Universal trinity (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was during its discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Universal trinity suddenly speedy deleted by User:RHaworth who declines now. Note that this general (mainly theosophic) disquisition contains no WP:SYNTH. The direct parallelism from a formation–perception–choice trinity from listed theosophic sources towards a calculation–proving–conjecturing trinity was not included in the sources I listed so far but I also found no source that mentions this parallelism otherwise. The term "universal trinity" is often used in theosophy so that sources that refer anyhow to the parallelisms are definitely found soon. An encyclopedia is forced to work with expression parallelisms to avoid copies so that this unannounced speedy deletion was unjustified. I request userfication. MathLine (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, this needed to be deleted. No, it wasn't a hoax. ([1] for example). It may qualify as A11, but that supposes that our editor and the author of the source are the same person (or closely related) which isn't in evidence AFAIK. So restore and list at AfD just because I suppose it's not impossible there is a notable subject here somewhere (rather than IAR endorse). Hobit (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • S Marshall is correct, the request is for userfication and that should be granted. I'd missed that. Hobit (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Although the juxtaposition of words "universal trinity" does appear in one source, and an article written based on that source would not be a hoax, the article under discussion was indeed a hoax as written. Either that, or WP:OR so far gone as to be indistinguishable from a hoax. In either case, I don't see there is any benefit to restoring the content, other than slavish deference to bureaucratic process. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you do a web search for the phrase in quotes, there are a lot of hits. Some even seem to be the concept this article was trying to cover. Not a hoax. Or if it is, it's not a Wikipedia-only hoax. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "article" was total nonsense. Here is a sample: "Universal trinity is the condition of the logics and mathematics perceivable by all finite entities to be separated into the branches calculation , proving , and registering derived conjectures without a known proof or disproof, it also includes the continuation of this separation to a persistent influence of three likewise separate fields on and of working minds in all social groups and their interactions, and it includes working potentials between these branches. A common interpretation of the universal trinity with these working potentials is a cycle of 12 positions, 3 of them represent the branches and the other 9 (3×3) the working potentials. 12 position interpretation The first position of the working potential between the branches of the unsolved and of calculation. Justice is a negotiating bridge between the unsolved and purely basic work to solve it and it appears in a trinity of states, the separation of powers , as judicative. Therefore, this position is the basis of judicative..." This seems like an obvious hoax to me. If there is a concept that is called "universal trinity" in the literature, that is not what this is. If you believe that there is a source that supports this, please present it now. Otherwise, as I've already said, nothing is preventing any editor from writing an article based on sources on "universal trinity" that is not a hoax. Whether such an article meets our inclusion criteria is a separate question from whether the nonsense under discussion is a hoax. But since you believe it is not a hoax, I assume that you have reliable sources that verify the sentence "A common interpretation of the universal trinity with these working potentials is a cycle of 12 positions, 3 of them represent the branches and the other 9 (3×3) the working potentials. 12 position interpretation", for example. Otherwise, I would invite you to withdraw your !vote here since your reasoning is manifestly based on a false premise. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's just note that the nominator's actual request here was for userfication. I agree with Sławomir Biały that for the moment I don't see particularly good grounds to restore the article to mainspace; but userfication is a perfectly reasonable request.—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, oppose userfication. I'm inclined to agree with Sławomir Biały that the deleted version of this article is essentially incoherent and nonsensical. The purpose of userficiation is to allow improvements to articles that are not quite ready for the article namespace. In this case, I do not see any sort of viable article coming from the content in question. There is almost zero connection between the external links provided and the intended subject of the article, whatever that might be. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Userification I see no basis for declining userification. I don't think that the article constitutes a hoax per the speedy process, but that's an excusable error rendered moot by simply userifying as requested. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and neutral on userfication. Yes, it's a hoax/patent nonsense. I doubt a coherent article can come out of it. But I'm not going to rule it out. