Hobit

What Michael Knowles wrote was misleading because Professor Kowalski’s contribution to the ALP newsletter did not complain about Professor Hewitt nor does the contribution by Professor Pereira. In fact, Professor Hewitt was not even mentioned.

During his brief time editing, Professor Hewitt made valuable suggestions for improving articles. 50.0.72.102 (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

It looks like Hewitt fell into a classic Wikipedia trap. He thought that the primary purpose was to improve articles and that the normal rules of professional conduct applied.

By Wikipedia rules, he should have ignored Knowles's antics. 50.0.72.102 (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Some amateurs here got on the wrong side of highly technical arguments with computer science professionals. Replay of the Global Warming fiasco? 76.102.7.120 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

• No this isn't the same as global warming. It's one person promoting their work (correctly or not) and others pushing back, probably too hard. I've seen similar issues elsewhere on Wikipedia--academics can be very prickly about getting credit for their work. And that includes the very best researchers. Also, if you are going to contribute to a discussion where one user has been known to use socks, it would be best if you did so via a registered account. Hobit (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Professionals like Hewitt are primarily motivated by accuracy in Wikipedia articles. They don’t gain any professional credit from references in Wikipedia. So, he is not being “prickly” in order to “promote” his work over others. In his editing, Hewitt has included references to publications of many other people.

There are two issues:

1. Wikipedia insists on authoritative references which include Hewitt because he has done and published much of the work.
2. Wikipedia insists on accuracy which means that references to Hewitt’s publications must be appropriately included.

50.242.100.195 (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Professionals work to promote science. In the course of so doing, they sometimes promote their own work in the context of the work of others. Of course, they must take care not to unfairly promote their work over others lest it be self-defeating by causing resentments amongst other professionals.

50.247.81.99 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Professionals are primarily motivated by the following:

1. Science: They spend their whole lives working to improve science. Bad articles hinder their work.
2. Education: They put enormous effort into communicating with each other and teaching students. Bad articles interfere with education.

Unfortunately for them, the Wikipedia website is currently a defacto monopoly. Nevertheless, because of insults and harassment, almost no professionals contribute to Wikipedia.

Being referenced in Wikipedia does not enhance the reputation of top-ranked professionals. Instead, their reputations are determined by other elite professionals who already know precisely who contributed what and certainly don’t need Wikipedia to tell them.

BTW, the comment above is correct that Professors Kowalski and Pereira did not criticize Professor Hewitt in the newsletter.

50.242.68.99 (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Professor Hewitt has written to the Wikimedia Foundation. See Professor Carl Hewitt.

Professor Hewitt requested that Wikimedia remove his biography (in which he was attacked) from the Wikipedia website.

45.33.44.129 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Note: For better or worse, China has broken Wikimedia’s monopoly there. 66.166.238.203 (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

You commented at Template talk:Marriage, I hope I addressed your concern. Are you going to make a firm vote? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 50.247.81.99 (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. And I love your top tag. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eugene Kontorovich is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Kontorovich until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KDS4444 (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for hatting the off-topic section at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 14. However, you wouldn't be aware that Andy and I have met many times in real life and I've ribbed him more than once about his bushy beard. Humour is a strange thing, but I assure you that the joke photo of the bearded baby is far more likely to have Andy laughing along with us than taking any offence, and I hope you'll accept that my post was meant as an affectionate observation, and never as an attack of any sort. Andy's been pinged here and he can doubtless contradict me if he feels I've in any way caused him offence. Nevertheless, I thank you for coming to Andy's defence; I know he'll appreciate the gesture. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I was unaware of that. But I will say that that whole section got off topic and could easily be viewed as a personal attack. I'm glad to hear it wasn't intended that way! Hobit (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
• No offence taken, RexxS - but I will have my revenge. Mwa ha ha! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

As per the section header. —Cryptic 20:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks!Hobit (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see that you noticed WP:USO (User:Herostratus/Understanding SCHOOLOUTCOMES) and approved. The first draft is kind of finished, at any rate it hangs together and there no half-sentences and so forth. It is very long, and I don't expect anyone to read the whole thing; it's more my notes as I went through the February RfC outcome and considered the issue generally.

But there's a very short overview (accessible via WP:NOTTHISAGAIN) which presents the basic arguments. I intend to soon deploy this in rolling back the edits made on the basis of the February RfC.

