corpus_id
stringclasses 1
value | conversation_id
stringlengths 10
23
| raw_convo
listlengths 0
10
| speaker_metadata
null |
|---|---|---|---|
conversations-gone-awry
|
137250282.53843.53843
|
[
{
"content": "Misc Issues Hi JimxChue, if you could expand upon your comment regarding the \"questionable sourcing, questionable notability, questionable neutrality\" of this entrys account of the Wolcott/Pipes/LGF contretemps, I'd appreciate it. FWIW, the citations in this section are verbatim and accurate and LGF, Pipes and Wolcott are all major media figures. BTW, \"neutrality\" does not mean that we are supposed to somehow enforce a neutrality pact between LGF, Pipes and Wolcott themselves, but that we ourselves are not supposed to editorialize.",
"role": "Dragula"
},
{
"content": "Hi JinxMcHue, thanks for responding\nTo your comments, please correct me if I'm wrong here but it seems to me that we may be having a misunderstanding here RE: the application of certain basic WP, e.g.:\n''Wolcott himself'' is not a Wiki editor and so does not have to maintain NPOV or restrict himself to Wiki Policies RE: notability, we just have to maintain NPOV when discussing ''this particular media mention'' and hew to certain standards ''when citing him'' as an MSM news source. Do you understand the distinction here?\nThus it is that James Wolcott - a published author with a decades-long career as a cultural critic and journalist - specifically wrote an online article for Vanity Fair (magazine) about ''this very comment'' (on LGF - the one you keep deleting) and then ''quoted it verbatim on the Vanity Fair website.'' He is a journalist reporting it as news in an MSM news source; by definition this makes it notable. We then cited the article (\"Headhunters\") with a link ''to its location on the Vanity Fair website'' as an example of a mainstream news media reaction to and/or mention of LGF - just like we would any other.\nFWIW, I have restored the passage to its extant state and lets see what other editors have to say before we go deleting things again.\nBTW, checked out the blog mentioned on your \"User Page\", are you really one of the designers behind the \"Left Behind: Eternal Forces\" video game? That's pretty cool!!!",
"role": "Jinxmchue"
},
{
"content": "Furthermore, how does anyone know the quote in question didn't come from a troll? LGF has more than its fair share of disruptors who post inflammatory comments in an attempt to make LGF look bad. The quote simply is not verifiable by any stretch of the imagination.",
"role": "Jinxmchue"
},
{
"content": "''' Hi JinxMcHue,\nI just noticed that something seemed a little funny about the above discussion, so I looked in the history and realized that you actually edited out two paragraphs of my original response to you last night, the parts where I tried to adddress your concerns about notability and verifiability and explain a bit about Vanity Fair's status as a news source, Wolcott's career as a media critic, etc!!!\nYou do realize that all of this stuff shows up in the history, don't you? I'm restoring my response to the above in its entirety and urging you '''to please respect WP and play by the rules!'''",
"role": "Dragula"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
129882965.49291.49291
|
[
{
"content": "A few thoughts:\n The article might benefit from a few more citations from supportive sources\n Discussion (here) will probably need to focus on and explain such issues as OR, Syn, NPOV, WP:EL etc to new editors more heavily in the future. One would imagine that these would have the common sense (for example) not to alter quotes and citations to make them say what they \"should have said\"... but perhaps there is just a learning curve here that needs to be worked with.\n If no objections, plan to revert back to CWC's edit of 5.4.2007 on 5.16.2007. Misc Issues",
"role": "Dragula"
},
{
"content": "Hi Callmebc, like any other entry, this one touches on multiple overlapping issues that already have their OWN entries. People seem to want to use intro paragraphs or links in THIS entry to editorialize about issues in OTHER entries. So, where possible, I have deleted ALL of that stuff where I've found it and instead replaced it with neutral phrasing linking to those other entries - including the Killan doc (months past this entry features a 5 paragraph Killan doc section which was very NPOV). So...\n I'l admit. I don't know much about the KD, I just want THIS entry to be concise and profesh. So... if you can come up with some sort of neutral phrasing, that does not refer to controversial or unsubstantiated claims, or introduce any editorializing or premature introductions of the back'n'forth arguments which no doubt exist already on the KD page, then by all means do so.\nMy only caveat is that if an editorial consensus can't be reached in that entry (I don't know - I haven't followed it except for to check the material there and then delete any material I found here that was redundant) you're unlikely to bolster your own position by introducing it here. Right now we only legit news cites and referenced sources in this entry and it would be preferable to keep it that way - I don't want the Killan docs controversy spilling over here.\nthanks in advance for your consideration Well, it looks like in the time that it took me to write the above long-winded dicsourse, CWC went ahead and fixed the offending phrase. LOL. Good job CWC. Callmebc, I trust that this settles the issue for you?",
"role": "Callmebc"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
296103800.162185.162185
|
[
{
"content": "Selective use of Hooton (1994) on Warsaw bombins Some elements from Hooton's books have been used in the article, but the cites have been severed by removing their contenxt. Hooton (and also Poeppel-von Preußen-von Hase) gives the details of the actual execution of the operations on the 13, and the legal framework of the bombings once Warsaw become a fortress on the 20 September.\nThis context has been, however, removed from the article, distorting and misusing the source: ie.\n 'but Richthofen was furious to learn that Oberst Heinrich Seywald, Geschwaderkommodore of KG 77 and his Kommandeure on their own initiative ignored the selected targets in favour of purely military ones[37]; Seywald was relieved shortly thereafter.'[38]\n 'By then, Warsaw itself was a fortress garrisoned by some 150,000 men and therefore no longer an 'open city', so under the international rules of warfare it could be subjected to wholesale bombardment' .[39][40]\nThese circumstances need to be mention for NPOV, and let the reader make the conclusions; either use Hooton, or don't use him at all - picking parts some while ignoring others is a misuse of the sourced reference. In the meantime one editor also removed Hooton stating on page 183 about strafings: The refugees and troops becoming mixed in the road and suffering terribly.Hooton 1994, p. 183.",
"role": "Kurfürst"
},
{
"content": "We've already discussed the actions of the 13 September. Hooton is decisive in his conclusion that it was a terror bombing. Including everything he says about it when he makes this final conclusion clear is including too much detail within the overall article, which is supposed to be about strategic bombing during WWII. For the bombing of the 22 September, it just needs to be mentioned that it happened, and its effects. A full description of both events should go in the main article about the bombing of Warsaw, not here.",
"role": "Loosmark"
},
{
"content": "I believe enough context was given in my edits.",
"role": "Kurfürst"
},
{
"content": "Consensus appears to be against you. We already have a request pending for a specialist projects comment. Since this is between more than just you and me, as this section is continuing a discussion from elsewhere on the page, asking for a Third opinion doesn't seem enough.",
"role": "Kurfürst"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
296383590.211149.211149
|
[
{
"content": "Should we include the bombing of Caen? I am wondering, whether the RAF bombings in the Battle for Caen should be included in the article. During British operations to take the city, 942 RAF bombers got close to razing the city to ground. 35,000 made homeless, very nice pictures of the medieval cathedral and university being destroyed. There were ca 2000 civillan deaths in the first two days. Anthony Beavor also had some comments on the event but a few days ago.",
"role": "Kurfürst"
},
{
"content": "I agree with your reasoning, this seems to be a tactical bombing, however sad the consequences were from Caen's POV.",
"role": "Hohum"
},
{
"content": "It was tactical bombing by a strategic bomber force (temporary resigned to this task), and unlike German cities the centre was no the target.",
"role": "Hohum"
},
{
"content": "PBS is right, it was direct ground assault, so it's tactical. Anyone read the book ''D-Day bombers''?",
"role": "Kurfürst"
},
{
"content": "Sounds like an analogue to Wielun, too.",
"role": "Woogie10w"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
184209031.199517.199517
|
[
{
"content": "Objections to pie chart Image:HighDefShare5.svg? Behold Image:HighDefShare5.svg.\nIs there ''anyone'' besides Locke Cole who objects to it?'\nIf yes, are you ready to engage in an edit war over it - thereby assuring the article's continued protected status?",
"role": "Barte"
},
{
"content": "Wait, so now my opinion doesn't count? — • •",
"role": "Friday"
},
{
"content": "Please answer #2, as well. Thanks.",
"role": "Barte"
},
{
"content": "Speaking as one of the editors who supported the original consensus view, I appreciate your response here. Thanks.",
"role": "Locke Cole"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
183782445.154380.154380
|
[
{
"content": "Just a suggestion here. I made this image by using the radialGradiant SVG command to add purple to the graph as some people suggested. If you want some modifications made, please let me know and I will try them out (or, just make the modifications yourself, I still have the original version on my computer so I'm not worried about losing it). Also, I'm not trying to start another argument here, its just an idea. A blue and purple image",
"role": "Thingg"
},
{
"content": "I like the shading for blue and red used in the chart immediately above, but object to the use of a color that implies Warner Bros.'s announced intention to go Blu-ray Disc exclusive in June is presently in effect. So an even purple shade halfway between the red and blue used is my preference. (This can, of course, become blue on June 1st, provided the announced event takes place.) Purple is good, but it should be even. The transition from releasing Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD to being Blu-ray Disc exclusive takes place between May 31st and June 1st, per the official announcement. Like the beginning of a new year, the event has not taken place until the ball has finished its descent. Unlike the beginning of a new year, the prognostications of a movie studio five months out are uncertain. Although it seems likely this will come to pass, it has not yet.",
"role": "TheHorseCollector"
},
{
"content": "Yeah, this one is missing the key for the third colour scheme saying June 1st thing, the little box at the bottom thing.",
"role": "Barte"
},
{
"content": "How's this?",
"role": "Thingg"
},
{
"content": "I'd like to see it on the actual pageso as to see whether the text would be large enough to be readable.",
"role": "TheHorseCollector"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
773640871.23773.23773
|
[
{
"content": "Alluding to the frequent comparisons with the status of Gibraltar is fine. Providing a summary of the Spanish position on Gibraltar and how it differs from its claim to Ceuta unbalances the section, making it more about the Gibraltar dispute than about the dispute with Morocco. Dispute with Morocco",
"role": "L.R. Wormwood"
},
{
"content": "Could we shorten the comparison so that it doesn't take up 80% of the section?",
"role": "Inactive user 20171"
},
{
"content": "Agreed. Has been shortened. I also fixed a typo.",
"role": "Wee Curry Monster"
},
{
"content": "I have removed berber as a language spoken in Ceuta. The Muslims population there largely speaks the Jebli dialect of darija. They are descendants of immigrants from surrounding areas where Tamazight is not spoken at all, only Jebli Arabic. Tamazight (or riffan) is however the main language of Muslims in Melilla.",
"role": "Wee Curry Monster"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
442279975.15309.15309
|
[
{
"content": "Arabic name Why does appear the arabic name of Ceuta in the lead? It doesn't have any official status. Doesn't it legitimate the claims of Morocco and therefore failling at NPOV? Also, note the differences with Falkland islands''Aner77'' |",
"role": "Aner77"
},
{
"content": "Therefore I can put the name in japanese, can't I?''Aner77'' |",
"role": "Chipmunkdavis"
},
{
"content": "Can you argue the historical relevancy? Because I can argue the irrelevant one.''Aner77'' |",
"role": "Chipmunkdavis"
},
{
"content": "The city doesn't have a lot of history with arabs, but with berber people. It's not the same. The contact with arabs is relaqtively short if we compared with other rulers. Because with that argument we can argue that the city has an important history with ancient Greece and therefore include the classic greek name. The fact that the city contains a large minority of arabic people is irrelevant: San Francisco contains a large minority of asiatic people. New York has an important hispanic population and the article doesn't include the spanish name, ''Nueva York''. I'm not pretending expose a sophism just to expose the irrelevance of that point. My argument is clear: it's not official and it's not supported by anyone, not even the most of the people in Ceuta with moroccian ancestors. I propose to include it in the part where it's described the moroccian claims, something like: \"Morocco claims Ceuta (under the name of سبتة)\" -or something like that, I'm not fluent at english-. Thank you for oyur attention. ''Aner77'' |",
"role": "Chipmunkdavis"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
288466917.71301.71301
|
[
{
"content": "Peruvian relics What happened to that section? I think it deserves its own section because it's a current legal case against the University started by a foreign government over something that is widely known and public. 14:16 7 May 2009 (BST) —Preceding undated comment added .",
"role": "Andrewire"
},
{
"content": "I thought it was relevant because it's a conflict between the University and a foreign government. That government is accusing Yale of something, therefore, it should be in Yale's article in my opinion. I'm assuming good faith here, a section about a controversy isn't harmful if it's redacted objectively, but I have noticed in this particular article that there are hidden agendas promoted by certain users. Not accusing anyone in particular though. Sections about controversies are common in Wikipedia's articles and Wikipedia even supports the inclusion of such information; Am I wrong?",
"role": "Nunh-huh"
},
{
"content": "I gave up the discussion with you, that's why I deleted what you wrote in my talk page. I'm not talking about creating a new page about criticism of Yale University. I didn't ignore the discussion with the tag about the introduction of the article. It had seven paragraphs and you removed it because you didn't like it but didn't edit the intro and it was still too long. I tagged it because I was trying to call someone's attention to do the job. I didn't do it because I'm not too familiar with Yale University. You are suppose to remove a tag when the problem is solved, not when the problem is still there and you thought it was not appropiate. If you didn't want the tag, why you didn't edit the intro to fit Wikipedia's standards?",
"role": "Viriditas"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
286612345.67610.67610
|
[
{
"content": "Can't we just move the section \"Yale in fiction and popular culture\" into a link to Yale in popular culture in the see also? It seems unimportant. And what about using a two column reference layout instead of one? Cleanup I suspect that the \"Controversy over Peruvian relics\" section belongs in a Yale-related subtopic or subsection. I doubt it deserves its own section. I'm not sure that the \"Books on Yale\" section is appropriately titled. Why not just merge it into a bibliography or further reading section?",
"role": "Viriditas"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
487168901.23422.23422
|
[
{
"content": "citizenship / nationality An editor is changing the 'nationality' field from Chinese to United States. Li lives in the United States, but nationality is not defined by place of residence alone, but also by national identity. I suggest keeping nationality as \"Chinese,\" but listing place of residency as United States. On the citizenship question, the same editor is writing that Li became a citizen in the 1990s. This claim is sourced (incorrectly) to Time magazine, as well as to Reuters (which gives a one line \"Li, a US citizen, ...\"), and encyclopedia Britannica, which curiously states that Li became a U.S. citizen in 1997 and settled in the U.S. in 1998. I reverted this previously because, according to the preponderance of sources (and better sources), it's not the case. Palmer, among others, states that Li settled permanently in the United States in 1998 under an investor immigration status, which granted him permanent residency, but not citizenship. David Ownby states that Li \"moved to the United States in 1996 but did not received his green card until 1998\" (a green card, in case it's not clear, is for permanent residency, not citizenship). The Time magazine article that was incorrectly used to attribute the claim that Li is a citizen instead states \"Li decided to apply for immigration to the U.S.\" in 1997. As anyone who has ever attempted to navigate the labyrinthine maze of USCIS knows, one does not decide to apply for immigration to the U.S. and mysteriously gain citizenship the same year. Many other sources also state that Li is a permanent resident, not a citizen, and Li himself said this in 1999. If there are no sound objections, I am going to change back to state that Li's nationality is Chinese, and that he became a permanent resident in 1998.",