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my deletion, oppose userfication. Let us be gentle and call it original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a notable source uses metaphors from which notable information is derivable by evaluating them is it then always original research to write about this information directly? --MathLine (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If the meaning of those metaphors is open to interpretation/debate or requires knowledge beyond what an average person may have, then likely yes, besides if there is only a singular source on something it likely fails notability and likely fails WP:UNDUE --82.14.37.32 (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• So if X writes a metaphor evaluation and Y wants to forbid it per WP:OR then Y has the full burden to prove that there are also other possible metaphor interpretations so that X's given interpretation is indeed something biased or arbitrary? --MathLine (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As soon as someone starts using language like "forbid" in a context like this, and the school yard cries of "prove it", I tend to suspect that discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. In short no, we are a collaborative project and we have discussions to determine rough consensus between editors, in those discussions it usually become pretty clear if someone is simply being stubborn or unreasonable, we'll give less weight or no weight to such nonsense. As noted if there is only one source for something and it's written in metaphors it is always going to be an uphill struggle to demonstrate it's suitability as a wikipedia topic. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn CSD, list at AfD. I'm a hard-liner on CSD. I don't think this meets the requirement of being uncontroversial. Yes, it's badly written. Yes, it sounds pretty flakey. But there are at least some plausible sounding sources ([2], [3]) to show this isn't a complete hoax (although, I haven't found any source that tie the concept to zodaical signs). So, bring it to AfD and let it go through the normal review process. And, some people may find this self-contradictory, but if the consensus here is that the CSD was correct, and it is a hoax, then I'm opposed to userfication. Userspace is a working space to prep material for the encyclopedia. If the community judges that this is so clearly a hoax that WP:G3 applies, then it has no more place in userspace than it does in mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, do not userfy, hoax material doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, even in user space. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:David T. Abercrombie.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

There was no consensus in the discussion for the deletion of the image from this article. One editor opined that it failed NFCC, without giving any reasons wny that was the case, and another editor (myself) disagreed. That is most certainly not a consensus to delete. Further, the closing admin gave no policy rationale for deletion, writing only "The result of the discussion was: remove". This is not a sufficient rationale for the removal of an image from an article, especially considering that there was no consensus to do so. BMK (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closing administrator. Stefan2 cited WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c for the reason of removal from History of Abercrombie & Fitch. I ignored the latter because that was a small error on Beyond My Ken's fault (Abercrombie & Fitch was linked in the FUR rather than History of Abercrombie & Fitch, that much was obvious). However, the concern of NFCC#8 was still not properly addressed; there was an obvious lack of a policy-backed reason—"I disagree that the images of the two founders of Abercrombie & Fitch do not satisy the requirements of NFCC for the History of Abercrombie & Fitch article" was not sufficient—and the burden of proof to properly refute said claim fell on BMK, per WP:NFCCE. I simply could not have closed the discussion any other way. BMK's non-argument does not supersede the incredibly stringent project-wide WP:NFCC policy.

Please note that the image has disruptively been restored in the history article by BMK against consensus and policy. I will not attempt to remove it again as I have the brain capacity to wait out a discussion. — ξ^xplicit 12:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's your closing that is being reviewed, so your "endorsement" is meaningless. You did not evaluate the discussion and sum up the consensus, because there was essentially no discussion, and certainly no consensus. One editor said "X", without further explanation, and another editor said "not X" without further explanation. Your acceptance of "X" was, therefore, a personal evaluation on your own part -- otherwise known as a supervote -- and not a summation of consensus. You, in fact, did not perform what a closing admin is expected to perform, an evaluation of the consensus discussion, and instead substituted your own judgement for it. You then compounded your error by threatening to block me on my talk page, when you must have known (or certainly should have known) that as the closing admin you are, by definition, "involved" in the dispute, and therefore cannot perform a block. The only fair outcomne here is to re-open the discussion for further input, to determine what the actual consensus of the community is, and not what the personal opinion of the cloisng admin is. BMK (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that the editor Stefan2's judgment has come under very close scrutiny lately. See this AN/I thread in particular. BMK (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point Stefan2 cited of NFCC is pretty clear: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Did you prove otherwise? No, you didn't. My closure was based on the fact that Stefan2 presented a policy-based argument for the removal of the image from an article, while you simply disagreed without citing policy to strengthen your argument. Oddly enough, it's exactly what WP:SUPERVOTE#Advice to editors decrying a supervote close describes—I assume you read that part, since you're so confident that my closure indicates otherwise. I did not elaborate on my closure because it seemed obvious, but I'm sure it wouldn't have made a difference and we'd still be here. I still don't quite understand where this accusation of a "supervote" stems from. Where exactly did I indicate any bias, how did I instill my opinion despite citing the policy-based argument that led to my closure? Please do elaborate further on this point.

