". What really are the alternatives? Keeping in mind that some of these people have posted very personally attacking things about me and seem unwilling to collaborate except superficially, so a "Hey, how can we collaborate better?" note on their talk page may not be effective (though I'll be trying that route again with some of them).

Just because I'll defend myself against false accusations of wrongdoing doesn't mean I won't learn anything from what seems to be motivating the complaints, whether I agree or not. Obviously yet another "punish SMcCandlish for daring to even suggest a move I don't like!" ANI fandango would waste far more time (others' as well as mine) than to use the slower of the two RM processes for everything, no matter how trivial. I firmly predict, however, that I'll be accused of engaging in WP:POINT behavior for doing so; it'll be another convenient Catch 22 for those with axes to grind to try to exploit.

Re: WP:CHUNK, I know I'm a bit wordy, but not everyone agrees with that "essay"; it's too frequently just cited to cast aspersions on, and ignore without even skimming the post of, someone who can and does provide rational reasons for a position they've taken, in response to an flippant, assumptive, or emotion-based one with no clear rationale. Almost all of WP is text; we can all handle arguments longer than two lines. Heh.

Re: WP:FILIBUSTER: What I mean is that producing a well-reasoned argument intended to "stop" a dispute by expediently formally resolving it, is the diametric opposite of using "noise" arguments to "stop", i.e., mire and prolong a proceeding and prevent its closure. Those are two completely different senses of the word "stop" that here have opposing meanings in the context. The latter is filibustering, the former is expediency (which, admittedly, is not always a goal, I just consider to usually be one when WP:DRAMA is involved. >;-) Maybe it's just a temperament thing: I don't like pseudo-legalistic proceduralism, generally and have no patience for blatantly anti-collegial "just file a wikilawsuit about it, and you'll probably win because you're more popular" behavior intended to punish me, ironically, for alleged anti-collegial behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a degree in physics?

You claim that it is controversial to assert what the virtual particles in a vacuum do. Do you have any sources to back this up? Do you have a degree in physics?

jps (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If we're describing a dispute between highly credentialed physicists, then your claim It's actually a fact that there is no such thing as a quantum virtual plasma. can not be described as a settled and uncontested matter amongst physicists. We're directly describing how it's contested! For contested claims, we attribute the claim to those physicists who said it. Reminding you of this is not the same as claiming personal knowledge about the mechanics of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be missing something. The people who are advocating for EmDrive stuff are not "highly-credentialed physicists". They are engineers. There's a huge difference. The quantum mechanics of the vacuum is a standard subject in undergraduate physics. The virtual particles it contains simply do not behave as a plasma. It's as simple as that. You can even use Wikipedia pages to research the textbook points. WP:REDFLAG is important here. We cannot simply declare something a "controversy" just because some engineer on a NASA grant claims there is a controversy.jps (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Harold G. White is a physicist and not the only one. I wouldn't call John Baez just a mathematician. And engineer is not a pejorative. (The applied vs theoretical debate is especially pointless here as, by the same token, some want to give credence to purely theoretical physicists implying a NASA scientist doesn't understand the concept of an experimental control.) The NASA team are not garage mechanics. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. The question is a simple one: What are the physical characteristics of the vacuum energy? The answer to this is unequivocally includes the point that it does not behave as a plasma. Harold G. White has not demonstrated otherwise in any paper that I've read. Can you point to a source where he shows that the vacuum energy behaves as a plasma? jps (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

EmDrive

As far as I understand, and correct if I'm wrong, there are two major points of view on EmDrive. One, it is contradicting the law of conservation of momentum and thus it cannot work, with positive results are being seen as erroneous. Two, it is contradicting the law of conservation of momentum, but yet it somehow works. From this perceptive the thrust NASA researchers saw can be seen as "anomalous".

Yet, according to the FAQ on emdrive.com question number 4: "The law of conservation of momentum is the basis of Newtons laws and therefore applies to the EmDrive. It is satisfied both theoretically and experimentally."

