Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

 Courtesy link: Template:Interpolated comment
 Courtesy link: Template:uw-middlepost

Hi, Red-tailed hawk. I noticed you raising the issue here about talk page comments placed in the middle of other editors' comments, making it hard to follow who said what and replied what to whom; so thanks for that. I know you'll understand what I'm talking about, when I say that I sometimes try to unscramble such bollixed up comments, and it's a tedious and thankless business. But not doing it can be worse, and lead to misunderstandings. Anyway, I finally got tired of how tedious it was, and created template {{interpolated comment}} to help me address the "fix-it" part of the issue, for certain types of such bollixed comments. (There is also {{uw-middlepost}}, if you want to add something to a user's Talk page about it.)

There are various ways to try to deal with interpolated comments, including removing them (but that may piss off the person who added them) or trying to regroup them and put them all together in one place (sometimes possible, but really tricky, and error-prone, and also subject to getting an edit conflict, and then you have to start all over again), and finally, you can just leave the interpolated parts in there, but highlight or set them off in some way that makes it absolutely clear who said what. This template is based on this last approach: it helps you highlight the interpolated bits, so they stand out as not part of the original editor's comment, and identifies who wrote what. If that approach might work for you some of the time, you might want to have a look at it.

The template is not the simplest one in the world (not the hardest, either) and takes only one of many possible approaches, but if you have chosen the "leave-it-in-place-and-identify" approach, it will make the really tedious part a little bit easier. Have a look and see what you think; I hope it might be helpful to you. Would love to hear your thoughts, any ideas you might have about how to make it better, and easier to use. Please address template-specific comments, bugs, enhancement requests to Template talk:Interpolated comments (ditto for {{uw-middlepost}}), but I'd love to hear your general impressions, questions, or feedback either here or at my Talk page. Thanks once again for being willing to take on the tricky business of dealing with interpolated comments; they are no fun, that's for sure. Mathglot (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your query. I hope you will understand the context now. Nickps refuses to show me any "unsourced" negative information in the draft article. No one does. Why is that so hard to do? Maybe because I have sourced everything very carefully, so they wikilawyer instead?

Maybe for the same reason Trump lost a lawsuit that was ONLY about the pee tape rumor, the subject of my draft article? Another lawsuit[1][2] ONLY about that rumor was also lost by the litigant. In that last case, Judge Cooper even showed that the litigant had changed his story to Mueller and likely lied to Mueller. First he described to Mueller how he told Cohen he had "stopped" the salacious tapes of Trump with prostitutes. Then he changed his story later and told Mueller the tapes were "fake". Judge Cooper showed that the claim they were "fake" was not a true statement. That was a new story, with no evidence. The litigant had always treated them as real, just as Cohen and Trump had done.

BTW, this rumor is not about the 2016 Steele dossier allegation per se. It's about the same story, but from when it started in 2013, and Cohen's 2019 testimony that he, Trump, and David Pecker knew about it in late 2013 or early 2014 and tried to suppress the rumor and find the tapes. That effort continued, with the help of others close to Trump and Cohen for several years before the Steele dossier was a twinkle in Hillary Clinton's eye. Neither Steele nor his sources invented that rumor. They only retold it. That really pissed off Trump, because until the dossier was published on January 10, 2017, the public did not know of what was described as an "open secret" in Moscow. That is very well "sourced" negative information, IOW not a BLP violation when properly attributed.

There are several things to keep in mind: (1) We do not know for sure if the pee tape exists; (2) We know that the pee tape rumor is old, very real, was known by "many" in a closed group around Trump, and did not start with Steele and his dossier; (3) James Comey and a number of others believe it's quite possible the pee tape does exist, and (4) that some RS allege it may be part of the reason Trump has never criticized Putin. That is all sourced in the draft article.

As for me, I don't know. I just know that very GNG notable part of the "sum of all human knowledge" is not covered here, it easily passes GNG, and there are myriad very RS about it. My draft article is not yet ready for mainspace. It needs more work, especially to make it more NPOV compliant with more attribution from the sources. It's all properly sourced. I also do not want it publicized, and the MfD is very counterproductive in that regard. And last but not least, there are many enemies of the subject who do not want it told at Wikipedia. That's unwikipedian behavior. We are supposed to document what RS say and not oppose content because we "don't like it".