I didn't have to "prove otherwise" because Stefan2 made none of those arguments, he simply stated an opinion, that the image failed certain parts of NFCC, with no explanation whatsoever. You, as the closer, are not supposed to provide the arguments that the people in the discussion should have made, not are you to assume that is what his opinion meant. You provided that on your own, which if you wanted to do so, you should have done as a participant in the discussion - to which I would have responded -- and not either in your close or here in the Deletion Review. Closers may have a certain amount of discretion, but that discretion cannot extend to closing on the basis of the closers' opinion and not on the basis of the content of the discussion. That would invalidate the entire concept of the uninvolved admin who sums up consensus in their close. Again, what you did was to make a WP:supervote, which is not your job. BMK (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are incorrect; the burden is entirely on you. WP:NFCCE itself states: "To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." Why is this? Simple. Per WP:NFCCP: "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia". You failed to provide a policy-backed argument. Stefan2 citing WP:NFCC#8 is pretty self explanatory, whether or not you like or agree with it. Or are we really going to sit here and argue, "He cited NFCC#8, but I have no idea what he meant!"? His argument was clearly supplied, and I had no opinion on the matter, I simply closed the nomination based on the discussion. You did not do your part as policy requires, which is why the discussion was closed the way it was. Based on the strengths of the arguments, it is literally a ratio of 1:0. — ξ^xplicit 00:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I apologize, I had no idea that "NFCC" was a magic word, and that all you have to do is write it and the file will be deleted unless someone counters the magic word with their own battery of words. Maybe the "abuse" you see coming at admins who work the files area stems from this rather odd belief, that all anyone has to do is whisper in a throaty voice "NFCC, my precious" and the image's fate is sealed. In my neck of the woods, where we frequently call a spade precisely what it is, we have a name for that kind of thing, having to do with the undigested effluvia of bovine animals, but perhaps I'll just say that "I call shenanigans" on that concept, and that the encyclopedia would be a lot better off without that peculiar notion. Any claim that an image doesn't pass the requirements of NFCC needs to be a full and specific one, not just "It don't pass NFCC #32B". When a full and specific claim is made, I would be more than happy to counter it, but all the other deserves is negation, because, in fact, there are no magic words, just consensus discussions. Which the closer, may I repeat, it supposed to evaluate without adding their own interpretation. BMK (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's how policy is written. You not liking it is another matter entirely. — ξ^xplicit 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply able to drop the stick. I decided not to escalate the situation. You're confused if you believe me to be someone who gets worked up on Wikipedia of all places; I've been threatened with ANI before, and I highly encouraged it earlier this year over my actions, yet not a single report with my name on it has ever been made...

No, you'll "drop the stick" when you simply admit that you screwed up and confused the role of an advocate with that of on uninvolved admin. There's nothing terrible about making a mistake, everyone does it, and it's usual better to admit it so everyone can move on. Digging in your heels is not the optimal choice here. BMK (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever allows you to sleep at night. — ξ^xplicit 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what point was meant to be made about that ANI discussion, other than creating an ad hominem. I am well aware of Stefan2's inability to properly approach editors and have caught several of his mistakes in the past. The only things I was able to take away from that thread: 1) a slight history of Betacommand; 2) understanding the abuse editors receive over the application and enforcement of the NFCC policy, and where it stems from; 3) and the fragility of the community. — ξ^xplicit 14:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• relist I went back and forth on this. FfD closers generally have wide discretion when it comes to deleting non-free images. Generally it's pretty open-and-shut. This one is not. I'd think it's clear that having a picture of both of the founders in the article on the history of the company they started would be a thing we should just have. It's not clear Stefan2 felt otherwise (thus the question about looking for other images). But the fact we have nothing on where the image comes from makes things a bit less clear-cut. And I suspect there is an argument that we don't need an image of both founders (?). Realizing there isn't typically a large amount of participation at FfD, I hope that after this DRV we'll get a bit more input on a relist. Hobit (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• And FfD needlessly removes yet another image that benefits the encyclopaedia without doing anyone any harm. Hooray for free content ideology!—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly agree with this. I think we worry far too much about reuse by others (who may not hit prong #1 of the fair use guidelines laid down by the US Supreme Court as clearly as we do) in cases like this where use by us is clearly fair use. But my !vote is based on the rules that be rather than the rules that should be. Hobit (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is true and unfortunately happens much too often, IMO, which is the primary reason I usually stay far away from the whole files area, because the deck is already stacked against usage, and then some of the regulars compound the problem by an overly strict interpretation of the rules instead of a safe and reasonable one. BMK (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's just note here that NFCC#8 is being treated, at FFD, and by some of my DRV colleagues below, as if (1) it was an objective test and (2) this image failed it. I would invite you all to set your brains to "evaluate" and then read NFCC#8 closely. I think you will observe that the criterion is entirely subjective. The image might enhance one person's understanding without enhancing another's. I think it follows that NFCC#8 should not be invoked without a clear consensus to do so, and I think FfD has been overreaching NFCC#8 for as long as I've been critically evaluating FfD closes at DRV.

      I've always thought that FfD is attractive to people who aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. There are some exceptions, but by and large they're here to remove non-free content. This is a conflict that those of us who are here to build an encyclopaedia we'll need to deal with at some point. Non-free content that's not doing anyone any harm and plausibly enhances someone's understanding should not be removed.—S Marshall T/C 19:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Cryptic and I must have been typing at the same time. Interesting!—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If BMK attempted to argue his interpretation of NFCC#8 to any extent, I would have relisted the discussion. It is honestly that simple. But again, there was no attempt made. Take, for example, Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 23#File:Selena Gomez - Revival (Official Standard Cover).png and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 23#File:Madonna Rebel Heart physical standard cover.png, both of which I closed as "no consensus" because sound "keep" arguments were made. This is what an effort while citing policy looks like, something several users in this discussion should take note of.