"role": "Homunculus"
},
{
"content": "The most reliable sources on this subject (ie. David Palmer, David Ownby, etc) do not say that Li is a citizen. They say that Li moved to the United States in 1996, and gained permanent residency in 1998. The preponderance of reliable sources on this subject say the same thing. Needless to say, if Li gained citizenship in 1996 as the Encyclopedia Britannica claims, he would not have sought permanent residency in 1998. The Encyclopedia Britannica evidently made a mistake. It happens; even normally reliable sources are fallible. To the question of \"nationality,\" we evidently have different definitions of the term. You think nationality refers to citizenship. I think citizenship refers to citizenship. Nationality can be defined by national or ethnic origin, national identity, residence, or citizenship. In all respects except current place of residence, Li is probably best described as a Chinese national.",
"role": "SH9002"
},
{
"content": "Sigh. I am quickly realizing that you are neither familiar with the scholarly literature on Falun Gong, nor with immigration processes. So I will explain one more time.\n Nothing I have said is original research\n My assessment that Palmer and Ownby are superior sources is not my POV. It derives from the fact that they are established experts in this field. They have both written books on Qigong and Falun Gong in prestigious academic presses. By contrast, Encyclopedia Britannica, while a good source, is written by on-staff generalists. If there is a factual disagreement between these reliable sources, we should defer to what the highest quality RS say. In this case, the better sources and the majority of sources say Li obtained permanent residency in 1998.\n You say that Palmer and Ownby are \"not valid\" sources. Care to explain? The books (not links — you may actually have to go to a library) are David Palmer, ''Qigong Fever: Body, Science, and Utopia in China'' (Columbia Univerity Press, 2007), and David Ownby, ''Falun Gong and the Future of China'', (Oxford University Press, 2008). I already quoted the relevant passages above. But again, these sources (and many others) say that Li moved to the U.S. in 1996 and gained permanent residency in 1998. Specifically, he obtained an investor visa in 1998, giving him permanent residency. They do not say that Li ever sought or gained citizenship.\n If you want more sources that disprove the citizenship claim, look at the TIME magazine article you cited. It says Li decided to apply for U.S. immigrant status in 1997. He would not have done that if he was already a citizen of the United States.\n If you know anything at all about U.S. immigration (I suspect you don't), you would understand that one does not go about obtaining permanent residency in a country where one is already a citizen. Therefore, the claim that Li obtained citizenship in 1996 is simply an error, and is inconsistent with the vast majority of reliable sources.\n If a person gains citizenship in the United States, they are no longer referred to as a permanent resident. These are not generic terms; they refer to one's legal status in the United States. The majority of reliable sources (and Li himself) describe Li as a U.S. permanent resident. If he were a citizen, they would not continue to refer to him as a permanent resident. This is not my opinion. It is a fact.\n You say that \"Chinese is the name of nation\". Not in any maps I own. In any event, I have little cause for optimism when it comes to convincing you that nationality does not necessarily refer to the name of state in which one resides. So how about we get rid of the 'nationality' field, and instead have 'ethnicity' and 'country of residence' ? I re-read your comments, and realized ever more clearly that the problem is that you don't understand U.S. immigration. You seem to believe that there is no conflict between the claims that Li gained citizenship and then obtained permanent residency, because you seem to think that \"permanent residency\" describes a state of living permanently in a place. I suggest you read Permanent residence (United States). You will discover, as I stated above, that permanent residency refers to a person's legal immigration status. It is a path to citizenship; a person is typically eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship after three to five years of being a permanent resident. Once one obtains citizenship, one is no longer classified as a permanent resident. The most reliable sources writing from the late 1990s onward describe Li as a permanent resident, which implicitly means he is did not gain U.S. citizenship in the 1990s. I hope that's clear. I fixed the article again, and just removed the nationality field altogether as an interim solution while this is in dispute. There's no value in having incorrect or even questionable information remain in a BLP.",
"role": "SH9002"
},
{
"content": "Homunculus, your problem is you should read Wikipedia's rule more carefully, e.g. WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:BLPSPSetc., before editing and joining this discussion. If you can't give us valid sources to support what you said, then those are your WP:ORs, sure you don't believe that is your OR, but without valid sources. BTW, what you announced paper books are not available in every library in the world, e.g. at least, I can find neither both of these two titles (I've checked) at my local libraries, so can't verify their contents. BUT MOST IMPORTANT, to your mentioned content, we need valid source to support your assumption that \"Li doesn't gained citizenship of U.S.\" directly or explicitly to against those explicit contents \"Li became a U.S. citizen\" or \"Li, a U.S.citizen…\", which available in already founded reliable sources. But what maybe in the books, you cited above, is \"They do not say…\", that's not an evidence to against what the other valid reliable sources stated. Sir, '''\"they don't say so…\" ≠ \"they said that isn't so…\"''', these are two different expressions for the total different semantics. The editing of wikipedia articles isn't based on our personal knowledges or POVs or experiences, is based on the valid sources to support the content. We shouldn't make any judgment by ourself about if, how, when, what… (\"''Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. '''The term \"original research\" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material'''—such as '''facts''', '''allegations''', and '''ideas'''—'''for which no reliable, published sources exist'''''\".) We should also avoid WP:ORIGINALSYN('''''Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources'''. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] \"A and B, therefore C\" is '''acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.'''''), and we should try to balance the different POVs from the different sources, please don't undue weight your favorite sources with such as description like \"superior\",\"better\", \"correct\"(WP:WEIGHT'''Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.''').To the question about \"chinese\" and \"chinese nationality\", there are enough many overseas (ethic) Chinese without Chinese nationality, e.g. Gary Locke, Yingluck Shinawatra etc. To your final suggestion, I personal can accept the idea to remove any controversial undue weighted contents which can indicate about Li's nationality totally, when editors can't find consensus. Seb, that is your OR, to made judgment about who is Permanent resident or citizen or etc. I would like to remind you some paragraphs about editing rule in wikipedia again. (WP:OR\"''Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. '''The term \"original research\" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material'''—such as '''facts''', '''allegations''', and '''ideas'''—'''for which no reliable, published sources exist'''''\".) and (WP:WEIGHT '''Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.''')",
"role": "Seb az86556"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
476864822.15197.15197
|
[
{
"content": "The section dealing with Li's date of birth did not actually describe the nature of the debate (for instance, it did not even explain that May 13 is the birth date of Sakyamuni, or state what the Chinese government thinks the implications are). Zujine tried to fix this, and Shrigley reverted him for reasons unknown. I have again tried to fix it such that it actually tells us something useful.\nThe old version seemed focused on the question of whether or not Li changed his date of birth in the government records. But that is not source of the controversy; Li agrees that he changed the records. The actual debate centers on the question of whether his purpose was to simply correct the record, or whether he was trying to bolster his spiritual authority and misrepresent himself by aligning his date of birth to that of Sakyamuni. The Chinese government argues the latter, and Li argues the former. This being the case, in my edit I stated clearly that Li did change the government records, and provided his explanation of why he did this. I left in the background about the Changchun faction, even though I frankly don't see how it helps clarify the issue. I also added a note to explain how the Chinese government has attempted to make use of the birth date change, as that was previously lacking.\nTwo final notes: Chinese government sources have actually given two dates of birth for Li: July 7 and July 27. David Ownby notes this discrepancy, and I have also now noted it. Also, the old version relied on primary sources, namely Chinese government websites. Primary sources should be used with extreme caution in BLP, and this is all the more so when those primary sources are described as propaganda by the reliable sources. I have removed it in accordance with WP:BLP. Birth date controversy",
"role": "Homunculus"
},
{
"content": "Sean, the reliable academic sources describe all accounts of Li Hongzhi's life from the PRC post-1999 as propaganda. David Ownby writes that all such details, even the mundane ones, are \"obviously state propaganda, produced in the context of the campaign against Falun Gong.\" Benjamin Penny writes that \"one of the targets of the government’s propaganda was the biography of Li Hongzhi, its founder and leader,\" and elsewhere states \"information about Falun Gong published in the People’s Republic is necessarily part of a negative publicity campaign,” and so should be “treated with caution.” The People's Daily is included within that category, and is decidedly not a neutral, mainstream source on Falun Gong. It is a primary source, and a highly partisan one at that. Falun Gong accounts are also primary sources. The article should rely on quality secondary sources. I am happy to take this to the BLP noticeboard if you believe that's necessary. I see a user has partially reverted, and thus made the section incomprehensible again. It now reads \"According to Li, his date of birth had been misprinted as one of the pervasive bureaucratic errors of the Cultural Revolution, and he was merely correcting it. He called it a \"smear\" from people trying to destroy him.\" He called what a smear? The meaning has been completely lost, yet again. Also, can someone explain the objection to just quoting Li Hongzhi? That quote has been used in full in multiple reliable sources, it's not excessively long, and it's the clearest articulation of Li's own position on this. Paraphrasing the quotations means we risk obscuring or misrepresenting the meaning, and that seems to be what happened here.",
"role": "Sean.hoyland"
},
{
"content": "A pronoun missing an antecedent is not \"complete loss of meaning\". The relevant part of Li's remarks are still quoted: he thinks that the Sakyamuni accusation is a \"smear\", which is what this Wikipedia article thinks too, judging by the myriad of qualifications on Chinese government sources (compared to the liberal and preferential use of Falun Gong sources). Some of these qualifications may be inappropriate, since the Changchun report comes from 1992, long before the \"persecution\". Li's entire quote is just a rant against alleged bureaucratic errors during the Cultural Revolution in general. His opinions about that period shouldn't be quoted because he has no academic qualifications to talk about history that doesn't affect him.",
"role": "Sean.hoyland"
},
{
"content": "Shrigley said the information I provided \"sourced to blogs and other improper primary sources, was removed after substantial discussion. Please don't re-add them without addressing the points\". But I do not see any discussion regarding this here. I believe the quote from Mr. Li's answer in Fajie (based on Fa speech recording in 1994) that he is not Buddha Shakyamuni should be deemed as very relevant.",
"role": "Colipon"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
21507950.14018.14018
|
[
{
"content": "Transferred from Manuel's latest anonymous IP talk page Greetings Manuel.\nI responded to two of your objections by taking out the mansion and the publishing company. I could just as easily accuse you of \"ignoring\" that, but that would be small of me. If you look at the edit history, most of the things you are complaining about were put in by other editors. The birthday thing, for example. Someone else put that in. However, The BBC reports that the Chinese govt. claims that Li lied about his birthdate to imitate Shakyamuni. Do we say Li lied? No. We say the Chinese govt. says Li lied. That is notable enough to stay in the article, even though I didn't contribute it. To object to an objective report of something another, notable, party said about the subject bespeaks a certain partisanship on your part. We don't want any article turned into a love-fest. Please read up on relevant Wikipedia policy. So, things without provenance can be taken out, things with provenance can't be taken out, as simple as that. You've shown a history of wanting to take out anything that you perceive as reflecting negatively on Li. That is reason (for me at least) to somewhat discount what you are saying to me right there, because (also since it is the only article you seem to ever work on) you seem to have an agenda outside of the encyclopaedia.\nSo, for what ''I put in'', these are my sources:\nWho is Li Hongzhi? BBC Interview\nLi Hongzhi interviewed by Time Magazine Asia\n2003 speech by Li\nI hope this helps, The Epoch Times link no longer goes to the citation article (which it formerly did), and since I can't find the quote, I will remove the last paragraph as unsupported until a reliable citation can be found.",
"role": "Bradeos Graphon"
},
{
"content": "Well, that's fair enough. We don't have to remove the \"lies\" though, if we report them neutrally, saying things like \"the Chinese government claims\" or \"Li Hongzhi claims\" we will be doing alright. Like I said before, when the contributors didn't provide, and I couldn't find, any provenance whatever for some of the statements about Li that used to be in the article - ''zip'' - out they went. Just as most people I know take Li's public pronouncements with a grain of salt, anyone with access to a relatively free press should realise by now that the Chinese communists aren't the most reliable source either. As long as we couch the respective parties' actual claims with neutral conditioning language and the proper editorial caveats about their actual provability we will be OK. Regards,",
"role": "84.133.33.229"
},
{
"content": "'''If you good people can provide more citations for the above statements, they should definitely go in the article with the appropriate neutral language'''.",
"role": "211.30.205.254"
},
{
"content": "Is it the article you just linked?\nHave you noticed that there are no quotes in it?\nIf this was not a personal Interview then I am wondering what her sources where espacially since that entire article contains basicly all the chinese \"anti-Falun Gong\" Propaganda... but states it as fact.\nHave you noticed that all those articles on Rick Ross's site are based on sources from the Chinese state-controlled media? There are a lot of things in there that we actually BOTH know to be wrong. When it comes to sources from western media, it only selects the ones in line with the chinese site.\nFor example, a while ago Rick Ross had a link to the a website about the Falun Gong exercises. (so that it appears as though he is also showing people what Falun Gong says) Then that website started to also carry things about the perscution, and had statements in there that contradict what the Chinese Government says about Falun Gong (things that he stated as facts on his website) He then immediatly removed this site, and replaced it with a site about the exercises again.\nIf you don't belive me,\ngo the friends of Falun Gong website, copy some of the statements by U.S. officials regarding the persecution, paste them in an e-mail to him, and ask him why he hasn't mentioned any of that? I'll bet you any amount that it won't take long until he takes you for a Falun Gong practitioner, and starts cursing you in his replies (cause that's what he did when I wrote him, and pretty badly too )-:",
"role": "213.23.211.8"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
77520446.78226.78226
|
[
{