It seems that the articles like http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive and NASA press releases suggest 2nd position. But, I doubt that it is only the EmDrive staff that see it via position 3. I think there might be more scientists who agree that EmDrive is not contradicting the law of conservation of momentum. I think this point has to be researched more and introduced better on the article. Dmatteng (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Anything that occurred in the experiment can't contradict the law of conservation of momentum, in theory or practice. If anything theoretical or physical relies on a lack of conservation of momentum, it simply won't work. All the theories seem to be based on the idea that momentum could possibly be transferred to virtual particles, not that momentum is not transferred. All the headlines about"breaking" the laws are simply bogus hyperbole. It's unclear whether the anomalous thrust found in tests prove or disprove a particular hypothesis, but framing the dispute as wild-eyed loons throwing darts at pictures of Newton and laughing is not helpful here. It's a testable hypothesis scheduled to be tested in reputable labs. The criticism should be included (and put in context when it was based on insufficient information, i.e. just an abstract) and the claims, actions, motivations etc. of NASA should be presented without weird assumptions or ham-handed attempts to discredit them as amateur fraudsters. At that point it's not science, it's just pop science-drama. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you and support. I also written that I think Cannae Drive should be removed/moved elsewhere and it would be beneficial if the article would be rewritten from a neutral point of view. The focus of the article should be EmDrive and the rest of the information should be introduced in relation to it. Dmatteng (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thank you for the immense patience you showed User:98.196.234.202. This user has been found to be a returning sock puppet and a long term abuse case and has been blocked. Since it is likely this person will return in another form if you see similar patterns on other articles let me know and I will look into it. Chillum 14:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please have a read of WP:MEDMOS

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Mol

Sorry - but you know about 3RR, right? I'd hate to see you both end up blocked. I'm going to warn him now formally but you know about it I presume. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm as frustrated as you are, this can't go on. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I stopped when he made his second undiscussed revert, don't worry, he made it clear enough at that point. I appreciate both the spirit of your diplomacy and the essence of your reminder.

Beyond that, the "quote" he was asking me to save was within the citation reference, not the article text. He was basically and impossibly asking me to save the citation without the article content! I'm not frustrated, but the simple fact is he's announced a grand plan to insert self-described conspiracy theories. Fringe theories require multiple sources whether they're english or polish per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. But if no one else helps to revert it, I won't do it alone. It will just be wrong for a while. I appreciate your message, though!__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think he broke 3RR but too tired to check. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no deadline. You should sleep when tired. I don't think it'll matter if it's junk-filled short-term, but it is junk-filled, and more than I have keystrokes to describe in full. As long as he's not adding clearly BLP stuff I won't edit any of it today.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Umm, Dougweller, he's started adding stuff about a presumably living person "allegedly" committing criminal acts, sourced to a non-english text. If you're still there, I'll defer to you, but if you're not I should bring it to the BLP noticeboard at least right?__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now, as it has a fig leaf "allegedly".__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Now there's questionable sources. I'll put a note on the noticeboard and someone can make their own judgement.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look later. Actually 3RR is one thing that does have a deadline. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Espianoage act

I would say that people only need to be in the most specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, JPL... I think you're right. Some historical people were charged without conviction, do you think they should stay in the more general category?__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Bathroom" is a euphemism

Intrigued by your certainty that "bathroom" isn't a euphemism. I'm guessing you're American. (Apologies if I'm wrong.) To we Australians, and I suspect most Brits, when Americans say "I'm going to the bathroom", it's really a euphemism for "I'm going to the toilet". It's what they usually mean. They're certainly not planning to take a bath. Don't worry, I have no intention of Edit warring over it. Just found your Edit summary interesting. HiLo48 (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries, HiLo48, if you look at what was added, it didn't mention anything about "going to"; the edit just said "the bathroom" which is the formal name some people on this planet happen to give it. (On another note, "going to the bathroom" is not a euphemism for "going to the toilet"; they are both often used as euphemisms for "shitting" or "pissing". In context, if we're not privy to the specifics of the subjects actions, then it's just a matter of architecture (See what I did with "privy"?). __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That's funny. I just saw Hilo48 at the last place I edited, about word misuse. Then I saw a seemingly unrelated summary, came here and my exact point's been made (including the "no big deal" part). Not stalking! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Danièle Watts

Hi. Thanks for your edit...Here's the stub as I created it here. I do think there should be some mention of her handcuffing, but perhaps it could be even more neutral than what I'd written...Simply something like, "she was handcuffed for refusing to show her ID after being mistaken for someone else"? It has been all over the news globally, so it looks a bit strange to remove it entirely...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

TMZ-style celebrity gossip is global, but that doesn't always make it vital or profoundly important to a BLP. If this is a typical one-off TMZ celebrity story of the day, then it will be forgotten in a week. If the story lasts in a more-serious way, then it should be included at that time. If you have a suggestion, put it on the talk page, find some consensus for a way to make it neutral before it's in article space. Thanks for the message.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add a TMZ link. Then other users added the TMZ link and also trashed her talkpage. There are article in The Guardian, The Independent, Variety. Not tabloid publications at all. The problem is that there is one person trying to delete the page, and another unregistered IP address only editing this page today with that address, adding TMZ links, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Long-term, I'm sure it will be fine. Right now it looks like a single moment purely sensationalized in an undue way that needs some BLP-discussion on the talk page.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't one sentence with a reference from the Guardian be OK? I don't think we'll be able to reach any consensus with people trying to delete the page or constantly adding allegations from TMZ...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest it on the talk page. We'll find some clearer consensus for your suggestion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