      • Also, way to set a terrible example of how to handle a disagreement. Completely undermining the diligent work—a majority of which don't even deal with fair use at FFD—of handling the thousands of images per month pumped in our direction. Instead of commenting on the users, focus your efforts on the subject at hand. — ξ^xplicit 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem as I see it isn't with NFCC#8 so much as with FfD's interpretation of NFCC#8. And I'm afraid that's about users. Yes, there are useful policy changes that could be made ---- we certainly need a rule for how to deal with Crown Copyright, which to my amazement and despair FfD usually treats like commercial fair use images, and I keep meaning to draft an RfC on that ---- but I'm afraid I think that a substantial subset of FfD users aren't here to build an encyclopaedia.

          As for FfD rounding on me for "completely undermining diligent work"? I'm stunned by the sheer irony.—S Marshall T/C 13:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I agree with Hobit; Explicit's decision is reasonable but we needed more participation in this discussion. NFCC#8 is obnoxious but it's a policy and BMK didn't engage with it at all. Mackensen (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I may have uncovered a free image of Abercrombie; see Talk:David T. Abercrombie#Free image. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. It was pretty obviously in line with WP:NFCC. Kelly ^hi! 23:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn NFCC#8 is being used inappropriately, pretty much any time I see it used. The anti-fair-use proponents routinely expect ridiculous things in terms of 'understanding'. If a relevant non free photo of a founder of a major company fails to be acceptable for an article on that company, what will EVER pass NFCC#8? Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't inappropriate, this is exactly what NFCC#8 says. As a foundation-based policy, it overrides any local consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I've no quarrel with the policy, just the interpretation thereof. Picture of person on the article about that person or the company that bears his name? Not only is it appropriate, it is also what we would expect from any encyclopedia article. Sorry if I'm showing my age here, but I grew up with Encyclopedia Britannica. NFCC#8 should be limited in its interpretation to removal of things that clearly are irrelevant, excessive, or superfluous. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – definition of image being used decoratively. Anyone who seriously suggests that removing this image somehow reduces readers' understanding of the article History of Abercrombie & Fitch is deluding themselves and us. The image remains available for use in David T. Abercrombie, which is valid. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, absolutely, showing images of the two men, Abercrombie and Fitch who created the firm "Abercrombie & Fitch" is most certainly "decorative", without a doubt. BMK (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for supporting me. [Yes I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but you've actually helped made my point, which is that not seeing pictures of two people who created a firm will in no way make it more difficult to understand the article about its history.] Stifle (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm undecided as to whether this met WP:NFCC#8, and thus the decision to remove it from the History of A&F article is the right one. But I know I don't like the way we got there. #8 is fundamentally different from the other NFCC in that every one of the others is either entirely or almost entirely objective: Either an image has been previously published, or it hasn't. Either it's used solely in non-disambiguation mainspace articles, or it isn't. Either its description page has its source, a copyright tag, and a rationale for the articles it's used in, or it doesn't. #8, though, and to a lesser extent the "could be created" clause of #1, is a judgment call, and interpretation of policy in deletion discussions is the role of the discussion's participants, not the closer. There wasn't any discussion whatsoever of whether this article met NFCC#8 in its deletion discussion, merely an ambivalent assertion that it didn't. It was closely followed by a question about WP:NFCC#1 (which wasn't cited) in a manner that suggested it was a restatement of the same issues; and of course it was the question in English, not the bare assertion in cryptic Wikipedia shortcut-ese, that BMK answered. We can hardly fault him for that. Relist so the issue can be argued properly. —Cryptic 19:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the NFCC is not solely about us getting not-sued. The NFCC policy is such because the goal of the foundation is narrower than "whatever's legal". That contributors to this project don't like the project goals as laid out by the foundation is surely undesirable, but that's where we are. Lots of shouting and treating everyone as if they are all thick and must all be wrong because they don't see it the way I do is not constructive. I somehow doubt the foundation will be swayed by "I'll stop uploading stuff unless I get my way" --82.14.37.32 (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When a non-free image is used in one article, the argument that it should not be used in another seems much weakened to me (a wicked person will be able to download the image and use it unlawfully anyway). Anyway, in this case if the image Mackensen has found is OK (are you sure it's not Postman Pat?) the non-free image will be removed from both articles. Thincat (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thincat: I've about the same familiarity with both, so it's definitely possible...Mackensen (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per Cryptic. Rebbing 19:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Once again BMK misses the point. The NFCC is not about getting not-sued; that's a distant second to upholding the principle that this project is about making a free encyclopedia. If BMK wishes to not upload further non-free content, I will gladly assist in motivating him along that path. Yelling at people, treating them as stupid, and telling them they're wrong is unlikely to sway them to his point of view. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]