"content": "Worshiping Li Hongzhi Let me first start with a quote from Zhuan Falun, the basic teaching of Falun Dafa where Master points out, in Lecture 3 the following:\n\"Accordingly, please do not come to me for the formality of worshipping the master.\"\nThis would mean than any practitioner who would worship the Master would need to look inside and change his behavior.\nMy understanding is that this is because what it is important for a practitioner is to upgrade his moral (xinxing) standard. The act worshiping is meaningless.\n\"What’s the use of your kowtowing and worshipping Teacher if once you step out the door, you still continue to conduct yourself as usual and do whatever you want, competing and fighting for your fame and self-interest among everyday people? You may also damage the reputation of Falun Dafa under my banner!\"\n\"By upgrading your xinxing and assimilating to the characteristic of the universe in your cultivation among everyday people, the characteristic of the universe will no longer restrict you; you are then allowed to move up.\", Zhuan Falun, Lecture 1. 'xinxing' (shin-shing)—mind or heart nature; moral character.\nI placed this brief explanation here in the hopes, that everybody will understand, what is the main job of a cultivator and also to understand that Falun Dafa practitioners, according to the requirements of Li Hongzhi, do not worship him blindly.",
"role": "HappyInGeneral"
},
{
"content": "The burdon of proof falls on you Yenchin, and you have not provided any evidence to support your claims. Simply because practitioners create songs, paintings, peoms, etc. about Mr. Li does not mean that they worship him. That logic is totally off. In my 5 years of practicing Falun Gong, although I've heard of some people worshiping Mr. Li, I have NEVER seen anybody worship him. I've known one person who I heard does that, but that's only what I heard. This alone is enough to indicate that this behavior is not widespread. Moreover, the quotes by Happyingeneral are from multiple places in the ''' central text''' of Falun Dafa, which is a lot more than simply '''one''' of his writings. And as I said, the burdon of proof is yours, not ours, and it's pretty heavy.",
"role": "Yenchin"
},
{
"content": "Even he is considered the Main Buddha, why do you think that he is worshiped for that? What is your definition for worship? I think it's much more appropriate to use the wording of Respect. Worship is misleading, because Falun Dafa practitioners do not need to kowtow or do anything else in a ritualistic way in order to be recognized as Falun Dafa practitioners.",
"role": "Samuel Luo"
},
{
"content": "I think that even from your point of view respect should be just as good a word and it would not entangle with the other meanings of word worship: ''\"formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.\" ''. This I think it is important because Falun Dafa is quite different from this point of view from many cultivations practices.\n '''Respect''' however has some quite similar meanings, which I think does describe better the current situation: ''\"esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.\" ''",
"role": "Yenchin"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
130211170.71708.71708
|
[
{
"content": "Restored essential information about Mann's data withholding Essential information was deleted without reason regarding Mann's data withholding that caused Congress to investigate. I also restored info about McI and McK claiming vindication. William removed that portion on McI and McK's claim of vindication saying Mann also claimed victory. If so, someone should provide a citation. But whether Mann did or did not claim victory is no reason to censor McI and McK's claim of vindication and the link so readers can examine the facts for themselves.",
"role": "RonCram"
},
{
"content": "What is Wikipedia's position on this controversy? Is Mann right, or are M&M; right?",
"role": "Raymond arritt"
},
{
"content": "William, I think Ed's question is interesting for discussion. If Wikipedia had a position, then the article has to support that position. If Wikipedia's policy is NPOV, then it has to represent both sides of the controversy. That means that you and Raymond (since you represent Mann) do not get to make all the decisions about what elements of the controversy are important to the other side. As I (and Durova) have pointed out before, William, you need to be especially careful when suppressing information that is negative toward Mann since you have an apparant WP:COI.",
"role": "William M. Connolley"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
129049043.66422.66422
|
[
{
"content": "NRC report I reverted MPs addition of a pile of details. Its not clear to me why these are supposed to belong at the top above the conclusions of the report",
"role": "William M. Connolley"
},
{
"content": "''I would think it belongs in a summery of the report...'' - perhaps you do, but the NRC themselves disagreed with you, since these points of yours *don't* appear in the summary, indeed they are rather a long way down into the report. You clearly want to put the weaknesses of MBH (as you put it) right at the front, which is your POV, but why should anyone else agree with that?",
"role": "Maxparrish"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
572184332.44989.44989
|
[
{
"content": "Because this is negative information in a BLP, there is a strong burden on the person adding the information to demonstrate not only that it is well sourced (which it was), but that it has lasting importance for the subject of the article. That is, are some random remarks made by a politician in one interview of enough importance that they form a fundamental part of his biography, such that readers a year, five years, or a hundred years later should know about them? My gut feeling on those particular remarks is that they are not, and that they were added merely because they made the news recently. I can't imagine that these will be a lasting part of Latham's legacy, any more than the many hundreds of thousands of other things he's said (good or bad, smart or not smart) over the course of his past and future career. Remember, we're not a newspaper, and we're not just to cover something just because it can be verified. Otherwise, we'd include a paragraph or more on every interview Latham ever gave.\nSo, I guess that the first thing that would help establish whether or not it is important enough to meet WP:DUE is thisis the issue still being covered in the news now? Has it been picked up by an secondary or tertiary sourcesthat is, are large summaries of the election season focusing in on this particular interview as somehow having a large impact on the campaign? We need some evidence from sources that this is an issue of lasting importance. Recently added \"controversy\"",
"role": "Qwyrxian"
},
{
"content": "I just wanted to add that the comment was made 3 weeks ago, and is still being talked about (even internationally as the sources show). These articles are all from the past 3 days: , , , and on the News.com.au \"federal election 2013\" page today the \"pollie translator\" has Latham's comment, \"Tony Abbott had beer goggles on\" translated to \"“I’m ugly on the outside AND the inside, so I can say stuff like this.” This contains memorbale quotes from the election campaign. •",
"role": "OSX"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
406813809.38301.38301
|
[
{
"content": "Latham's advice for the ALP So there's an edit war going on in the \"Essay for The Monthly\" section, where the insertion of the following material appears to be problematic:\n\nFurther reverts should be avoided, there's no reason we can't have this out here. I share Timeshift's concerns about the neutrality of this passage, and I'm not sure we need to go into too much detail about his advice for the ALP in The Monthly. That said, I'm not entirely opposed to this material being included in some form, perhaps it could be incorporated into the section more naturally. Thoughts? ''''' '''''",
"role": "Lear's Fool"
},
{
"content": "Let me ask some questions as an outsider with nearly no knowledge of the subject: How often does Latham author articles of this type? Has this particular opinion article been discussed by other sources? Is there some reason to consider this article particularly important? The answers to these questions should help us whether this belongs, and, if it does, how much to include.",
"role": "Timeshift9"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
32226089.34475.34475
|
[
{
"content": "Unprotected... We can't keep this page protected forever, so, for now I am unprotecting it. If users continue to make potentially controversial edits without discussing, this page get re-protected for a longer period of time. Additionally, the three revert rule still applies, and anyone who violates that may be blocked without further warning. e",
"role": "FF2010"
},
{
"content": "well said, DPS. Thankfuly, you are easy to spot, since you're not even bothering with a garb. To buy this article some direly needed peace, I will block without further warning anyone who (a) removes the NPOV template, or (b) removes properly quoted references (such as Kasturi). Blocks will begin at 12 hours, and will increase in duration for repeat offenders. I will ''not'' block for ''addition'' of material, sourced or unsourced, so nobody can say I am protecting one pov in particular. Anybody who disagrees with my blocks can take them to my RfC (which still needs to be put in proper format, note the delisting notice). DPS, since you did both (a) and (b) before I could finish my post above, here's another warning: do it again, and you'll be blocked for 12 hours.",
"role": "DPSingh"
},
{
"content": "that's fine with me. I insist I am not involved; I am as an admin because of the edit war, just like you are. I have no opinion on the matter, but I've been targeted by the Singhs for insisting on policy.",
"role": "FF2010"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
58059387.12350.12350
|
[
{
"content": "Here is a map of approximate holdings of the Rajput kingdoms at their height in the middle-ages. Map",
"role": "Vastu"
},
{
"content": "guys: no wholesale reverts. I have no opinion on your edits, just add them individually. Reverts to October 2005, removing warning templates, as you just did qualifies as vandalism. If you do it again, I will protect the article for now. There has been enough fooling around here, if you want to make a change, ''do it'' and see how people react. You didn't 'make a change', you replaced the article with something entirely different. thanks for making a good faith edit, Holywarrior. That doesn't mean it will be accepted by everybody, but if people object to this one, they should explain themselves on talk, and reverts fall under the 3RR as content disputes (unlike the mindless sock wars that keep re-erupting from time to time).",
"role": "Ikonoblast"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
27845708.69159.69159
|
[
{
"content": "Remember you posted in your article that the generals and emperors comitted treachery when they deceived their opponents in the war and you were very adamant about that. I wonder how do you justify your adopting different names, using IP addresses and not your name and similar tactics, not to win an empire but to prove your point that you alone think is right. While doing so you lie and avoid facts. So why shouldn't we call it \"Treachery\"?\nOne more thing, \"Are you a Shiv-Sainic\"? Remember treachery is not there in rajput blood. My ip address is 203.101* (last part is different based on DHCP if you know what that means). Prove that any of these other addresses belong to me and I will quit coming to wikipedia. If you cannot prove your allegation, then you, zora, and whoever else is making these accusations should stop coming here.\nDo you have the guts to accept this? Treachery ''Khurram posted this on my talk page and I am copying it here so that all who hold his view can be challenged at the same time''",
"role": "Shivraj Singh"
},
{
"content": "Sometimes I forget to login and I get assigned a different IP address.\nBut you are claiming that 61*, 217* , cheerful honey are same as me and I am challenging you and your buddies to prove it and if u cannot do not show ur face here.\nShivraj",
"role": "Taaoo"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
23046139.195379.195362
|
[
{
"content": "In response to the person who wrote \"Again\" That is your choice not to wish to come back, but to put Islam in the same category as Hinduism and Buddhism is wrong since Hinduism and Buddhism are Dharma fiaths, while Islam is a semitic faith. I guess you weren't a history major or a religious studies student and thus you have no clue about what is the truth. The problems facing India stem from the fact that no one knows or wants to know what the truth is. If you are appaulled by the lack of consideration shown here, I guess you would also be appaulled by the Jews still discussing the crimes of the Holocaust, I guess you would be offended if any Nazi's feelings were hurt. Or perhaps, you would like to simply deny any atrocities that may have taken place throughout the world. In that case you would be worse since now you are a Holocaust denier. The choice is yours.\n-Sumerendra",
"role": "70.48.46.34"
},
{
"content": "Shiv,\nFirst of all I never suggested that arabs/turks could be considered rajput. I think being a rajput is simply a matter of who your father is and nothing more.\nSecondly, I don't take Akbar's killing of 30,000 people as Islamic nor do I advocate it. I however don't cry over \"collateral damage\". By taking the pride of being a member of a \"Martial\" race, one shall not be whining about such incidents. Being killed by an adversary is nothing to whine about at all. At least I don't think so. A warrior has the right to kill its adversary but so does his adversary.\nAs far as appreciation of Rajput history is concerned, I like the Rajput characteristics. Things that make one a Rajput. Things like truthfulness, trusworthiness, bravery and honesty to name a few. Remember, being brave is not only the name of ability to face certain death, it requires a lot more courage to accept that you were wrong than facing a hungry wild tiger. I don't know what history of Rajput were you referring to, but to me the history of Rajputs is their behavior everything else is insignificant.\nFinally my friend, it doesn't matter if you accept me as a Rajput or not (and why should it matter at all?) I was born a Rajput and will die a Rajput and I need no certification for that. Khurram",
"role": "202.62.94.8"
},
{
"content": "'''You don't know what is Islamic and what isn't, just go to www.jihadwatch.org'''",
"role": "Wisesabre"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
581866548.2807.2807
|
[
{
"content": "I'm totally missing why the superheated steam doesn't expand back from the superheater into the steam dome and elsewhere. I'm assuming that the superheater is being fed continuously from the steam dome and throttle. Why doesn't the superheater feed backwards as well as forwards into the valves and cylinders. \n` High Pressure Steam Only Goes One Way?",
"role": "Longinus876"
},
{
"content": "I'm sorry, was that English you were speaking? So the pressure is still higher at the steam dome than in the superheater? Does that sound right? I think I see what you're saying. Thank you",
"role": "Andy Dingley"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
337846361.69.69
|
[
{
"content": "Based on my reading of the article, the damper and the front-end throttle appear to counter-act each other. The damper seems to lock steam out of the superheater when the throttle is closed, to prevent the superheater parts from overheating, while the front end throttle seems to keep the steam in the superheater when the throttle is closed - wouldn't this reproduce the problem that the damper is meant to eliminate? Or, if the damper closes first, wouldn't the superheater tubes be empty of steam, eliminating the usefulness of the front-end throttle? Damper vs front-end throttle",
"role": "Badger151"
},
{
"content": "Unreferenced and possible COI issues.",
"role": "Collieman"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
26011961.18032.18032
|
[
{
"content": "Im having trouble with an unregisterd user continually reverting with no discussions,. Using a variey of URLs. Any Admin advice please? Admin advice requested. Continual reversions - no discussions (cur) (last) 139.169.2.162 (rv edits by Light current to last version by 67.50.187.18)\n (cur) (last) Light current (reinstate improvement)\n (cur) (last) 67.50.187.18 (rv edits by Light current, changes don't make sense and degrade article)\n (cur) (last) Light current (rvv)\n (cur) (last) 67.50.186.118 (rv all changes by Light current to last version by Simian except for one new heading)\n (cur) (last) Light current (→Hydrostatic pressure - mass not weigth)\n (cur) (last) Light current (explain g)\n (cur) (last) Light current (→Hydrostatic pressure - put g back)\n (cur) (last) Light current (→Hydrostatic pressure - pressure = depth* density)\n (cur) (last) Light current (→Scalar quantities - rm xs hdg)\n (cur) (last) Light current (reordered paras+hdgs)",
"role": "Light current"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
8847712.1899.1899
|
[
{
"content": "I removed the unqualified statement that use of the atm as a unit \"should be avoided\"; it's not a great unit for most scientific work, but there are times when it's a very good choice. For instance, in scuba diving it's quite a handy unit because it matches the usual baseline pressure, making it easy to calculate effects on gas volumes etc ('V2 = V1/P2' is simpler than 'V2 = V1*P1/P2'), and the \"+10 metres = +1 atm\" rule adds a simple relationship between depth and pressure. In this sort of application, precision is less important than simplicity of use. Atmosphere",
"role": "Calair"
},
{
