Template:NoBracketBot

16 May 2024
News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators? Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24 In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure Comix: Generations Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

2015: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec

Hello. I am not sure if this is the correct procedure, but I hope you can help. To explain:

• in March User:ClemRutter removed referenced content from the Bone china article.
• a long discussion followed on the talk page, and this also included the addition of further references to support the sub-section (Boycott by vegetarians and vegans) which User:ClemRutter was attempting to expunge. Noteworthy is User:ClemRutter did not join the discussion about the sub-section.
• User:Ryk72 did a sterling job of tidying up the long list of references.
• all seemed quiet until very recently when User:ClemRutter started again to edit the same sub-section. His gripe is similar, he claims the sub-section is irrelevant, but he is now attacking the number of references.
• currently there a four references supporting the sub-section, which doesn't seem excessive. It is particularly odd that User:ClemRutter is objecting to the number of references as previously he was demanding supporting references.
• equally odd is that a review of the edit history of User:ClemRutter indicates he/she no interest or experience with bone china or related.
• it is ironic given that User:ClemRutter did not join the previous discussion about then Vegetarian & Vegan sub-section that a recent removal of references was accompanied by a comment about the talk page, which again he has not joined.
• this smacks of a slow but rather disingenuous campaign to remove relevant and referenced content.
• your review would be appreciated, and relevant links are [1] and [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.56.218.188 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if I were writing that, I wouldn't include that material as a separate section because it's very short. In fact I probably wouldn't include it at all, because it's obvious that ethical vegans avoid it, and not clear that dietary vegans or vegetarians do. The word boycott is misleading, unless there really is an organized boycott, but if you mean they just avoid it, it's better to stick with that word.

If it's not in its own section, it's not clear where to put it. Perhaps you could develop it; e.g. "Bone china is one a range of items ethical vegans avoid because based on animal products. To identify dinnerware made from animal bone, check this or that," but this depends on your being able to find sources. Sorry I can't be of more help. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus on the talk page to have the infobox removed. Should that not be respected before locking the article with one in place? Cassianto^Talk 22:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note about it on the talk page. I was seconds away from protecting on Schro's version, but hesitated because I was hoping it had stopped, when it happened again. That's why the protection was added the same minute it was reverted, because I was already looking at the page history. I'm sorry, I realize it's not to your liking, but it's only three days. If you can establish a clear consensus, then future admin action can support the consensus version. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No that's fine Sarah; just seeking a clarification, that's all. I did post back on the Ziegler talk page but you've answered me now so no need to respond there. Hope your well! Cassianto^Talk 23:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is now a clear consensus on the Maddie Ziegler page to remove the box. Please take a look. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at ItsZippy's talk page.
Message added 17:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you changed back from my "the home of Sulkowicz's parents" to "Sulkowicz's parents' home". You have your preference, I have mine. I think mine reads easier, you apparently feel that the two-word saving is more important. I haven't seen much of your form in writing of this type, and I think I have a good memory for such things; it's where my preference comes from, actually. Again, I have to ask, is there any authoritative support for your version over mine, or are you flirting with WP:OWN on this article? Are you willing to give on anything of this nature? I know I am, and I often do. Seriously, if things are going to continue like this, it's time for me to move on. Not that the article would suffer, but it might save some frustration to move on now rather than later. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being poorly edited, Mandruss, by several people. I'm not talking about substantive issues such as content disagreements, but basic things: e.g. poor writing, repeatedy adding and removing the lawsuit when it was in the very next sentence. This is a sensitive issue that people are trying to write about without having read the article or its sources. Add to that the talk-page atmosphere, which has included a comment about a woman leading someone on, and asking that it be unprotected so that anon IPs can comment on a video of a rape reenactment, after a beer. (One woman referred to this exchange as a mini Elks Club gathering.) I accept, by the way, that no harm was intended with some of these comments, but that isn't the only point.

I'm in the process of obtaining releases for more images, but wonder why I'm bothering, and think I should probably take it off my watchlist instead (which I did before for a long time). In short, I would like to work with you, but I would hugely appreciate a better working relationship. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell by your reply, a "better working relationship" means that I learn to accept the issue I described above. I have no idea what all the other things you mentioned have to do with this issue, unless it's that I should live with the issue because you're under a lot of stress. As I don't wish to add to your stress, and there appears to be no other solution, I'm moving on. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Don't take it off your watch list Sarah. Mandruss, I'm not sure if you are aware of the history of that article, but it's spent a lot of time at BLPN, and has been plagued by disruptive single purpose accounts editing from a strong POV. Things got crazy after his lawsuit came out and Sarah has done a lot to manage that craziness and keep BLP violations out of article and off talk page. I have no strong opinion on "the home of Sulkowicz's parents" vs "Sulkowicz's parents' home" but as someone who has had that page on watchlist a long time, I can say if these are the current editing battles, it's a major improvement.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like right after you deleted Roel lagroma it was recreated as Roel Lagroma-dang that was fast. Granted I've seen faster (like the moment it has been deleted) but wanted to give a heads up as they changed the title even if slightly. Wgolf (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Wgolf. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SV - when there is no DS notice on an article that is considered pseudoscience, should a non-admin add it to the TP and also add the Pseudoscience DS notice to the TP of involved editors or does an admin carry out that little chore? Article in question is Kombucha where it appears there may be potential for edit warring. One more question, if a RS (book authored by a chemist) states medical information (a single case report) that is factually incorrect (verifiable but false) and cites it to a Journal report that does not support the book's statement is it better to replace the false statement with the factually accurate information in the cited Journal report (authored by MDs, ParmD)? The book makes an extraordinary claim about a product causing death when that isn't what the Journal report claims based on scientific evidence, and neither do any of the Journal reviews I've researched. Thanks in advance. --Atsme^📞📧 02:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Atsme, mind if I send in unasked for two cents? I think you are talking about a secondary source, the book, and a tertiary source, the Journal that reported on it saying the book was false. If so then this applies correct?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Popish Plot (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Atsme I looked briefly, but it's hard to tell at a glance. The journal article is a primary source, but there appear to be secondary sources making the same point. Also (again, only at a glance), I couldn't see how the book text differed significantly from the journal text. The best thing is to gather all the secondary sources that discuss this and summarize what they say. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on the RS issue, but what about DS question and notices? Someone mentioned to me that the article was subject to pseudoscience DS but I'm not seeing anything that indicates same on the TP or when in edit mode. Please advise. --Atsme^📞📧 20:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to respond to that part. Anyone can add a DS notice to the talk page, and there are templates for user talk pages too; in fact I believe that has to be done before anyone can be sanctioned. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. There should be a link on that page to the templates. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I raised a good faith BLP concern on the "Mattress" talk page and 9 minutes later PTF chimes in, repeating the BLP violation that I asked about, then repeating it on my talk page. Sorry but that's not me bringing anything other than a BLP concern. The consensus seems to have agreed with me as the last name was removed from the talk page and the last entry by Bobmeowcat says as much that it is a BLP and he's been there a lot longer than me. The people that showed up at ANI are all GG and Bernstein is even prohibited from interacting with me. I can't fix that without help. There is no disruption that I have caused but the only edits from PTF on that page are reverts. He's a polite POV pushing SPA and his very first edit was to GG arbcom. WP:DUCK --DHeyward (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]