User talk:EvergreenFir: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Hello. I know you must be a very busy person, but, if you are interested and available, I'd like you to take a look at the feminist metaphysics article. I have dedicated myself to expanding it and I believe that your knowledge can help, even if it's with small adjustments. Thanks! 😊 Gmsrubin (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this of interest: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Netanya9. Skyerise (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise That is indeed interesting! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do wrong on this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misinformation_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1224486718

It's gone now? I didn't have a specific solution because I was reporting a glitch that I didn't know how to fix.

I was planning to make another request about something I do have a specific suggestion for, but I want to check how I got it wrong last time first.

I asked you there too https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misinformation_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1224495523 but maybe that will get deleted as well so trying here.

LagoonGoose (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Fun in a Chinese Laundry (memoir) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have prematurely closed the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Unsourced_defamatory_claim_about_Bret_Weinstein. Would you please reopen it? Insofar as I can determine the parties commenting on the issue are ignoring the clear text of MOS:CITELEAD and MOS:LEAD. If indeed the plain text of MOS:CITELEAD and MOS:LEAD does not apply to BLP articles then that carve-out seems to indicate a change is required to the text of MOS:CITELEAD and MOS:LEAD. E.g. "there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads"

Given Wikipedia's sensitivity to the the integrity of BLP articles, I'd expect that more attention would be paid to compliance with the clear text of Wikipedia polices. RealLRLee (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are the one who is ignoring (or refusing to hear) the policy. You received multiple opinions, all in agreement. If you think a citation is needed, use the article's talk page to ask for one to be added. There's plenty in the article to choose from. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone agrees with one interpretation of policies and guidelines, and agree with a different interpretation at some point you'll have to accept that consensus is against your position and move on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as I can determine the disputed lack of citation(s) is in violation of MOS:CITELEAD, MOS:LEAD, and BLP ("All quotations and challenged material must be supported by inline citations to reliable, published sources"). Of course I could be wrong. But, prior to User:EvergreenFir's premature closing of the discussion, I was unsuccessful in eliciting a reasoned explanation as to why those policies don't require the disputed claim to be correct cited or removed.

And now, as User:EvergreenFir preemptively closed the discussion, there is no opportunity to obtain the as yet missing reasoned explanation.

User:ScottishFinnishRadish: l "have to accept that consensus is against your position and move on"? Really? Are you entirely sure that you're being truthful here? As a Wikipedia administrator I would expect that you'd be very attentive to the veracity of your claims. RealLRLee (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure. Sometimes our interpretations, the weight we apply to different policies and guidelines, or simply how we'd like something presented in an article don't have consensus. Happens to the best of us, even me, a vaunted Wikipedia administrator. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:ScottishFinnishRadish: Indeed? I'd expect that were you closely adhering to the obligations that Wikipedia places on administrators for veracity and knowledge of Wikipedia policies then your "[I] have to accept that consensus is against your position and move on" would have been written, instead, "[I] have to accept that consensus is against your position and move on [or pursue the matter further via Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms]".

If, User:ScottishFinnishRadish, I am misunderstanding the expectations that Wikipedia places on administrators then please explain how I'm getting this wrong.

RealLRLee (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! I'll have you know I'm the Heimlich county substitute administrator of the year three years running.

You've already discussed this on the talk page and BLPN. That's about as solid as consensus comes without a well attended RFC. Wasting a bunch of editor time pushing for more and more dispute resolution when there's a clear consensus isn't worthwhile. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish: I'll bear in mind your failure to mention Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms. RealLRLee (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Azd on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]