"content": "So what? Not everyone is a scientist. As long as there are significant communities of people for whom \"atmosphere\" is a useful, much-used, and well-understood unit, it's POV to call it \"should be avoided\".",
"role": "Gene Nygaard"
},
{
"content": "If you want to say that it's not an SI unit, and use of atmosphere in scientific settings is therefore non desirable (I see it used in engineering stuff all the time, e.g. NASA spacecraft documentation), I have no problem with that.\nAs to the \"grams force\", I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you confusing me with someone else?",
"role": "Gene Nygaard"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
233659167.37134.37134
|
[
{
"content": "Why is Taiwan not on the World Bank list? Is this ommission an oversight or should here be an explanatory note somewhere? Taiwan and World Bank List",
"role": "Paulalexdij"
},
{
"content": "Cia lists not credible\nCia list is not credible because it's only a national agency and not a world foundation.A huge difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by",
"role": "Tomeasy"
},
{
"content": "Officially, China surpass Germany. China's GDP increase is 9% in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by",
"role": "Canada Jack"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
247850378.42223.42223
|
[
{
"content": "China China has overtaken Germany long ago.",
"role": "88.69.193.237"
},
{
"content": "False, China has not overtaken Germany at market prices, just at PPP which is different, but it is expected that this year China will overtake Germany (not if Austria becomes part of the Federation...)",
"role": "88.69.194.183"
},
{
"content": "No. China has overtaken Germany. !",
"role": "218.186.12.203"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
226630883.3889.3889
|
[
{
"content": "Having check the Chicago Blackhawks ''official'' website? they list ''no alternate captains''. Thus my reason for not having any here. Blackhawks alternate captains",
"role": "GoodDay"
},
{
"content": "We don't ''delete'' UFAs from their previous season teams roster. Therefore we generally leave them listed as captains & alternate captains. Ignore my ''edit summary''. What I meant to say is, the NHL official websites aren't fully reliable.",
"role": "Austin19"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
243059441.9698.9698
|
[
{
"content": "Penguins alternate captains The Pens ''A'''s for this season are Gonchar & Sydor. As both are injured, Orpik & Malkin are ''filling-in''. How shall we handle this?",
"role": "GoodDay"
},
{
"content": "Wait a sec, do you have a source that says they're filling in? According to this they are rotating one each month. I believe the other alt. is from a team vote of some kind. There's no \"filling in\" that I can see. ''''''",
"role": "C.Fred"
},
{
"content": "Based on that article, it's Gonchar (injured) and Malkin (rotating) at this point. —''''''",
"role": "GoodDay"
},
{
"content": "I say we just list Malkin and Orpik because they're the only two who have worn the A during gameplay. When/If Gonchar comes back he can easily be added. Actually, that might not be a bad policy for all teams; \"only players who have worn the A during a game are listed\". Thoughts? ''''''",
"role": "GoodDay"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
734490676.95591.95591
|
[
{
"content": "We will apparently have to try this yet another way. Answer the following questions regarding the text of the current \"Religious views\" section as directly and briefly as possible:\n Consider the following statement from the section: '''Arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are often made on religious grounds and/or formulated in terms of religious doctrine'''. Does this statement address ''civil'' same-sex marriage, ''religious'' same-sex marriage, or ''both'' as its subject? Does the language of the statement indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of ''both'')? \n Consider the following statement from the section: '''The Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and various Protestant denominations take official positions opposing same-sex marriage'''. Does this statement address ''civil'' same-sex marriage, ''religious'' same-sex marriage, or ''both'' as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of ''both'')?\n Consider the following statement from the section: '''The Episcopal Curch, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and other Protestant churches support allowing those of the same sex to marry or conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies'''. Does this statement address ''civil'' same-sex marriage, ''religious'' same-sex marriage, or ''both'' as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of ''both'')?\n Consider the following statement from the section: '''as do some Catholic denominations'''. Does this statement address ''civil'' same-sex marriage, ''religious'' same-sex marriage, or ''both'' as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of ''both'')?\n Consider the following statement from the section: '''Some individual churches have committed to marriage equality in opposition to their denomination's stance'''. Does this statement address ''civil'' same-sex marriage, ''religious'' same-sex marriage, or ''both'' as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of ''both'')?\n Consider the following statement from the section: '''In 2015, a survey found that 62% of white mainstream Protestants in the United States favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed'''. Does this statement address ''civil'' same-sex marriage, ''religious'' same-sex marriage, or ''both'' as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of ''both'')?\n Consider the following statement from the section: '''A majority of Muslims, and Orthodox Jews oppose same-sex marriage, while Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist Jewish rabbinical groups affirm its validity'''. Does this statement address ''civil'' same-sex marriage, ''religious'' same-sex marriage, or ''both'' as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of ''both'')?\n Consider the following statement from the section: '''Though Buddhism is considered to be ambivalent on the subject as a whole'''. Does this statement address ''civil'' same-sex marriage, ''religious'' same-sex marriage, or ''both'' as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of ''both'')?\n Consider the following statement from the section: '''particular Buddhists have supported marriage equality'''. Does this statement address ''civil'' same-sex marriage, ''religious'' same-sex marriage, or ''both'' as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of ''both'')?\n Consider the following statement from the section: '''as do a variety of other religious traditions'''. Does this statement address ''civil'' same-sex marriage, ''religious'' same-sex marriage, or ''both'' as its subject? Does the language of the statement or previous context indicate this subject with adequate clarity? Does the sourcing for the statement address this specific subject (in both its aspects in the case of ''both'')?\n Does the title of the section adequately indicate the section's subject or range of subjects?\n Is the location of the section in the article appropriate for the section's subject or range of subjects? \n Do the linked Wikipedia articles at the top of the section reflect the subject or range of subjects of the section as a whole? \nAre any lightbulbs turning on over editors' heads? Ongoing problems with the \"Religious views\" section (second attempt)",
"role": "Antinoos69"
},
{
"content": "I will take this opportunity to remind you that disruptive editing may result in sanctions. Find sources or get off it. \n I will \"get off it\" only once editors decide to return to their severely misplaced senses, not one moment before. Now, are you actually denying that there exist two different and well-known phenomena, both of which may be and are referred to as \"same-sex marriage\": one being ''civil'' ssm, codified and regulated by the state; and the other being ''religious'' ssm, established, regulated, and recognized within religious traditions? Is that the obstructionist Kool-Aid you're drinking? \nHonestly, I'm getting tired of asserting this, so for the last time, let's look at the definition ''on the first line'' of the article:\nSame-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage, is marriage between people of the same sex, either as a '''''secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting'''''\nNoticed the bold and italicized words? That should give everyone a pretty good idea of the scope of this article. Again on an example of one of your questions:\nConsider the following statement from the section: '''Arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are often made on religious grounds and/or formulated in terms of religious doctrine'''. Does this statement address ''civil'' same-sex marriage, ''religious'' same-sex marriage, or ''both'' as its subject...?\n'''Q''': What is the title of the article?\n'''A''': Same-sex marriage.\n'''Q''': Does the sentence have anything to do with same-sex marriage, no matter what kind it is?\n'''A''': Yes.\n'''Q''': Again, what is the title of the article?\n'''A''': Same-sex marriage.\n'''Q''': So does the sentence fall within the scope of the article?\n'''A''': ?\nThese are the questions we should be asking. ''' '''\n I'm afraid your attempts at literary criticism and logical explication were utter flops.\n The \"definition\" you provide merely \"defines\" two senses in which the term is used. There is no intent to suggest that every instance of the phrase \"same-sex marriage\" is referring both to ''civil'' and ''religious'' same-sex marriage (as one editor appears to believe, and as is relevant below), which is fortunate, as any such assertion would be very obviously incorrect. It is logically invalid to interpret either this definition or the article's title as an indication of what the article intends to or actually does primarily discuss. Note that only one sentence in the rest of the lead addresses religious views on marriage, the remainder addressing ''civil'' same-sex marriage, a focus largely reflected by the article as a whole. And note how, in section 4, \"Same-sex marriage around the world,\" the phrase \"same-sex marriage\" is generally used to mean ''civil'' same-sex marriage. As usual, meaning is ultimately determined by usage and ''context''.\n Your Q&A; on my point 1 entirely misses the point. My questions don't go to whether material on a kind of same-sex marriage can be included in the section or article. They go to whether the actual subject of the statement is adequately defined and whether that statement is properly sourced. Consider the following scenario, and that other editor should read closely here. Suppose we had one secondary source, speaking solely in terms of \"same-sex marriage\" but within the context of civil ssm, claiming that in 2012 Roman Catholics supported ssm by 60%, and another secondary source, again speaking solely in terms of \"same-sex marriage\" but within the context of religious ssm within the Church, claiming that in 2016 Roman Catholics supported ssm by 45%. Then suppose that editors wrote within this section of our article that support for \"same-sex marriage,\" without further qualification, among Roman Catholics was as reported in each source for each year. See the problems? We would have a semantic problem (i.e., an incorrect implication that the very same kind of marriage decreased in support between the two years), an explanation problem, and a sourcing problem. These are the kinds of problems that my questions were meant to force editors to recognize and address. And they must be addressed.",
"role": "GreenMeansGo"
},
{
"content": "If you are unable to understand the difference between civil and religious ssm, then I'll point out that no other editor has shared your inability in that regard. The difference is most relevant for reading about, researching, and writing on \"same-sex marriage,\" as the scenario from my second point above made crystal clear. So, having finally read the section/article on a device on which all the references download properly, I will be fixing the section within the next couple days. I don't anticipate I'll be paying you any further mind on this point.",
"role": "GreenMeansGo"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
733530266.68452.58792
|
[
{
"content": "Discussion '''Rewrite''' - Extensive argument to this effect can be seen above. The section goes quite out of its way to mention opposed faiths in as passing a manner as possible, and then goes to the extreme in gory detail on the support faiths, a list including individual churches, faiths with only a few thousand adherents, and one fake religion: Pastafarianism. This violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NPOV, by giving the false impression that religions generally are in support, which they are not. Simply put, the current section is POV pushing via word count. \nA rewrite of the section should favor in length of treatment (give WP:DUE weight to) larger faiths such as Catholicism and Islam, give similar treatment to both mid-sized faiths in support and those in opposition, and simply ignore individual churches, and other obscure sects.",
"role": "GreenMeansGo"
},
{
"content": "To be fair, it's difficult to summarize what you're advocating, since you seem to have argued variously in favor of retaining the section as is, deleting it entirely, and for moving it to another section, which as far as I can tell, is essentially a rewrite.",
"role": "Antinoos69"
},
{
"content": "'''Rewrite:''' This is just going to be a simple summary of what I discussed above:\n Although keeps insisting that the article is about civil marriage, I disagree. The title of the article is not \"civil same-sex marriage\" or \"religious same-sex marriage\", it's just ''same-sex marriage''. The argument presented is that the articles with the prefix ''Same-sex marriage in...'' i.e relating to a specific country are written specifically addressing civil marriage. While this is true, it should be noted that the articles are about ''countries'', and the countries' laws are not religious laws but secular laws. Comparatively, the article Same-sex marriage in Christian churches (which is, admittedly, a redirect) is expected to have little mention of civil same-sex marriage. So, in my opinion, this article is supposed to be a general discussion on issues to do with same-sex marriage (the prefix or suffix ''same-sex marriage'' in an article), just like the article on marriage lists opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, monogamous marriage, polygamous marriage, child marriage, incestuous marriage, forced marriage, interracial marriage, and God-only-knows what other kind of marriage within its scope.\nIn view of my point 1 above, because the religious views ''are'' notable, and ''do'' need to be presented neutrally, I am in favour of trimming the number of churches that support SSM (for a view of what I'm advocating, see my comment immediately after the first comments in the \"Religious views\" section.) And before I am accused of not reading the \"General Observations\", I would like to say that I am not particularly averse to deleting the \"Religious views\" section and adding them to the \"Controversies\" section, only I don't feel this would be the best way to resolve the issue. ''' '''",
"role": "Antinoos69"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
730178616.16748.16748
|
[
{
"content": "Guy Standing addition What is the point of having a picture of Guy Standing in the article? As far as I can see it's addition is based purely on humorous reasoning. A picture of a guy sitting, called Guy Standing, yes, very funny. The image doesn't show the sitting posture in full, and has since been replaced by a much better picture that shows a full sitting posture, including the chair.\nInstead of edit-warring to include your joke image (I see you were the one who added it here, please use the talk page to explain why it should be included, thanks.",
"role": "Chaheel Riens"
},
{
"content": "I'm asking for external input here. I'm of the opinion that the image is intentionally disruptive, albeit for humorous reasons, rather then malicious. It offers no benefit to the page, especially now that a better image has been added in its place. For the purposes of 3O, my arguments against the image are as follows:\n The image has been replaced with one showing the act of sitting in better detail and quality - unlike the previous image, the new one shows the entire chair and posture of the image target.\n The previous image is of a person called Guy Standing, which increases confusion when he is being associated - in this context - with sitting.\n It is literally a guy sitting called Guy Standing. While this is funny (ho ho ho) it is not the job of an encyclopedia to entertain, and given the previous argument - and those who are not familiar with Guy standing, they may wonder why the image description contains both Sitting and Standing.\n The argument that both images can co-exist is not applicable, as the Standing/sitting image adds nothing to the article that the replacement image does not do as well - or rather does better. There is no ''need'' for the Standing/sitting image, apart from the desire to crack a joke.",
"role": "W ASB94"
},
{
"content": "Here in response to a 3O request. Put simply, what does this specific picture add to the article that is not covered by the other pictures of individuals sitting or could not be accomplished using a different image? It seems to me that this is intended as a gag picture, and one that may be confusing to readers for whom English is not their first language. Going by WP:IDD, my concerns would be that the image is not especially relevant (in light of the other pics), and that it's somewhat of an overload given the the other pics available. Given the contentiousness of this specific picture, I imagine that even if editors feel that a picture was necessary, a less potentially ambiguous one can be provided. Cheers.",
