User talk:LesVegas/Archives/2015/October

Please comment on Talk:Edward J. Ruppelt

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Edward J. Ruppelt. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture

I think I remember warning you about doing a mass revert on the acupuncture article. I realize you made a revert and then added back the parts that had been discussed and achieved consensus, but at this point the article has been stable enough with QG's edits that it's you who is fighting against the WP:STATUSQUO. I suggest that you might be going about this backwards. Instead of making a huge revert and trying to restore all the good little changes, why don't you do a series of partial reverts, supported by edit summaries, of the parts that you see as being problematic. I realize that this should have been done the other way around, and that QG's massive changes should have been supported by edit summaries, but what's done is done and you have to work with it. Also, you should probably wait a day, since your RR count is getting up there. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your archiving

I saw a post from Adjwilley on your page yesterday, and was a little disconcerted to see it had already been archived when I went to re-read it. Your archive settings (archive after 15 hours) seem overly aggressive to me. Did you perhaps mean to set it to 15 days? Bishonen | talk 10:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC).

Whoops! Thanks Bishonen Yeah I meant to try it at 15 days, but actually I like 30 better, I think. Thanks for making me aware. I'm going to try to change that setting but these bots are way smarter than me. If my efforts don't work, would you mind helping me get it right? A talk page is no use to anyone if everything is archived that quick. LesVegas (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, now you've set it to archiving every 30 hours… See ClueBot III's instructions here: apparently you have to set the "age" parameter to the number of hours. There's probably some way of doing it by date — hours seems too silly, for normal talkpage archiving — but I'm no good with this stuff. As you say, the bot is always smarter. But why not try changing the age (=hour) parameter to 720 (i. e. 30 x 24). That ought to get it to archive once a month. I hope you'll see this post before it's archived! ;-) Bishonen | talk 14:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC).

Ah, duh, I'm a fool...720 hours it is! Thanks Bishonen!LesVegas (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Establishments

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Establishments. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Conversation

Following up from here. We probably should have had this conversation a few months ago, but you were on break and I didn't push it. Since then you were blocked by User:Drmies for the tag-bomb war...I was out of town for that, but if I hadn't been I probably would have hit you with a WP:1RR restriction. Anyway, something's got to change. The main problems I have with your behavior are:

1. You seem to like the revert button a lot, and that almost seems to be your default mode of dispute resolution (revert and make your arguments in the edit summary).
2. You profess to have an open mind and edit from a neutral point of view, but the content of your edits (especially reverts) doesn't seem to reflect that.
3. You seem to have made a habit of WP:ADMINSHOP, repeatedly seeking out admins on their talk pages and trying to get them to do stuff for you.

Number 3, I think, has been cleared up, and I don't think needs further discussion than what was said on my talk page. Number 1 is my first priority, and what I would most like to resolve in this conversation. So my question is: can you propose any solutions? I sometimes suggest that users follow a self-imposed 1RR. (It would be unofficial, on your honor, with nobody reporting you to WP:AN3 if you mess up.) Does that sound like something you'd be interested in, or do you have other suggestions? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out to me to have a convo, Adj . I really like being able to clear the air about matters, plus I just like the attention. As for:

1. I do hit the revert button more than I used to, but I would argue I use the talk page twentyfold more. Long ago, I pretty much limited myself to one revert but I would say I have done it a little more recently for two reasons: 1) folks removing a POV tag when it says not to remove it until disputes have been resolved..really no respect for the process whatsoever, and 2) frustration that others aren't using talk pages, or are using them with minimal effort in the lower rungs of Graham's hierarchy, and are lazily reverting themselves. When I made a good faith effort to discuss issues on talk and others do not, and simply revert, what else would you suggest I do?
2. I would define a neutral point of view as 1) neutrally representing what a source says, and 2) giving neutral weight to the right reliable sources. Having received regular acupuncture treatments as well as having lived all over the world, I have perhaps a different perspective than other editors who believe acupuncture is a dangerous scam and mere placebo. I do not think that believing in acupuncture makes me a non-neutral editor any more than Guy or Kww thinking it's a scam makes them non-neutral. What it comes down to for me are those two things: how do you represent sources, and what sources do you represent? When editors think it's better to over-represent systemic reviews by avowed skeptics and give equal airtime to systemic reviews from good journals with positive findings, or underrepresent consensus statements by the NHS, NIH, and WHO, I have a problem with that. When editors think it's appropriate to characterize acupuncture in ways inconsistent with what some of our best sources say, I have a real problem with that.
3. As you said, everything has already been said about point 3. I won't be going to your page about behavioral issues again. I only did it in the case of QG because you knew his patterns and imposed the restriction in the first place. At ANI or AE, admins likely wouldn't see how QG was gaming if they didn't have a complete understanding of his behavioral history like you. With that in mind, what would you suggest I do in the future, should another situation like that arise?

My points said, I will concede that if I were to start over again with editing the acupuncture article, I would do things quite differently. When I discovered the acupuncture article, I hadn't had much Wikipedia experience and noticing how non-neutral it was, and I POV tagged it and didn't know yet I was supposed to explain myself on the talk page, so it was reverted, I tagged it again, this time explaining myself, and drama ensued. I saw dirty tricks, gaming, tag-teaming behavior, harassment and all of that pissed me off. I'm not one to run away from a fight so I decided to fight back by pushing sources they would find abhorrent. This definitely caused more drama and lockdown. Yet nothing I suggested clearly violated our policies in any way. If you have any specific examples to the contrary, please let me know and I am more than willing to discuss them. That said, what I would do differently now would be to suggest the article is more reflective of the statements put out by our highest quality scientific and governing bodies, mainly Cochrane, NHS, NIH and others and less reflective of reviews which go both ways and tend to cause battleground behavior (a review showing acupuncture is good for IBS is argued and edit warred and eventually sticks on the article, but a negative review for IBS is also added to make it "neutral"). This is a waste of everyone's time and the ultimate result is that the article rambling and incoherent. Much better would be to highlight what acupuncture has proven effects for according to Cochrane, things like migraines or lumbar pain and then with everything else, like allergies or IBS, the article should be more reflective of Cochrane's statement that "there is not enough evidence to suggest it's effective for those conditions." And instead of highlighting systematic reviews to highlight both the positive and negative reviews on acupuncture for, say, allergies, we eliminate both, or relegate them to a spin-off article called "Acupuncture efficacy" or something like that. And that way the main article is more readable, clear, more full of history (which is my area of expertise anyway), and less of a battleground overall. And if editors have a problem with what Cochrane, the NHS, the NIH and others like that say, then they have the real neutrality issues.

As for a 1RR self-imposed honor system restriction, I have no problem with doing that whatsoever. Since I'm willing to agree to that, one thing I would like to mention is that Guy reverts constantly. I have seen him break the 3RR a couple of times at least with impunity. There are also some others who revert a lot too and I think it would be a good gesture if everyone else agreed to a self-imposed restriction like I am. Do you think that is a possibility? We should be using talk pages and trying to reach compromises instead and hopefully that will be the case going forward. LesVegas (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I appreciate a lot of what you're saying, and I think you have some good ideas. Also, I am watching the other editors you mentioned as well, but as things stand I probably won't be asking anybody else for a voluntary 1RR right now. (Guy's behavior is currently under scrutiny at Arbcom, and whatever the result there I expect he will be more careful with reverts in general...if not, I'll have a chat with him as well.) There's not a great response to your question about how best to deal with tendentious editors. If the behavior is egregious a post at AN/I or AE can be helpful, but if it's borderline behavior you kind of have to live with it. Try to understand the opposing point of view, and look for creative compromises. If you focus your editing on stuff that everybody can agree on (history?) you might just end up with a good article despite disagreements over stuff like efficacy. ~Awilley (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)