Notice posted as you are related to, but not the subject of, the ANI.
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Eric Corbett's behavior. The thread is Personal attacks and incivility by Eric Corbett. Thank you. —EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

My topic ban

Hi. I was just curious where you saw that I have a topic ban? Is there a centralised place where it's listed? Or did you check my talk page? Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V, no problem, I know this probably sounds like a silly answer but I can't remember. I didn't remember it because of your talk page. t think I was participating in a discussion at either the Talk:MOS or RSN or AN/I board and a discussion about you was neighbouring somehow. I know it wasn't a discussion I was actually in because I mostly stay away from the sports articles, but I remember reading it when it happened. I think I only really remembered because you have a great user name and it was for such a super-specific topic. When you popped up with a metric-specific question, it twigged. It doesn't look like you're making the same kind of edits, and maybe I was overcautious, but it seemed like too close a metric/sports question to not actually mention. I'm very happy you weren't asking about that exact subject and that I was more wrong than right in my concern. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine. You just got me wondering about where people check the wording of bans.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V, Oh, once I remembered I just looked at the TOC of your talk page and the wording was right there. I don't know where I would have went if I didn't see it right away. I don't think the topic bans are consistently documented. It seems like something they could template, but it's pretty loosey-goosey.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I could have sworn there was a centralised list of current bans somewhere. I just can't for the life of me remember where I saw it now, though. Thanks anyway.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I knew I wasn't imagining it! Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

LQ

Elaqueate, I just looked at my talk page and saw I hadn't responded to your post there. I'm so sorry for the delay – I meant to respond the next day, then forgot. I agree that Wikipedians use different definitions of LQ, which is one of the reasons I wish we would let people use the alternative. But there's a limit to how long I can spend discussing it. I tend to go to MoS occasionally, squeal a little about it, then run away again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on Game of Thrones and chapter-to-episode statements

The RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content? was closed with the result that Westeros.org is reliable but that whether the disputed text was valuable enough to include should be addressed separately. The closing editor recommended that all participants in the RfC and related RSN discussion be informed that such a discussion was under way:

RfC: RfC: Should the article state which chapters appear in the episode?

If any of you wish to make a statement on this matter, you are welcome to do so and your contribution would be greatly appreciated. If any of you would prefer to stay away from this dispute, I think we can all get that too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:BLPNAME

Based on this [1] previous discussion, could you please take a look at this [2]? For more insight, this [3] discussion has also been taking place. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Followup

Following up on the RSN, input would be appreciated on the talk page Talk:Rafah_massacre#RSN_on_Sacco.27s_book. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Vani Hari - Air travel

I appreciate you consider the now-removed article to be WP:OR, but a Google search has lots of references to the now-removed article. The article was online for up to two years. There are numerous Pintrest mentions of this for example. If we tell Google to exclude results before 2014 then we see a lot of direct links to the article.

I'm in a quandary about this; I found the article via Facebook and was easily able to retrieve the cached version. In addition, many of the results refer to the cached version.

Whilst a regular contributor to Wiki, I'm not really versed in the official rules and whatnot, so please advise. As it stands, I think my addition of the Air Travel section should be re-instated. I see some "helpful soul" then went and removed sources and re-wrote it in something resembling unclear English.

Anyway, I'll wait to hear back from you before re-adding my original section. I believe there's someplace on Wiki these discussions and disputes can be officially resolved; can you point me there?

Thanks for your time and effort :) Mongoletsi (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's clear the blog post existed at some point. But that's not enough reason by itself to put it in a Wikipedia article. She has lots of blog posts; we're currently mentioning some that are covered by other, and reliable, sources. Reading a random blog post of hers, deciding it's wrong in some way, and adding it to a wikipedia page with your own argument about how it's wrong is what's WP:OR, even when your reasoning may be correct. You haven't shown that any reliable source cares about this blog post and what it said. Somebody talking about it on Pinterest and Facebook doesn't count as significant secondary coverage. Your airline sources don't count because they aren't talking about Vani Hari or the blog post at all; you added them because they support your own argument. (I'll copy this response to the talk page, so other editors have a chance to contribute if they want.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm now getting the hang of this. You're right; my additions are more at home at RationalWiki than here. Wikipedia is supposed be neutral and my additions, whilst in good faith, were driven by my shock/horror at seeing that piece. Mongoletsi (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Arb