"role": "W ASB94"
},
{
"content": "Well, your failure to recognise the ambiguity is the whole reason we are in this situation and I felt I had to call for an outside opinion. I am against the picture for reasons I outlined, has kindly given a 3rd opinion which is also against the image, albeit softly worded.\nCan you answer DonIago's question: ''\"what does this specific picture add to the article that is not covered by the other pictures of individuals sitting or could not be accomplished using a different image?\"'' That's all you have to do.",
"role": "W ASB94"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
653143049.6324.6324
|
[
{
"content": "Can someone explain removing heavily referenced section on health? I spent a full day documenting the health risks of excessive sitting. I came back to see if anyone'd improved it but found it deleted by two wikipedians with various edit summaries complaining about my references.\nHere's my version: \nI used 16 ref tags, citing 18 sources and making 6 notes explaining how to find the relevant info in those sources. I cited:\n US National Cancer Institute\n American Journal of Preventive Medicine\n UK National Health Service\n Annals of Internal Medicine\n Journal of the American College of Cardiology\n Indian Journal of Occupationa and Environmental Medicine\n U.S. National Library of Medicine\n Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute\n Sports Medicine Australia\n Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise\n dailymail.co.uk (quoting a study published in ''International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity'')\n dailymail.co.uk (quoting researchers from UK's Leicester University)\n cbc.ca (quoting a researcher from the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute)\n chicagotribune.com (reporting on a study by the American Cancer Society)\n dailymail.co.uk (reporting on same study)\n latimes.com (reporting on a study published in ''Annals of Internal Medicine'')\n Washington Post (citing 4 \"expert\" sources and 2 studies)\nThese are mostly medical sources. A minority from newspaper articles, but for these I was careful to only use articles that directly quoted the researchers involved or at least the numbers.\n'''I spent a whole day ensuring I was raising Wikipedia's standards, and my work gets deleted for lack of good sources!??? If someone thinks there's a mistake in my work, then please say what you think needs to be fixed and we can discuss it and hopefully end up improving wikipedia.'''",
"role": "Gronky"
},
{
"content": "Thanks for the link. At first glance, it seems to condone my sources. Firstly, sources from review articles seem to be fine according to the guideline. Secondly, my use of primary sources seem to fit the requirements given by the guideline:\n \"''If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning (for instance, publication of a large, randomized clinical trial with surprising results), they should be described as being from a single study''\".\nWhich I did. Thirdly, my citing of various institutes seems ok by the guideline:\n \"'''''Wikipedia policies''' on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research '''demand that we present any prevailing medical or scientific consensus''', which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, '''in statements''' and practice guidelines '''issued by major professional medical or scientific societies'''.''\"\nI didn't rely on any single study, I didn't use out-of-date studies, I didn't rely on ''in vitro'' studies, I didn't ''rely'' on the laypress. I don't see why the whole section was deleted. (I'll have to give that guideline a good read to see if there are formalities I need to apply possibly regarding the small number of times where I cited journals and institutes as quoted in the laypress but I'm guessing the guideline won't propose mass deletion.) I'll try to address any specific problems anyone can point me to regarding what was in the section before deletion.",
"role": "SandyGeorgia"
},
{
"content": "Regarding MEDRS, at a glance, I'm sceptical about your interpretation (for the reasons I quoted above), but I'll give it a good read and ping you in a few days before I do anything. The sources I used were everything I found. What are the secondary sources which you say extensively cover this topic?",
"role": "Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH)"
},
{
"content": "Thanks for the offer. I'll email you for the paper.\nI'm confused by the rest of your reply though. You deleted a section about regular prolonged sitting, even after accounting for exercise, being linked to significantly increased death rates, but the studies you link talk about other tangentially-related topics:\nShrestha et al.: \"''OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work''\"\nRoffey et al.: \"''PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of the scientific literature focused on evaluating the causal relationship between occupational sitting and LBP''\"\nChau et al.: \"''OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness of workplace interventions for reducing sitting.''\"\nChinapaw et al.: \"''Abstract The aim of this systematic review was to describe the prospective relationship between childhood sedentary behaviour and health indicators''\"\nProper et al. '''THIS MIGHT BE ON-TOPIC'''\nVan Uffelen et al. '''THIS MIGHT BE ON-TOPIC'''\nLynch '''THIS MIGHT BE ON-TOPIC'''\nKwon et al.: \"''BACKGROUND: Although various occupational physical activities are suspected of contributing to low back pain...'\"\nCastillo-Retamal et al.: \"''OBJECTIVE: To identify methods used to assess physical activity and sedentary behaviour''\"\nDunstan et al. '''THIS SEEMS ON-TOPIC'''\nVan Niekerk et al.: \"''BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting has been associated with musculoskeletal dysfunction.''\"\nBiddle et al.: \"''OBJECTIVE: To synthesise systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions aimed at decreasing sedentary behaviours''\"\nAnd none give anywhere near the level of detail I'd added.\nAlso, when you say you \"haven't finished inserting them\" - where are you inserting them? I only see one source you've inserted (Cochrane) and nobody's touched this article in a month.",
"role": "Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH)"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
355388338.20794.20794
|
[
{
"content": "Definition of trilateration should conform to method of solution Trilateration is a method for determining the intersections of three sphere surfaces given the centers and radii of the three spheres.\n\nAbove is the definition which I say should be used for trilateration and it was the definition that was used until Woodstong started changing it. It is simple, straightforward and to the point. It is in conformance with the method of solution that is provided.\nWoodstone has claimed that trilateration is the process of deriving the position of a point from the distances to points of known location.\n\nThis is vague, ambiguous, and does not conform to the method of solution in the article. This appears to be a made up definition inspired by vandalism.",
"role": "RHB100"
},
{
"content": "This paper referred to above appears to be a two dimensional application and in that sense is less comprehensive than the Wikipedia trilateration article. This paper does not make any reference to Wikipedia and Wikipedia should not change the definition of trilateration because of this paper. The most Wikipedia should do is perhaps make a brief mention of a different usage of trilateration in other papers. It is important that the Wikipedia definition of trilateration conform to the problem solved in the Wikipedia article. One other point should be made with regard to links. There is a link to the Wikipedia article on the sphere. This article on the sphere adequately covers the sphere surface, radius, and center. We do not need additional links to the article on surfaces, the article on radius, or the article on centers. The article on surfaces considers surfaces as a topological concept. This serves more to distract and confuse the reader than for enlightenment. Similar remarks could be made with regard to the articles on radius and center. Therefore we need only the link to the sphere. The definition of trilateration that Woodstone has recently (01:47, 7 May 2010) forced upon us is not a rephrase of the source provided as he claims. It is a completely new definition that has practically nothing to do with the source provided. It is something that he has made up and appears to be deliberately designed to confuse. It is vague, confusing, and ambiguous. It certainly does not conform to the problem that is solved. '''Woodstone appears to be determined to engage in vandalism.''' There are some of us who have labored to make trilateration an interesting and useful article for the readers. Now we have this vandal, Woodstone, who attempts to ruin everything.",
"role": "Woodstone"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
366796148.35031.35031
|
[
{
"content": "If , the first two spheres are concentric. If , they are the same sphere, so there are really just two spheres.\nIf and are very close to each other, is very small, and any errors in the input values are magnified in .\nIf , and are on the same line, will be zero. One of might be a solution. If angle is small or near 180 degrees, the correction term for basis vector is large, and therefore very small compared to ; any errors in the input values are magnified in . Simplified solution without extra assumptions",
"role": "Nominal animal"
},
{
"content": "Because the order of the spheres is the only free variable (to maximize accuracy and stability with), and there are only six possible combinations, it should be enough to make sure neither nor are very small; selecting the order which gives the largest does that. Error analysis on the equations above would show if maximizing gives the best accuracy and numerical stability; in any case, that choice is never particularly susceptible to numerical errors because neither nor are small.\n(Edited my own text for clarity, to fix a missing , and forgot to login. Several times. Sorry.)\n \nAlthough I did not check all details, the concept is clear and a good improvement on the current article. Generality and avoidance of trigonometry make the solution cleaner. You would need to point out where the pathological cases are sidestepped. − \nThe method is only generic, it does not really sidestep the pathological cases. The pathological cases are fortunately very easy to detect. One can only work around the pathological cases by reordering the spheres; for three spheres, there are only 6 possibilities: 123, 132, 213, 231, 312, and 321. I added a couple of paragraphs on the pathological cases into the middle, and expanded a bit on the problems at the very end. To verify the math and the method, compile and run the example C code I added to the next section.",
"role": "62.78.144.117"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
113637694.52.52
|
[
{
"content": "I'm against it. The shows are virtually identical, and this isn't a long article at all. Each individual title redirects here, so there's no confusion. OK, discussing the proposed split",
"role": "Lambertman"
},
{
"content": "If you had watched the show, you would know that there are multiple (while small) difference that I think merits its own page. Of course, that assumes you know what the word \"identical\" means. Modor",
"role": "ChrisP2K5"
},
{
"content": "For Pete's sake, split this article! Password Plus and Super Password were two shows with two different emcees. If you're going to insist that this article stay merged, then you need to go to the pages for CSI: Miami and CSI: New York and insist that they, too, be merged together. They're the same format, after all, RIGHT?",
"role": "ChrisP2K5"
},
{
"content": "Exactly. Justinthebull, straw man arguments will NOT help you.",
"role": "TheHYPO"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
176555116.8001.8001
|
[
{
"content": "Move proposal I would like to suggest moving the article to Password spinoffs or Password (spinoffs), or if you prefer the terminology, Password revivals/Password (revivals), as, with the new series coming out, this title is no longer applicable for that series.",
"role": "TheHYPO"
},
{
"content": "I don't have a direct opinion on whether MDP should be in this article or the Password article - but it should not be in this article if it is going to redirect to Password.\nEither this becomes the article for all spinoffs, or it remains for just PP and SP because they happen to be essentially the same game. If that is the case, MDP should not even be mentioned in this article (unless relevant to the text) and all information should be relegated to the Password article. Should MDP ever become notable enough for its own article, it can be spunoff from password. Right now there is more info (marginally) in this article than in Password. If this is going to be the article for MDP, the title needs to change. So those seem to me to be the two options to discuss: cut MDP from this article and move relevant info back to the PW article, or rename this article as suggested in the first post Any new opinions on this? Since noone cares. I will execute one of the plans myself unless more opinions surface",
"role": "LinkTiger"
},
{
"content": "We don't know what the format will be, or when the show will premiere. Any act is easily undoable should MDP be a P+/SP clone. Wikipedia is based on what is known at the present, and shouldn't anticipate knowledge (hence, number of episodes in infoboxes are always as-aired, not the known number produced, for exampl). I think the most appropriate option right now would be to move everything to the Password page, and off this page, which, by name, is clearly for only those two spinoffs. It should not have MDP on it. If MDP gets enough information to support its own page, it can spin one off. In retrospect of the previous discussion, This page is long enough without another spinoff unless MDP ends up being only a slight modification of these formats.",
"role": "Lambertman"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
221775836.39462.39462
|
[
{
"content": "\"The general equation, which was derived from Newton's law of gravity,\" Can someone explain why this formula doesn't work out if you rearrange to solve for using data for the Earth and the Sun??\n(((149597876.6^3)/ (365.26/2*PI())^2) /0.0000000000667248)-5.98E+24)=1.52415096012299E+29 (7.66% of the sun)",
"role": "GabrielVelasquez"
},
{
"content": "(((149597876600^3)/(365.26/2*PI())^2)/0.0000000000667248)-5E+24 = 1.52421076012294E+38 (7,663,201,408.36%) Oh yeah, much better. I don't think you are bothering to check this. If I rework the formula for time or distance I get exactly 365.36 days or 1.4959e8 km if I multiply M by 1.188014124, '''but I don't know why I should have to,''' that's the question here. The only way that formula comes any were near being equal is if I use Kilometers. By the way, what are you refering to when you make the statement \"Consistant unit system,\" - do you know what that means? or does using fancy big phraseology make you feel important... because irrelevant statements don't impress all of us.",
"role": "Xihr"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
9400564.1694.1694
|
[
{
"content": "Third Law? Is it just me, or is Kepler's third law not explained the way the other two are?",
"role": "Kazvorpal"
},
{
"content": "Fixed. 5 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)",
"role": "Bcrowell"
},
{
"content": "Your hard work is admirable, but I don't think this material is useful, or even correct as currently written. The end result of the derivation is a relationship between r and P, but these quantities only have meaning within the specific coordinate system employed. Coordinates in general relativity are arbitrary and meaningless in and of themselves.",
"role": "Stan Lioubomoudrov"
},
{
"content": "You've pointed out one way in which the r coordinate you used is analogous to the coordinates of Euclidean spacetime, but in other ways the analogy fails, e.g., the circumference of the orbit isn't equal to 2π times the distance from the planet to the sun. You could pick another coordinate system in which the circumference equaled 2π times the distance to the sun, and in that coordinate system, Kepler's third law would be false for circular orbits. What I'm saying is not at all controversial the meaninglessness of the coordinates is a basic, accepted feature of general relativity. You could pick coordinates in which the relationship between r and P would be that P7 was proportional to r11. I've gone ahead and deleted the section. I hope you won't take this is a confrontational action, because I respect the work you've put into this article, but I don't think the section is correct or useful.",
"role": "Stan Lioubomoudrov"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
107996234.3849.3849
|
[
{
"content": "There wont be any reference for this statement \"90% of all anesthetics administered in the US are either provided solely by physician anesthesiologists or supervised by anesthesiologists.\" because none exists. Where is the evidence?",
"role": "Mmackinnon"
},
{
