Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

Are you open to collaborating with me to improve the following article: Peter_Wilmshurst? Atsme^📞📧 22:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'm unfamiliar with him so I'll need to do some research, but I'd be happy to work with you to improve the article. Just one thing: if we disagree on something, can we both agree to try to see where the other is coming from and to work to find some way forward? Ca2james (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have been agreeable and was actually looking forward to such a collaboration but your behavior on Kombucha has given me a change of heart. Can't say I didn't try. And please spare me the BS about over and over and over because it works both ways. I wouldn't have to repeat myself if others would simply WP:HEAR. Atsme^📞📧 14:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the statements you made at Kombucha several times but you continue dismiss my explanations as if I'd said nothing; instead of refuting mine or others' responses, you keep repeating your statrements (which is pretty much the definition of WP:IDHT). I asked above that we agree to try to see each other's viewpoints when we disagree, and since it appears that you're unwilling to do that, I'm not open to working with you on Peter Wilmshurst. Good luck with the article. Ca2james (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Rich! When I'm back to eating solid food (I'm sick right now), I'll enjoy it. I hope that you're able to get those restrictions lifted because then it will be easier for me and others to support your next RfA. Good luck! Ca2james (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of forestry journals. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Amy Hughes. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Pirate Bay. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest picking an article and starting on that. I'm starting on List of oldest living people as I imagine that would be the center of the firestorm (pending cases must be removed and merging the "other cases" with other reliable sources that aren't verified by the GRG is everything at once). Most of those editors won't care about what RSN or anything here says and I suspect this won't be resolved until we go back to ARBCOM and get serious procedures to work with, and the ability to sanction with teeth as every discussion and report at ANI and other places ends up a madhouse of arguments about how amazing the GRG is. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky8168, thanks for making those changes. I've reverted one of the editors who reverted your changes and will keep an eye on the page. I'd like to avoid a fight on this issue but sadly, I don't think that's going to happen. I wish ArbCom hadn't rescinded the discretionary sanctions in this project area. I'm going to start work on List of supercentenarians who died in 2015. Ca2james (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. Admins agree that you're wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.17 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James,

I feel that a more organised discussion about the issues surrounding the WOP project and the solutions to them is needed. Currently it's a manic free-for-all which has lead to edit-warring and people being potentially topic banned. I also feel the need to clear up a few misconceptions that other editors have about the goal that I and others have when it comes to editing these articles. I'm not pro-GRG, I'm pro-age validation. There's a difference. I think it's important that a scientific subject is treated with a high level of consideration for factual accuracy. Some of the current proposals - such as to create lists of the oldest people with a mixture of verified and unverified cases - is like mixing information about evolution and creationism.

I understand that your viewpoints are different, so I think the best thing is to try and form compromises which are in-line with Wiki policy. For example, I think List of oldest living people, as it currently is, is fine even if the "pending" and "unverified" cases are mixed because then it's at least clear to the reader that "these cases are considered genuine by a major international body" and "these cases are only claims and have not been verified". I don't think that's much to ask.

I'm also going to propose that we remove some rather unnecessary list articles like List of supercentenarians who died in 2015 and trim down certain other lists to "top 100 oldest" or whatever.

In the meantime, I think everyone should take a brief "cool down period" and resume discussing these issues in a more organised manner.

--Ollie231213 (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie231213, did you really just say that mixing GRG-verified and GRG-unverified cases in a table is the same as mixing creationism and evolution? Seriously? I think you have an inflated view of the GRG and its place in this world. Mixing verified and unverified (which includes what the GRG calls "pending") is totally appropriate because these are lists of the oldest people, and keeping the tables separate makes it difficult for readers to get information out of the tables. If the purpose of these tables was for the GRG to keep track of which entries are verified and which aren't, then it would make sense to keep them separate - but that's not the purpose of these tables.

I'm not seeing a manic free-for-all. However, you're welcome to start new discussions on WT:WOP so that each issue is discussed in the organized manner you desire. I think lists like List of the verified oldest people, List of the verified oldest men, and List of the verified oldest women need to be merged, renamed, or deleted because "verified" is being used in a GRG-specific way (ie as a webhost) and this is not the GRG. Moreover, I suspect that the suite of articles needs to be assessed with a critical eye with a goal towards making them less a reflection of the GRG and its tables and more encyclopaedic.