We are getting terribly off topic, so I'm bringing it here, out of courtesy. LB has played "the victim" many times. I told you were you can find it, WT:WER archives. It is a behavior. My comment wasn't about her one comment, it was about her behavior all over the entirety of Wikipedia. I know LB all too well, and it is always the same thing. Someone disagrees, they are sexist (no matter what the topic), and she can't get ahead at Wikipedia because of men, etc. I wish this was hyperbole, but you can go see for yourself. Just as I could comment that Eric overreacts and won't back down when it would be wiser if he did, and he instead ramps it up. It isn't a statement on his character, it is an educated observation of their long term behavior. The same here. If you disagree, I respect that, but I'm not persuaded. I feel I've made the observation in good faith. I said exactly zero about the merits of her comments, zero about her motives, zero about her character. Dennis - 2¢ 02:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Elaqueate can be very eloquent! Keep up the good work.

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Kanye West

I can't fight tag-teaming. I do wish you'd answer the questions I've just now posed at the discussion, in as simple and basic terms as I can. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

In the future, if you don't immediately re-insert material that was taken out by an editor on BLP grounds, then you won't have any problems. Please read WP:BLP.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've read BLP. I've been here nearly 10 years and contributed enormously to this encyclopedia. It's not unreasonable to ask for answers to three pertinent questions I've posed at the discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

BLPN

Based on this [4], I have a feeling the questions will keep coming from the same individual in order to keep the "discussion" open. Tedious, indeed. Never-ending, possibly (until someone uninvolved does the necessary thing and closes it). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Enough with the insults. Only people who aren't confident of their positions want to keep reasonable questions from being answered. And I doubt Elaqueate needed a link back to that page, when I've specifically asked him to answer questions on that page.

But why don't you try answering them as well? I suspect because you cannot give reasonable answers to those three questions. BLP doesn't say what you say it means — because if it did, it would say that. Your saying, "Well, everyone knows what it really means is...." is just your interpretation. If the editors who wrote it wanted it to say what you're claiming, then why didn't they write exactly that? Perhaps because someone who understood professional standards of biography was involved.

And, once again, you follow me around Wikipedia. I find that harassing. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cronica Walliae

Have you seen Template:Did you know nominations/Cronica Walliae? Thanks very, very much for your good work on the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I was in the middle of a reply there already, without your notice. It's an interesting text, thanks for bringing it to general attention on the NPOV noticeboard....__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit-conflicted! I re-wrote what I had earlier.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's very interesting. I'm afraid I don't like the writing style and appreciate your efforts to improve it. The "records as historical events" especially grates but I think it's part of the pov. "A comparison to other historical events" is unacceptable and I've tagged the article as NPOV. I don't see the point about the list after the phrase in any case, unless to add veracity to the Madoc story. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a basic misunderstanding of what a Wikipedia article is, and what source to use to describe the subject of an article. I'm hopeful though; it will probably work out, as things do. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Self promotion

Dear Elaqueate, I would appreciate if you quit calling my work on WOT Services self promotion or self-serving and such. I am not connected to that company in any way. Thank you, WeatherFug (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I made no comment about you or "your work" at all. A company-issued press release is self-promotional by definition. You are not the "self" in that description. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

OK point taken, sorry I read it that way. And thank you for your triggering me to do some constructive work. It seems to me the primary sources tag is not really needed. The three two-sentence primary sourced paragraphs in sections History and Rating tool are simply my personal super-short resume of many pages full of information from their site. Written in absolute NPOV, too. I am pretty certain it lies within the scope of what is allowed in descriptions of company information in articles about companies. Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

SPA

Thanks, well said. Your mea culpa is noted and most proper. I will let the others comment and then (hopefully) hat the sub-section. Also, I've commented to Victor about the persistence shown in making arguments. Are you checking my comments, Victor? If so, I hope you accept my words to the wise. – S. Rich (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

All good. And your comment to Victor looks sage. All I had hoped for with my initial comment was that they consider how responding to every point, for five months on a single issue, was making them look. __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Co-editor of Cronica Walliae

Do you want me to add your name to the Cronica Walliae DYK nomination as a co-creator? Then you will receive a DYK for the article also. You don't have to do anything = I'll take care of it all for you.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Now would be a good time to let me know, so I can put you in for credit before it comes out as a DYK. This way you can then add this DYK to your list of DYKs.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Offer withdrawn.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". 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 24 January 2015.

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. 19:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, 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) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A request for Arbitration has been made for America: Imagine a World Without her

The request can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Casprings (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Elaqueate, this is just a courtesy note to let you know that this case has been declined. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)