"content": "Look up 'collaboration,' Mr Georgia AA. Nowhere will you find the word implies or establishes a relationship as being between two equals. I collaborate with MDs, DOs, dentists, podiatrists, and on occasion, with anesthesiologists. And sometimes an MDA asks me for my input or assistance.\nAs to my practice and 'protocols,' you simply don't know what you are talking about. NPs and PAs utilize protocols in that they rely on a physician's delegated authority. I practice on my own authority as a CRNA in several States. Wouldn't know a protocol if it bit me. _____________________________________________\nWJB, what was your objection to the See Also research about Obsterical Anesthesia?",
"role": "Uptowner"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
109562615.10646.10646
|
[
{
"content": "I suggest removing this part \"There are studies which suggest that physician and nurse anesthesia may not be substitutable services because anesthesia delivered by physicians results in fewer adverse events than undirected nurse anesthesia.\"\nThe study, Silber et al, has been debunked by its own authors are mere conjecture and not science. Even MDAs admit that. The pine study we have added however, parallels 4 others actual studies suggesting the same thing, there is no difference. Sibler is flawed and the author admits it therefore it does not count as evidence. Here is the evidence against the study.\nhttp://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/reprint/99/5/1578.pdf (Study Regarding Anesthesia Outcomes Cites Outdated Studies)\nhttp://bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/93/4/540\nComparative effectiveness and safety of physician and nurse anaesthetists: a narrative systematic review\nhttp://www.aana.com/news.aspx?ucNavMenu_TSMenuTargetID=171&ucNavMenu;_TSMenuTargetType=4&ucNavMenu;_TSMenuID=6&id;=1606\nSurgical mortality and type of anesthesia provider",
"role": "Mmackinnon"
},
{
"content": "Hey uptowner\nNice edits, very fair compromises. Thanks for meeting half way!",
"role": "Uptowner"
},
{
"content": "Sorry but I can't seem to find the number 90 anywhere in the article, where should I be looking?",
"role": "Deepz2"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
529139355.15074.15074
|
[
{
"content": "\"14th baktun\"? As far as I understand it - there's no such thing as a \"14th\" baktun. Rather, 13.0.0.0.0 is the beginning of the first baktun of the new era, no? (since 13.0.0.0.0 is, in effect, the same thing as saying 0.0.0.0.0). Therefore, shouldn't all references to \"the 14th baktun\" be changed to \"the first baktun of the new era\"?",
"role": "Bigzteve"
},
{
"content": "How many Mayan inscriptions do you know of that give more than 13 in the bak'tuns position?",
"role": "Senor Cuete"
},
{
"content": "You are wrong and you could read this article to answer your question. All inscriptions say that the start of this world occurred on a whole bunch of 13s.13.0.0.0.0. All known inscriptions use 20 bak'tuns in a pictun and there are examples in the article. Senor Cuete",
"role": "Bigzteve"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
529156476.15474.15474
|
[
{
"content": "I created and added the illustration on the right so that it is much easier to compare the large range of sizes of the units, but was reverted by implying that it was original research (based on his comments \"Please don't add original research as you did to the Maya calendar articles.\" on and edit summary \"Revert to last un vandalized and no OR version\" on Mesoamerican calendars). All the information in it is derived from tables in Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#Correlations_between_Western_calendars_and_the_Long_Count and Maya_calendar#Long_Count — I just organized it in a graphical form. Does anyone think that the image is useful and non-OR? Thanks, '''''' Visualization of Mesoamerican Long Count time units",
"role": "Cmglee"
},
{
"content": "Also the table in your illustration adds material that's already in the article. Senor Cuete",
"role": "Senor Cuete"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
28638086.2169.2170
|
[
{
"content": "Page changes",
"role": "Light current"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
26892383.21548.21548
|
[
{
"content": "Cedars trimmed the history section substantially. Is this really the a good move? Why not put the whole history section into an article History of electrical engineering and only provide a summary of some highlights here? I think the field of ee is large enough to justify such a move. History of electrical engineering",
"role": "Hirzel"
},
{
"content": "I think a sub-article is a good idea but I wanted to focus on the main article. If someone could split the section into a sub-article for me I would welcome the move. As said, the main article already exceeds the 32 kB suggested maximum and I can see this becomming a problem if the main article is nominated for feature status (long articles are also a general problem for the less-enthusiastic reader). The article also needs an improved lead and a summary of unsolved problems in the area. I have already made offline progress on an Unsolved problems in electrical engineering article to fit in the [[Category:Unsolved_problems]] and could post it if desired.",
"role": "65.26.227.118"
},
{
"content": "AFAIC, the only unsolved problem in electrical engineering (in Europe) is what to call a dying subject.",
"role": "Light current"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
150842296.10681.9553
|
[
{
"content": "''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' *'''Support''' ''or'' *'''Oppose''''', then sign your comment with'' ~~~~''. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.''\n'''Support''' per reasons outlined above. ···? · Survey",
"role": "Nihonjoe"
},
{
"content": "'''Not participating in this backwards, bad-faith polling.''' The move was made and protected; it's been done. This little exercise after-the-fact is a complete farce.",
"role": "Neier"
},
{
"content": "'''No way am I going to participate in some backwards chat session over whether or not to make a move you've already done and locked.''' You should've found someone completely uninvolved and kept your hands off your sysop tools when you're in the middle of a content dispute.",
"role": "Nihonjoe"
},
{
"content": "'''Comment'''. While assuming good faith, Italiavivi is right about the outcome here. If the redirect is from Obama to Obama (disambiguation), the outcome of the poll is moot. The page will be moved automatically to the plain title per WP:DAB by the good folks working at WP:MDP. That indicates to me that this comes down to where the Obama redirect should point, as that dictates the location of the dab. What should really be happening here is an RfD for Obama, and I'm tempted to close this early and move the discussion over there.",
"role": "Chrishmt0423"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
149715841.2119.2119
|
[
{
"content": "Mr. Barack Obama is a minor politician who is little known except in the USA. Wikipedia is an international website, not a tool of the USA. A neutral administrator has already reached a concensus that Obama would be a disambiguation page. This happened in June 2007. Wikipedia policy demands neutrality and disambiguation in case of disputes.",
"role": "SNPBrown"
},
{
"content": "Yeltsin and Chirac are both former heads of state. The Obama disambiguation is similar to Perot, and Nader in that respect; although, I would also not oppose a move of Chirac to a DAB page. Also, the DABs of Yeltsin are all related to him, so it is not the same issue as we have here (a sitting prime minister, a historic clan and a city, and a potential nominee for president) by any stretch of the imagination. Quite a mixed bag.",
"role": "Tvoz"
},
{
"content": "All we need to consider here is whether one particular usage of \"Obama\" is overwhelmingly more used than other usages. And one particular usage is. Obama, Japan, is a small, small city, and all other people named Obama are far less well-known than Barack. —",
"role": "Lowellian"
},
{
"content": "To move Obama to Obama (disambiguation) should go through the normal WP:RM procedure. The original content of Obama was the disambiguation. The wider audience would help reach a concensus as to whether or not a particular usage deserves the redirect in Wikipedia.",
"role": "Italiavivi"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
253247358.14213.14213
|
[
{
"content": "Merging Slipknot Demo and Welcome to Our Neighborhood into Slipknot (band) The discussion about the existence of both articles have gone on for long enough, at both their GANs and AfDs, and most recently at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Slipknot discography. I say we just merge them both into this article once and for all. Otherwise, we can't move on with an ultimate Slipknot topic at some point in the future. To merge them both in, a lot of stuff will have to be removed, but a lot of it is redundant with what's in here. I recall talking about this with , who might be able to shed some more light on the situation.",
"role": "Gary"
},
{
"content": "They've already been peer reviewed. They can't be compared to other demo articles; these ones have received more attention because we brought the attention to them, with GANs and featured topic nominations.",
"role": "Blackngold29"
},
{
"content": "That ''was'' for a Good Topic. Yes, we have our hands tied, which is why I recommend merging the articles. I asked for the topic to be closed because it failed to gain any traction—once again.",
"role": "Blackngold29"
},
{
"content": "If they are merged, we won't be removing most of the information. Most of it will be moved along with it. The article would then be redirected to a section about, say, all the demos that Slipknot has released.",
"role": "Rezter"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
248027055.10406.10406
|
[
{
"content": "Chris Fehn joined Slipknot in April of 1997, not 1998. Chris Fehn's join date",
"role": "Homie C"
},
{
"content": "Check his Wikipedia page.",
"role": "Blackngold29"
},
{
"content": "It has a reference on it.",
"role": "Blackngold29"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
698991135.19168.19168
|
[
{
"content": "Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio I don't think Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio is notable enough in her own right to merit a separate article in Wikipedia. Any relevant material can be easily merged here in the Personal life section. -",
"role": "Cwobeel"
},
{
"content": "'''Oppose''' - Clearly this individual has notability on her own merits.",
"role": "Psemmler"
},
{
"content": "'''Support''', as nom -",
"role": "Cwobeel"
},
{
"content": "Being a Miami Dolphins cheerleader is not just being a cheerleader, it is a job and career and celebrity status. For several years. Her status as \"First wife\" of Marco Rubio is also notable.",
"role": "Informant16"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
689556831.64227.64227
|
[
{
"content": "'''NOTE''': This RFC poses the question, \"Should this material be left in the article without attribution in Wikipedia's voice?\" However, the material presently is in the article with tons of attribution, just not inline attribution. Therefore, the RFC is malformed, and the quoted sentences also misleadingly omit any hint that there are footnotes, and so this RFC will resolve nothing.",
"role": "Anythingyouwant"
},
{
"content": "It is deliberately misleading, and I have requested that the RFC be cancelled. In addition to being deliberately misleading, the RFC is now also moot because inline attribution is now provided, against my better judgment.",
"role": "Cwobeel"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
506936178.87121.87121
|
[
{
"content": "Apollo XI (plaque) vs Apollo 11 I have three reasons for reverting:\n prior discussion and consensus (see archive)\n WP:BRD - '''b'''old edit, I '''r'''everted, now '''d'''iscuss. To revert after that without discussion is just warring, so I reverted on _that_ basis. The article is about the Walk, so we don't sarcastically quote it (or mock editors).\n Lots of NASA missions and assets were officially named with, and emblazoned with, Roman numerals. Saturn V, etc. The anglicised numerals were the most commonly used, but still slang, form. So, there may be a compromise here, but I !vote for use the same text throughout the article. I think parenthesizing or quoting either Apollo 11 or Apollo XI, like lots of ''explaining'' around here, seems condescending, since Roman numerals are taught in ''grade school''. I would agree with using \"XI\" everywhere, but follow its ''first use'' with (11), not (Apollo 11), and not quoted - that's how jargon is introduced, if it is used throughout an article.\nIn wiki, I've seen Roman numerals wikilinked, as in Apollo XI. MOS may speak to this.",
"role": "Lexein"
},
{
"content": "]]",
"role": "Taylor Strand"
},
{
"content": "]] Taylor Strand's information is provably incorrect. Viz, the patches for X and XII:\nFurther, here's a Kennedy Space Center NASA archives page about the so-emblazoned Apollo XI mission, and here's a NASA page which ''calls'' it 11, while referring to the ''mission'' as Apollo XI.\nI'd like to find out if the Apollo XI Walk of Fame star was a mistake, or selected by the donors who funded those custom stars, which might have been, oh, I don't know, astronauts or their friends, or friends of NASA.\n So, what do we do about this article?",
"role": "C.Fred"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
432489216.33831.33831
|
[
{
"content": "The articles does not mention any of the following information which people constantly ask about:\n what is the address of the Hollywood Walk of Fame so that they can map it for directions... There is no address, but if any address is to be provided, 7018 Hollywood Boulevard is the most accurate.\n Best way to enjoy the walk: wear comfortable shoes and clothes, keep hydrated, plan to spend the day in Hollywood.\n Best way to get there: take the Red Line Metro - it has three stops in Hollywood, two of which Highland and Vine climb up right onto the Hollywood Walk of Fame\n the walk is family-friendly and is a great way to create long-lasting memories\n the walk is pet-friendly\n wheelchair accessible\n the walk is free\n all walk of fame star ceremonies are free to attend in the public viewing area.\n no tickets to buy. no reserved seats.\n you can learn who's getting a star next and plan your Hollywood trip accordingly\n announcements are made 7-10 days prior to star ceremony at www.walkoffame.com/pages/upcomingceremonies\n all ceremonies start promptly at 11:30am and usually last 40-50 minutes\n anyone can nominate a star with a properly completed nomination application found at http://www.walkoffame.com/media/walkoffamenomination.pdf\n nomination deadline is by Noon of May 31 of each year to be considered for the following year selection.\n in 2010, the Hollywood Walk of Fame celebrated its 50th Anniversary with a year-long celebration. Highlights include a time capsule and attending of around 75 legendary honorees.\n There has not been a replacement for the late Honorary Mayor of Hollywood Johnny Grant. Leron Gubler, President/CEO of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce emcees the Hollywood Walk of Fame star ceremonies.\n Ana Martinez, the producer of the Hollywood Walk of Fame has been working behind the scenes producing these stars ceremonies for more than 20 years.\n The people/company making these stars are now in their third generation\n there are clubs of star-polishers\n The Hollywood Walk of Fame and the Hollywood Sign are trademarks of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. Global Icons handles licensing. missing basic useful information about the Walk",
"role": "Walk7018"
},
{
"content": "Rooney, Brian (May 3, 2010). \"Follow the Star-Studded Sidewalk\" (video). ABC News. (event at 2:00) Strauss, Bob (September 25, 2010). \"Walk of Fame continues to be a major attraction\". Los Angeles Daily News.",
"role": "Lexein"
},
{
"content": "Please change the main picture which does not accurately represent what the Hollywood Walk of Fame stands for. The main focus of that pictures is something that is not part of the Hollywood Walk of Fame. —Preceding undated comment added .",
"role": "66.59.225.49"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
433982536.24593.24593
|
[
{
"content": "Yes, I see your point, and the point misses the point. Under the rules of Wikipedia, the FBI is considered a reliable source. Your job as a Wikipedia editor is not to \"double check\" a source to make sure it isn't \"self publishing\" whatever it \"deems necessary\" to achieve its \"agenda.\" Government agencies have been putting out falsehoods for as long as there have been government agencies. And people in government agencies may have agendas which may make them ''biased''.\nThe fact that a ''source'' such as the FBI may have an \"agenda\" or may be \"biased\" or may be \"self publishing whatever it deems necessary\" is ''not a valid objection'' for to the ''use of that source in Wikipedia''. In Wikipedia, sources are allowed to be biased, and ''Wikipedia does not exclude biased sources merely because they are biased''. Please review the Wikipedia guidelines on Relaible Sources and, in particular, the Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View. Yours,",
"role": "Famspear"
},
{