Finally, pinging Ricky81682 so that he is aware of this discussion. Ca2james (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Ollie231213, did you really just say that mixing GRG-verified and GRG-unverified cases in a table is the same as mixing creationism and evolution?" ---> NO, I DID NOT SAY THAT. I just said "verified and unverified", I made no mention whatsoever of the GRG and in fact made it quite clear as such. The message is not getting through to you: THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE GRG. It's about treating information which is proven to be true as if it's the same thing as information which is not, hence the comparison between evolution/creationism. Tell me: should Methuselah and Jeanne Calment be on the same list? Ask Guinness World Records who the oldest person ever was and they will say that the oldest authenticated age reached by anyone was by Jeanne Calment. If I ask you... well I don't know, tell me? "134 year old" Tuti Yusupova? "160 year old" Dhaqabo Ebba? "256 year old" Li Ching-Yuen?

You need to realise that the GRG isn't the only organisation that keeps databases of verified supercentenarians. The International Database on Longevity (IDL) also does this, and Guinness World Records verify the ages of record holders. Read the IDL's statement on why age validation is important. "Because most reports of reputed supercentenarians are erroneous, age validation is essential to compilation of accurate data."

The real question here is: why do you not seem to care about separating fact from fiction on Wikipedia? Ollie231213 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said Some of the current proposals - such as to create lists of the oldest people with a mixture of verified and unverified cases - is like mixing information about evolution and creationism. This is the first time you've suggested that anyone but GRG can validate ages. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that you were referring to GRG-verified and GRG-unverified ages.

This brings up a question: if there are other organizations not associated with the GRG that keep track of supercentenarians, why are their databases not referenced in any of the WP:WOP articles? Why do all WP:WOP articles refer only to GRG verified and pending cases and to the GRG itself? Either those organizations aren't considered reliable (which appears to be what the community thinks of Oldest People in Britain, which is associated with the GRG anyways), or this really is all about the GRG.

Either way - whether this is all about the GRG or it's about age validation - there's no reason not to include both validated and not validated entries in these articles, provided the name of the validating organization is included. Moreover, it looks like consensus in the community will be that it's perfectly ok to use family-written obituaries for birth and death dates provided that it's shown that the birth date is unconfirmed.

I care about providing verifiable, reliably-sourced, neutral information in Wikipedia articles, and I put Wikipedia's policies and guidelines first. I would like to think that you and other members of WP:WOP care about and do the same thing. Ca2james (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The GRG just so happens to be the organisation which is most widely recognised. But if another similar organisation establishes itself as a reputable competitor then I have absolutely no quibbles whatsoever with using it as a source on Wikipedia.
• "Either way - whether this is all about the GRG or it's about age validation - there's no reason not to include both validated and not validated entries in these articles, provided the name of the validating organization is included." ---> Well that's a start. All I ask is that for every person listed in these articles it is made clear if any reliable source has verified their age.
• Of course I care about verifiability, reliable sourcing, and neutrality, that's EXACTLY why I'm having these discussions. I want readers to be able to know if the information they are reading is accurate. And I want to make clear that just because a newspaper or obituary reports someone as being age X, it doesn't necessarily mean that the age claim is genuine, hence why I've brought up the discussion at RSN. But I'm getting an incredibly negative response from Ricky who seems to think I'm being disruptive when I'm actually trying to cause as little disruption as possible by having these discussions WITHOUT EDIT WARRING. Ollie231213 (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie, did the ANI discussion teach you nothing? Waenceslaus's views about what's going on are not remotely close to what objective, neutral outside observers here see and it got him topic-banned because people decided that his involvement was more disruptive than useful to the whole project. We don't need more discussions, we need to move on. We've had numerous discussions about this issue. Ollie's views have been made but consensus does not support them. There are very few people who agree with everything around here so either the WOP members are interested in following the community consensus around here and the project exists as a project should (namely to get the articles in compliance with the Wikipedia practices around here and moving towards GA and FA status and the like) or that project will be disbanded and members topic if not outright banned because nobody else really cares. It's a matter of respect: either you respect everyone's views around here or the rest of the populace here will stop you so they can deal with the vast, vast majority of the work that's being done here. If there's a particular source at a particular article that's questionable, then we can discuss it. Hand-wringing that the world will end because we can't just quote the GRG table and have to actually think and discuss sources here is getting us nowhere.

As for List of oldest living people I removed all the pending and "other" cases in full. So, I'll go the opposite way: namely, see if anything there has a reliable source behind it (I doubt it) and ask for those to be included. For that, the fact that the GRG hasn't likely verified them is something to consider but it's not the be-all-end-all of discussing the sources. Every other article gets edited, protected, fought over and we do the same argument again and again. At each step, the most disruptive editors will either move on or find themselves blocked while the people will to talk and work things out will get work done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]