If there are BLP violations in the draft article, I want to fix them, but no one will provide an example. We do not MfD or AfD drafts or articles because a BLP violation exists somewhere in it. We follow WP:PRESERVE (a policy) and fix the violation. These people want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

See my request at Please provide evidence of BLP violations. Someone needs to get Nickps to provide evidence or withdraw his accusation, close the ANI thread, as it has devolved into a kangaroo court with piling on (some likely from WPO, where they were discussing it today), and apologize. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed reply. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MfD has been closed as "no consensus". That's a good solution. Now that kangaroo court at ANI needs to be closed and Nickps trouted and warned not to abuse ANI and to provide evidence for his accusations. That is very uncivil behavior. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI has been closed, but that doesn't stop the personal attacks immediately afterwards. I have mentioned the possibility for civil discussion here: User talk:Valjean/Rumor#Closures at two drama boards. There I would be allowed to explain, unlike in an ANI or MfD kangaroo court where I am not allowed to defend myself against personal attacks or present evidence, as that's considered bludgeoning.

We need to discuss this where there can be an open exchange of ideas in a civil manner. Editors obviously disagree about the interpretation of certain PAG. If discussions there don't resolve anything, then discussions on policy and guideline pages may need to occur, but all of this is disruptive to my work, with the promised help from Tryptofish, to make the draft more compliant for mainspace. It's not ready yet, and we should be allowed to work in peace without attacks, harassment, and disruption.

After repeated attempts in the MfD to get someone to provide evidence of any BLP violations in the draft article, I finally got this honest answer:

"Since Valjean wanted to know what the BLP violations were, I will try to answer, knowing that my answer will not resolve the controversy, and will not answer Valjean's question of how to resolve the BLP violations. There are no specific BLP violations in the draft or sandbox or whatever it is, so that the problem cannot be dealt with by editing. The problem is that the page in question is an entirely negative page about a living person..."[3]

"There are no specific BLP violations in the draft..." That's a stunning admission, after all the accusations and abuses of MfD and ANI. No wonder no one would respond to my requests for evidence. They just labeled my requests "bludgeoning" because they just DONTLIKEIT, so they wikilawyer instead, and now they are continuing the attacks. This borders on harassment to prevent me from doing what is officially allowed in "personal user namespace". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Is there a specific request you have regarding this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait and see if they escalate this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just caught up on the Uyghur genocide move, which I was surprised by, and which I also now think was quite poorly reasoned. I'm quite interested to hear your take on what happened there and where the disconnect lies here between the sources and the community. My thoughts can be seen here. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could I send an email to you regarding the WP: AE? Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reference to a report regarding my behavior seen here. As mentioned there: I'm also requesting that the closing admin go through every edit cited before coming to a AE decision.

I'm also willing to explain through public/private any of the cited edits that were seen as a violation of Wikipedia guidelines if need be. (Or any others.)

I also believe that this was a retaliatory action. But I'm uncertain what I can state in either private or public respondence to defend myself. KlayCax (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will take a read through all of the diffs. However, please do not email me about this; if there is anything I have a question about, I will ask it in public, and I think it's best to have everything fully in the public view. If there are circumstances that require private information to process fully, you should email the arbitration committee to explain them; individual admins really can't take action on the basis of private evidence unless they are also functionaries. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, but the account asking for protection was a sock. You had no way of knowing. I hate socks! Doug Weller talk 13:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RTH, My only contribution to that AE case was to ask a participant for clarification. I didn't even state an opinion on it. So I don't know why you include me in "users involved or directly affected" at ARCA and ask you to please remove me. Incidentally, I'm an admin but didn't put my question in the admin section because I edit in ARBPIA and take "involved" seriously. Thanks. Zero^talk 09:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Because there wasn't really any guidance regarding how to actually send an AE thread over to ArbCom, I've included everyone who has contributed to the prior AE discussion, and also tried to include everyone whose behavior was directly mentioned. I anticipate that the ArbCom will probably narrow the list down before proceeding.

If you'd like to join the discussion about a new template for referring over AE cases to ArbCom, which would have guidance on what to include/not include going forward, there's a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Template for referrals from AE that may be of interest to you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]