"content": "No, I am not avoiding the \"real question\" here. The real question is whether, for purposes of Wikipedia, the FBI is considered a reliable source. The real question is not whether YOU consider the FBI to be a \"reliable source,\" but rather whether the FBI is considered a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia.\nNo, there is no Wikipedia rule that says that in order for Wikipedia to use the FBI as a source in an article, Wikipedia editors must be able to \"find the trusted 3rd party source they [the FBI] used to formulate those views [sic].\"\nThe FBI is a U.S. government agency. It's part of the U.S. Department of Justice. It has a good reputation for ''checking the facts'' that's the job of the FBI. There is meaningful oversight within the FBI to provide reasonable assurance that FBI news releases are accurate. That doesn't mean that the FBI is always correct. That doesn't mean that FBI employees have never put out false information. The FBI is not \"widely acknowledged\" as being \"extremist\" or \"promotional,\" and the FBI does not rely heavily on rumour or personal opinion in issuing its news releases.\nThe term \"self-publishing\" as that term is used in Wikipedia does not refer to publishing of official statements by a U.S. government agency. The term does refer to things such as web sites by private individuals or private organizations without a reputation for fact-checking.\nThe reason you can't see the \"logic\" behind my statements is that I'm not using \"my logic.\" I am explaining the rules of Wikipedia.",
"role": "63.225.172.116"
},
{
"content": "And that's why people who use their brains can't take Wikipedia seriously. The End. \"The FBI is a U.S. government agency.\" So what? That means absolutely nothing. \"There is meaningful oversight within the FBI..\" And whose definition of \"meaningful\" are we using here? \"..and the FBI does not rely heavily on rumour or personal opinion in issuing its news releases\" I'm sure they don't, yet I still have no clue what they actually do rely on for their news releases, and that's the problem I'm hoping we can resolve here. Thank you.",
"role": "Doug Weller"
},
{
"content": "User IP63.225.172.116 wrote: \".....yet I still have no clue what they actually do rely on for their news releases, and that's the problem I'm hoping we can resolve here.\"\nNo, we cannot \"resolve\" what you refer to as that \"problem\" here - not here on a Wikipedia talk page. We as Wikipedia editors are not here to do an in-depth analysis of how the FBI formulates the content of its news releases. In matters of federal law enforcement involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the consensus among Wikipedia editors is that the FBI itself is considered a ''reliable source'' for purposes of Wikipedia. That means that Wikipedia editors can use the FBI as a source in Wikipedia articles.",
"role": "Doug Weller"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
433632295.20537.20537
|
[
{
"content": "I removed the word \"extremist\" due to its ambiguous meaning and frequent usage as an expression of opinion rather than a fact. I did not think its usage lended value to the article nor was its usage neutral in this context.\n \nK.C.Golden Removed the word \"extremist\"",
"role": "99.64.103.58"
},
{
"content": "I understand where you're coming from. In that case, its usage should refer to the source such as \"according to the FBI...\" followed by a quote from the report in order to keep the article neutral. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a member and agree with the term to describe the group, just not the way its written out right now as it currently implies an expression of opinion in the wiki article itself when it was in fact, the FBI report that expressed the opinion so they should be directly quoted if it is to be used. I'll leave that decision to you.",
"role": "CityOfSilver"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
428511300.3026.521
|
[
{
"content": "Large trim",
"role": "Tedwadman"
},
{
"content": "I've added details of the 1999 Gorton and Jarvis study, in which those in the test population reporting symptoms were treated with hourly doses of 1000 mg of Vitamin C for the first 6 hours and then 3 times daily thereafter. Those not reporting symptoms in the test group were also administered 1000-mg doses 3 times daily.",
"role": "WLU"
},
{
"content": "Since there have been very few studies of the effects of megadoses of vitamin C I doubt it would be possible to find these studies showing no affect of which you speak. Almost all C studies are of low or moderate doses.",
"role": "Orangemarlin"
},
{
"content": "Erm, speaking of poorly designed studies, this review included studies using doses as low as 200 mg. Neither Pauling, nor any other serious orthomolecular researcher that I am aware of, has ever tried to pretend that normo-dietary type doses are effective in treating colds. Surely, Orange, if there is a \"vast\" number of studies supporting your POV, you can do better than this?",
"role": "Orangemarlin"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
422670932.104060.104060
|
[
{
"content": "Would User:Orangemarlin like to explain why the Journal of Translational Medicine is not a reliable source? It's a peer reviewed scientific journal that seems to satisfy Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Its article on the use high doses of Ascorbic acid in the amelioration of cancer-associated inflammation surely deserves a mention in this article. (Intravenous ascorbic acid to prevent and treat cancer-associated sepsis?) Journal of Translational Medicine",
"role": "Lumos3"
},
{
"content": "I meant to leave a comment here, but got distracted. I will speak to the quality of the journal first. It has a very low impact factor of 3.5. This means articles are rarely cited, for whatever reason. Consider that Nature is in the 30's. I never trust an \"open-source\" journal with such an abysmal impact factor. That being said, and I didn't have enough space to say it, but MastCell says it best. The whole article is available online, and I read it. Almost all of the article was speculative. I guess I could write an article for them saying that drinking urine may prevent cancer because of some specious pathway. That doesn't mean it's right. Anyways, I think we've made all of the points.",
"role": "MastCell"
},
{
"content": "Whatever Marlin's opinion is of open source science journals, the cited article still falls within Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Science is a debate between opinions within the scientific community and Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines mean we should report notable opinion without giving it undue weight. I propose that the fact that a few scientists regard high dose treatment with ascorbic acid favourabley be represented with a one line statement along the lines of.\nA 2011 survey of published research into the use of ascorbic acid to treat cancer-associated inflammation concluded that there were beneficial indications and that more research was warranted. \nPage content is determined by reliability, not notability.\nIt's already noted that some scientists ''think'' vitamin C has merit, and also more clearly noted that it is ''not'' a mainstream treatment. We should not give undue weight to a fringe theory that has essentially zero actual empirical support (and some empirical counterindications). I hadn't even noticed until now that the authors are actually orthomolecular practitioners, giving it even less weight in my opinion. At ''best'', I would give it a \"Despite a lack of support, some orthomolecular practitioners continue to claim vitamin C has chemotherapeutic potential\" and that's a stretch. Orthomolecular medicine is fringe theory based on case studies, anecdotes and ''a priori'' beliefs with little actual science. I am not in favour of giving their viewpoint significant credibility. Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex",
"role": "WLU"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
254845438.45356.45356
|
[
{
"content": "Please see the article history. is making major changes, and is edit warring. All without discussion on the talk page. I don't see any comments from Malcolm Schosha anywhere on the current talk page here. I asked him to do so in my edit summary when undoing his major changes. Both RolandR and I have undone Malcolm Schosha's edit.\nI asked on his talk page if he is aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. Major changes without discussion",
"role": "Timeshifter"
},
{
"content": "I believe you should self-revert, and talk first. 2 people have undone your edits. Are you aware of WP:1RR?\nSee the second \"October 2008\" talk section on your talk page (there are 2 talk sections with that heading). That looks like some block history in the area covered by WP:ARBPIA. Edit warring at Anti-Zionism.\nSee also your block log: . It lists the block for edit warring at Anti-Zionism. You were also blocked from June 6, 2008 to July 25, 2008 for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.\nI think it is up to you to show good faith and address RolandR's concerns first.",
"role": "Kwork2"
},
{
"content": "You removed a lot more from Irgun in your edit than what you indicated in your comments or edit summaries.",
"role": "Kwork2"
},
{
"content": "Here are the Irgun diffs of your reversions: \nIn the block log for one of your old user names, , there were some other blocks. One of them is for 3RR. See .",
"role": "Kwork2"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
286310174.73107.73107
|
[
{
"content": "Is there anyone objecting uploading of the wanted Poster for Menachem Begin along with other Irgun members. Photographs of the Irgun in action Wanted Poster for Menachem Begin",
"role": "Kasaalan"
},
{
"content": "Do wanted posters, have any copyright. This should be fair use. By the way since since Irgun operated between \"1931 and 1948\" possibly the image don't have any copyright claim.",
"role": "Peter cohen"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
358888060.4228.4228
|
[
{
"content": "Sorry to resurrect an old topic, but I feel I must agree that the name of this article should be 'die Linke'.\nIn response to those criticisms set out above;\ni) Precedent, while important shouldn't be overstated. If sufficient evidence exists for a change, it should trump precedent.\nii) A news article which consistently uses 'die Linke' as the name of the party.\niii) Wikipedia: Use English doesn't quite apply as implied above. The policy is not to name articles in English, it is to name articles using the most common name used in English language sources. Hence 'Michelangelo', not 'Michael the Angel', 'Bundestag', not 'Federal Parliament (Germany)', 'Pravda' not 'Truth', etc.\nIn terms of positive arguments towards a name change:\ni) The party calls itself 'DIE LINKE (the left)' on it's English language page here.\nii) A wikipedia article should be located where it is most likely to be found by an end user. I doubt anyone enters 'The Left (Germany)' in the search box, but someone might enter 'die Linke', even if it is just a German looking for English language info on the party. More specifically 'die Linke' is a more unique name for the party than 'The left'.\niii) There are significant number of English language webpages which use the name \"die Linke\", doing a search for '\"die linke\" +party' on English language pages on google I get about 170,000. It's very hard to do a direct comparison between number of pages, given that there a lot of pages which can use the terms 'the left', 'party' and 'germany' without being associated with the subject under discussion, but I won't pretend that there aren't also a significant number which simply call the party 'the left'.\nI don't plan to do anything radical here, but I would be interested to see if people's opinions on this matter have changed since 2007. Revisiting the name",
"role": "NeilTarrant"
},
{
"content": "Since when is it common to translate german proper names into english? Ok you might tranlate it because it means the same political terminology, but it is the name of the party itself, not usually the name of the political ideology. Or do you also translate \"Autofahrerpartei Deutschlands\" into \"German Cardriverparty\" ? If this is done with a lot of other proper names then i can just say: biggest fail in wiki. For example you can translate \"Die Linke\" into \"The Left\" like it were a typical left wing party in the USA(or so) but their politics differ a lot, so this could leed to missunderstandings. If you know what the expression \"lost in translation\" means then you kow what i mean. Also its not common to tranlate such proper names. Or do you make an exeption because its about partys of germany? Or what the hell! Greets Edit/ The party \"Die Linke\" is really a left wing party(differ from usa left wing partys). But other partys are also called \"the left\" or \"the left people, left partys\". Their proper name is \"Die Linke\" but their political possition is a \"left\" one. In germany they are mostly called \"the left\" not so much because of their name, its because of their political \"ideology\". I hope someone gets my point. And maybe that should be decribed in such a way. By the way: You didnt translate \"Bundestag\" or \"Verfassungsschutz\" into english. I suspect someone didnt understand the name of the party in relation to the political ideology.",
"role": "Janfrie1988"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
235563014.4360.4360
|
[
{
"content": "Deletion of proven facts Hi,\nthere is one anonymous IP constantly removing facts about the party. It is about its extreme tendencies, for example openly demand a change from the democratic system to a non-democratic system in Germany and its connection to terrorist groups all over the world. I don't know why the IP deletes these facts, because major parts of die Linke are openly not democratic.\nHere are the proven facts:\n More than 75% of the members have been member of the dictator party SED.\n At least seven members of the Bundestag of \"Die Linke\" are former employees of the Stasi which consistently violated human rights in East Germany by doing murders, tortures and other cruel crimeshttp://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/neuwahl2005/linkspartei_aid_99530.html.\n Many members of ''Die Linke'' are sympathetic to terrorist groups (for example PKK, ETA, Farc and many more) and dictators . These groups are also forbidden in Germany and considered to be terrorist groups by the European Union.",
"role": "Reachtests"
},
{
"content": "Hello, if you have proven facts that these parties are officially sympathetic to terrorist groups which are officially recognized as terrorist group than add this to their articles. However I only find official statements of The Left spoken by their leaders or documented in their party program that they are sympathetic to Terrorist groups which are officially recognized as terrorst groups. As for the stasi: The Stasi was part of the degrading regime of the DDR. They violated the right of free speech and thinking and it is a very well known fact that they were involved in crimes against humans. They also are linked to this party. I can't see that any other secret service (the verfassungsschutz or the BND is not a secret police) is linked to a party. As for the party SED: dictator party is the correct term. The DDR was a dictatorship which is also a proven fact and it is comparable to other dictator regime - people who thought different were killed and in this context it does not matter that hitler killed million and the SED just thousands. They did not ruled autoriterian, but constantly human-rights-violating. Keep in mind that the DDR just was a few years ago and I agree that former NSDAP members may have been found in Zentrum, CDU,SPD,FDP, KPD and of course the SED (so to say in all parties after World War 2), but this was longer time ago and most of them were checked by the Allies and there where many courts, which does not hold for the former DDR, unfortunately. But this is a different topic.\nI think it is up to the reader making up his own mind given him a few proven facts.",
"role": "193.75.53.9"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
244072026.22768.22465
|
[
{
"content": "Globalize? Deepstratagem, what do you mean?",
"role": "SamEV"
},
{
"content": "The article covers precisely the people it is intended to cover: the Hispanics and Latinos of the United States, and only the United States.",
"role": "Deepstratagem"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
229782960.9230.9230
|
[
{
"content": "photos of hispanic or latino people we should not have photos of such unkown hispanics maybe we should put jessica alba,mario lopez, salma hayek, carlos santana, ricky martin, christina aguilera, jennifer lopez, david archuleta, eva mendez put people that alot of people know",
"role": "Travis wyrick"
},
{
"content": "I agree with Kman we should not pack the infobox with pictures of entertainers. Just because you don't know who a person is does not mean they are not historically important people. With that said perhaps we should add some more pictures to the infobox and remove a few others. For instance I think we have an overabundance of politicians in the infobox. I would say that Loretta Sanchez picture is not neccessary to have in the infobox especially since she is a sitting elected official and for that matter a congressperson representing a district rather than a Senator representing a state. With that said if we are going to have any entertainers they should be historically notable ones rather than contemporary pop icons. Some good examples would be people like Celia Cruz or Ray Barretto.",
"role": "Kman543210"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
33982772.724.724
|
[
{
"content": "Making false accusations of vandalism and stalking (extraordinary from such a newbie who doesn't even understand wikipedia) will not help youtr POV case. Changing the UK to England in accordance with Cornwall (where you lost your similar argument) is POV and reverting it is neither stalking nor vandalism by any stretch of the imagination, False accusations in the edit summary",
"role": "RichardWeiss"
},
{
"content": "Please see Wikipedia:Good faith and act accvording to its strictures. Your comments are out of line. I find your stalking allegations extremely offensive and suggest you withdraw them. I clearly have not been stalking your edits, to be honest you are making so few edits it would be impossible for anyone to stalk you. I am not claiming England is a sovereign state (indeed people here in Honduras often insist for official purposes I must be from England to which I say England is not a state, it is the UK) but Cornwall states Cornwall is in England because it is in England so you have no reason to claim differently,",
"role": "Doire"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
651692610.869.869
|
[
{
"content": "The Saxon Chronicle states that is became an island in historic times, that it was before that 6 miles from the sea. I don't mind that this was reverted as long as there is a reliable source to deny the account of the Saxon Chronicle. Was it an island long ago?",
"role": "Raggz"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
761448773.7141.7141
|
[
{
"content": "MEDRS - about this, please read and follow both WP:MEDRS with regard to sourcing and WP:MEDMOS with regard to article structure. Thanks.",
"role": "Jytdog"
},
{
"content": "MEDMOS and MEDRS are not \"my aesthetic\" - they are community guidelines. Every time you edit, you agree to follow the Terms of Use, and the Terms of Use obligate you to follow community policies and guidelines. I have requested help from other editors, so we should get some more input soon.",
"role": "Biasuz"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
472067344.312.312
|
[
{
"content": "I am placing the statement here NICE",
"role": "Richiez"
},
{
"content": "Can you easily get the missing information from the sources that you have provided? 2-3 sentences what exactly NICE did examine and what level of evidence they claim would make the paragraph much better. Did they study metastatic cancer only, or anything else? What groups and subgroups of patients? Were they using internal data? I notice there is not much in medline. It is the overgeneralization that makes it appear like a political statement.\n Also wondering, is there some hype to use Faslodex over anastrazole that I have missed? Did not notice anything like this recently.",
"role": "Nbauman"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
162940568.6993.6993
|
[
{
"content": "\"Student erotica\" edit war",
"role": "Edgarde"
},
{
"content": "Consensus is something you build, not something you enforce.",
"role": "151.197.111.178"
},
{
"content": "The section belongs. Removing it was done without consensus. The people who keep removing it without having first sought consensus are driving an edit war.",
"role": "Student erotica"
},
{
"content": "No, you have it backward. It used to be in the article, until it was summarily removed without seeking consensus. I'm just restoring the article to what it was. The information should remain here until it is big enough for its own article. That's the way thinsg work in wikipedia.",
"role": "Gscshoyru"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
125604776.5981.5981
|
[
{
"content": "Student publications This section seems misplaced, especially with listing a bunch of publications. We don't list other publications featuring erotica, so I'm not sure why this should be different.",
"role": "DreamGuy"
},
{
"content": "Please create a new article for this. It is wrong here, for the reasons given above, and on your before you restored this section. / As stated before, sources do not make this appropriate for this article. Sourcing Family Guy doesn't make him worth adding to History of art. If you create a student erotica article, it would be worth linking from this one. But this is not the place for it. /",
"role": "151.197.111.178"
},
{
"content": "Seconded. You're going against consensus, and are about to violate the WP:3RR. Please, stop.",
"role": "151.197.111.178"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
10900408.9470.9470
|
[
{
"content": "Inflation Should this list be adjusted for inflation?",
"role": "Golbez"
},
{
"content": "I find the \"adjusted for inflation, wealth, and population\" numbers to be rather ridiculous. Basically this figure shows what would happen if a similar hurricane happened today with a similar impact. For instance, if a hurricane were to hit Miami today and destroy the whole city; or if a hurricane were to hit Galveston and kill 20% of the population; or if a hurricane were to overflow Lake Okeechobee and destroy every building for hundreds of square miles. All of these things don't really seem possible. And even if they are, it doesn't mean the old hurricane should be ranked as if they were. To show the craziness of this notion, consider the hurricane that struck Florida in the 1500's destroying the only Spanish settlement in the state; or the 1700 Cascadia earthquake that destroyed every single (nonexistent) city on the US west coast. Should these also be adjusted for increased population? ... That said, adjusting for inflation absolutely makes sense. Since any adjusted value will eventually become outdated all listed monetary values should say what year they refer to.",
"role": "24.235.186.61"
},
{
"content": "I find the \"adjusted for inflation, wealth, and population\" numbers to be rather ridiculous. Basically this figure shows what would happen if a similar hurricane happened today with a similar impact. For instance, if a hurricane were to hit Miami today and destroy the whole city; or if a hurricane were to hit Galveston and kill 20% of the population; or if a hurricane were to overflow Lake Okeechobee and destroy every building for hundreds of square miles. All of these things don't really seem possible. And even if they are, it doesn't mean the old hurricane should be ranked as if they were. To show the craziness of this notion, consider the hurricane that struck Florida in the 1500's destroying the only Spanish settlement in the state; or the 1700 Cascadia earthquake that destroyed every single (nonexistent) city on the US west coast. Should these also be adjusted for increased population? ... That said, adjusting for inflation absolutely makes sense. Since any adjusted value will eventually become outdated all listed monetary values should say what year they refer to.",
"role": "24.98.195.64"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
333853.0.0
|
[
{
"content": "Should we group the hurricanse by year? Or just all of them alphabetically? (I'd like to see them in reverse chrono order, myself. Y'know, most recent one at the top of the page.)",
"role": "Ed Poor"
},
{
"content": "How about naming the article \"Hurricane Lili (2002)\" assuming we actually write more than one article.",
"role": "G from B"
},
{
"content": "Well, the convention here is that whoever is willing to do the heavy lifting gets their way. So, start writing about hurricanes, and we will all follow whatever rules or conventions you think best!",
"role": "G from B"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
82917627.134310.134310
|
[
{
"content": "Laurens Johannes Griessel Landau The following article is being considered for deletion (see ):\n'''Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau''' was the name of a swindler and blackmailer who represented himself to be a medical doctor and skin specialist. At the end of November 1959 he was hired by Elvis Presley to make skin treatments, but in December 1959 he made homosexual passes at the singer and his friends. After Presley's decision to discontinue the treatments, Griessel-Landau claimed to be in the possession of compromising photographs and tape recordings and endeavored to extort money from the star. The case was dealt with strictly confidentially and referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.",
"role": "Onefortyone"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
82891418.131811.131811
|
[
{
"content": "Oh God! Who keeps removing the cult-section? Can the person please atleast mention that she/he is doing it in the TalkPage? I put it back up but now someone has removed it once again. Atleast I STATE why I put it back and what I changed! Thankyou! Who keeps removing the cult-section?",
"role": "81.170.138.232"
},
{
"content": "Also, have you considered creating an account on Wikipedia? It's easy and it'll give you a username and you can create your own signature.",
"role": "Lochdale"
},
{
"content": "Well what do you know. I do have an account! PureRumble",
"role": "81.170.138.232"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
57210701.12247.12247
|
[
{
"content": "The article claims credit unions pay higher interest rates to those who keep their money there. Is this true? I got a pretty pitiful interest rate at the credit unions I used, until I moved the money into a for-profit MMA. Pay higher interest to members?",
"role": "MrVoluntarist"
},
{
"content": "Okay, then that statement at the beginning needs to go, right?",
"role": "67.53.114.162"
},
{
"content": "Sorry, I don't buy it. I've never seen a good interest rate from a credit union on my savings or MMA. I'll want a source before any claim about historical trend or tendency is re-inserted.",
"role": "Dubc0724"
},
{
"content": "I ''meant'' \"good\" ''relative'' to those offered by for-profit institutions, genius.",
"role": "Dubc0724"
},
{
"content": "While I'm thinking about it, you're leaving out two other important components. First, not all CUs are alike. You might only be eligible to join a CU that happens to have some strategic reason (good or bad) for paying lower rates. Secondly, focusing solely on rates ignores the fee/service charge aspect. Credit unions generally beat banks on both rates and fees. However, your mileage may vary.",
"role": "Dubc0724"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
16774729.0.0
|
[
{
"content": "There are several thousand credit unions - should 2-3 really be linked to directly?",
"role": "12.23.194.201"
},
{
"content": "Quite agree. A list is going to be far easier to maintain and use. What would be useful, but probably too complex, is a zoomable map that would allow people to identify their nearest CU by mouseclick",
"role": "Friejose"
},
{
"content": "French speakers from the Maritimes or from Québec? The \"caisses populaires\" (credit unions)were founded in Québec not in the Maritimes and the vast majority of french speaking people came from Québec. Therefore I think we should replace Maritimes by Québec.",
"role": "Skoblentz"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
462206585.21475.21475
|
[
{
"content": "An anonymous IP and another editor continually insist on deleting a small reliably sourced, verifiable paragraph presented in NPV. No one can deny that Debito Arudou was involved in these activities or that the facts presented in the small paragraph are correct using reliable sources for a WP:BLP, so the questionable excuse of WP:UNDUE is briefly used to rationalize its deletion without first discussing on the talk page how one small paragraph is UNDUE or why these 2 editors insist it must be deleted. This is unfortunate. I've restored the reliably sourced material until a clear rationale is presented. Debito Arudou vs. Gaijin Hanzai",
"role": "Oddexit"
},
{
"content": "The 3-revert rule was designed to get editors who wanted to delete sections of reliably sourced material in an article to talk about their concerns on the talk page before unilaterally acting, not act and then claim that the burden of observance only fall on someone else. It's unfortunate that my additional link to the separate article has prompted this attitude. That aside, a few thoughts:\n1. coatracking is simply an essay. It carries no real authoritative weight in this discussion.\n2. The only substantive comment (and one with which I disagree) is to argue that Debito Arudou's opinions have no place in this article. This will comes as news to the subject of the article, and more importantly the journalists who wrote about his activities.\n3. Debito Arudou is not a famous intellectual whose opinions and comments merit separate articles based on the journalistic and academic coverage of each branch subject. But sometimes rare as those moments may be multiple journalists find his random activities/opinions fit to print in reliable third-party publications. It is *those* moments that merit inclusion in this article.\n4. Once those rare moments of notable activities/opinions are covered in the article, we are obligated to follow the rules of Wikipedia. His opinion was presented in a short one or two sentence excerpt. It was reinforced by either a reliable third-party publication or an academic journal (as per the rules of Wikipedia). Further, the opinion was balanced out per WP:NPV to give the reader a short-and-to-the-point idea of what happened.\n5. No one is suggesting that the Gaijin Hanzai section suddenly degenerate into multiple lengthy paragraphs of tangential material and commentary about the book. And, in fact, it wasn't. Yet reading the cryptic subject headers of the three editors, you would think that's exactly what happened.\n6. I would respectfully ask the 3 editors who insist on deleting the reliably sourced material to re-think their position, or we'll be forced to revisit this issue at some point.",
"role": "Qwyrxian"
},
{
"content": "I remain unconvinced based on both the structure of the paragraph and the rules of Wikipedia. Simply repeating your assertion is not a compelling argument.",
"role": "Bridies"
},
{
"content": "Following this logic, we should remove all of the reliably sourced information on Arudou's activities and their background because \"it's not about Arudou.\" Should we do that? Of course not. That would be bizarre and not helpful to the reader. And once again, no one is talking about the \"notability\" of Arudou. We are talking about the \"notability of Arudou's opinions\" as determined by the number and location of reliably sourced third-party publications and academic journals in the context of a minor activist/columnist in Japan. These are two entirely different things. And yes, it might ultimately have to go to some form of dispute resolution because I remain unconvinced.",
"role": "Qwyrxian"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
426136415.11555.11555
|
[
{
"content": "There's been alot of times in which the criticism section has been removed. Some how I think Debito is doing this unable to take it. In the past this Wikipedia page has contained nessisary amount of information regarding to the critcism section. Now only Alex Kerr's comment remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by • Criticism section must return.",
"role": "Graylandertagger"
},
{
"content": "On the other side of that, the SOURCED information shouldn't be removed without discussion either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by",
"role": "Qwyrxian"
},
{
"content": "If possible I would like to put more information about debito's criticism.",
"role": "Graylandertagger"
},
{
"content": "I do have a few referances that I would like to add.\nThis one mentions him attempting to search for trouble.\nhttp://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/rc20080706a3.html\nThis link mentions how Debito makes baised exagerrated claims.\nhttp://www.japanreview.net/interview_neff.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by •",
"role": "Qwyrxian"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
136580720.181876.181876
|
[
{
"content": "William, I made a good faith edit, chill out brother. I just added to his quote...whats the frikkin big deal!! Do you see me trimming down criticism?? Is Durkins quotes on some kind of wikiration i don't know about. People need to cool down with the paranoia it getting absurd, it good to be pushy for excellence to help article I agree but show good faith even if we disagree on stuff!!!!!!! Quotes!!",
"role": "Dean1970"
},
{
"content": "You disagree with the edit so you delete it?! um no, you disagree with the quote so you delete it. You didn't seem to have a problem with excess quoting on a page we're both familiar with in the not-too-distant-past. But all of a sudden it's an issue when it is the other way around. Again, I repeat my question: Are public quotes made my Mr Durkin restricted by some wikiration I'm unaware of?",
"role": "William M. Connolley"
},
{
"content": "William, I just edited the quote in its entirity from''The Scotsman'' article. No more, no less. The quote is pretty short anyway. It is a sharp rebuke. Durkin asks his detractors in a few short words why they didn't make a song and dance about the media when they were making connections about Global Warming and the New Orleans hurricane disaster. Simple!",
"role": "William M. Connolley"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
132829693.152766.152766
|
[
{
"content": "I've removed this bit, per our conflict of interest policy, which states, \"Conflicts may include editing for the sake of promoting oneself\" or cause. If after discussion it's found to be worthy of inclusion, a non-interested party (i.e. not Dr. Quiggin) can add it. ~",
"role": "UBeR"
},
{
"content": "I don't think what your career is or is not bears any relevance here. Well, perhaps it does, because it raises the question of whether your opinion here is noteworthy. At any rate, your piece doesn't seem to shed any particular or helpful insight on the issue or opinions expressed by other Australians. ~",
"role": "John Quiggin"
},
{
"content": "You can promote yourself without promoting your career. ~",
"role": "John Quiggin"
},
{
"content": "\"conspiracy theories\", \"bizzare ideas\", and \"culture wars\" classifications are unlikely to enhance an economist's career, since they are not within that field of expertise, unless perhaps the bizzare ideas were economic ideas? No, if there was a conflict of interest, it was just the interest in seeing your name in print again. There wasn't an internet link provided for these comments, so perhaps there was more substance to the comments than mere name calling and pejorative classification. I don't see how the comments are notable.",
"role": "John Quiggin"
}
] | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.