I don't have a point. Since probably only you and I even know about this page, I'm just mentioning that it's about to go public -- not today, but within a few days. Obviously any suggestions for improvements would be welcome, but I don't expect you or anyone to actually wade through all that. What will follow that I don't know. Maybe nothing, maybe a shitstorm. But I believe I have to right to roll back wrong edits made on the basis of, essentially, an RfC decided by supervote. Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I read it when I marked it and thought it was a good summary of the situation. I'd urge you to not be too hasty--it's still an RfC close. And more so, one by a fairly large group. But yes, the conclusion about not using SCHOOLOUTCOMES was utterly bogus and very much a supervote. Hobit (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Thanks for the advice on the Deletion review page.

Please see the references I added, especially the Guardian article. Is that the type of thing required?

Novara media is also a verified account on Twitter with over 28,000 followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbettington (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind if I nominated you to be an admin? Based on your participation in WP:DRV, you seem eminently qualified. We need more good editors to step up and help with admin tasks. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Roy. Thank you very much. I think pretty highly of you and appreciate your vote of confidence. That said, my contributions on the content side are too weak to have a real shot (which I honestly think is reasonable as an admin should certainly have more content creation experience than I do) and too erratic (number of edits per unit time is pretty small with work and family pulling me away with little notice). Further, I don't really have time to do much more (wife and kids, 50+ hours/week job, friends, and just got elected to a new job at work (yes academics are weird)). I do think in the areas I know best I'd actually _be_ a solid admin. But the package comes as a whole, and until that changes, I don't think folks would be wrong to vote against me getting the bit.

Again, and very sincerely, I really appreciate this. It's funny how someone you've never met can make a suggestion like this and feels like such a complement. Thank you! Hobit (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not sure I agree with your self-eval. I don't actually create much content these days. I used to write more, but now I mostly just hang out in WP:DRV, and once in a while drop in on WP:AFD. Just like any volunteer job, you get to pick and choose what you want to work on, and how much. The only difference is now you have some new buttons to play with (and a mop). And, of course, you get double the salary! But, anyway, thanks for considering it, and if you change you mind, please let me know. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Urban Extreme. Since you had some involvement with the Urban Extreme redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 08:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

For the most part, news reports on current events (at the time the report was written) are primary sources. WP:USEPRIMARY is a fairly detailed explanation with clear examples as a supplement to WP:NOR. The section 'Examples of news reports as primary sources' shows why almost all of the sources (I didn't check them all) at the recent AFD are primary not secondary. They were either interviews, minor human interest fluff or bare event reporting. The idea that newspaper articles are primary not secondary is not a 'silly' idea, its how they are classified in reliable sources, academia etc, and how Wikipedia itself classes them. The idea that they are *not* primary is actually the minority view here. WP:GNG is very clear that secondary not primary sources are required, and our (and in general outside Wikipedia) definition of primary classes most current event news reporting as primary. That many editors make this common mistake is a lack of understanding of primary & secondary sourcing. Ideally this would be spelled out in a higher level policy page like NOR etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Granted when you have a lot of primary news sources, at some point you might have to over-ride the GNG's requirement for secondary sources, but that's why we also have WP:NOTNEWS - a policy which is even more ignored than the actual wording of WP:GNG in AFDs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

That is an essay mainly about a historians definition of the term. There is no indication at all that that was what is intended at WP:N. To do so would eliminate nearly every modern BLP and any coverage of events in the last few years. Hobit (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome to attempt to re-write WP:GNG to include primary news sources, you would have more luck with that than attempting to re-write WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOR (and its supplements) to redefine news articles. It wouldn't eliminate every modern BLP. If people actually paid attention to what WP:GNG actually says it would eliminate almost overnight all modern BLP's that rely on routine news coverage as their only sources - rather than just treating it as 'there are lots of newspaper articles about this person, meets GNG!'. But the fact is by both Wikipedia guidelines, policy etc most news articles (that are used for biographies) are defined as primary unless they can satisfy the requirements to be secondary (keep in mind one news article could be both primary and secondary depending on what is being used from it). This is line with how encyclopedia's, publishers, scientists, academia, historians and so on define what is and is not a primary source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm sticking by my guns here. This interpretation of "secondary" is not what is intended in the GNG. The term was used to eliminate true primary sources (first person accounts, resumes, etc.), not news reports. That isn't how things actually work at AfD or DRV. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well precisely. Which is why we have a load of non-notable events/people articles based on news reports that show little true notability. Because people are following what they think GNG says, rather than what it actually says. If the intent is that it says something different. Propose a change to the wording. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oyi. I don't see a need for a wording change. You are the one who thinks everyone is doing it wrong--bring your interpretation to WP:N and see what people think. Hobit (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The previous people involved in the discussion of Template talk:Marriage are being contacted to help gain consensus. --RAN (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure that you would be willing to accept this draft at AfC. However, I would appreciate your input on this page. What can I do to improve it? ShadesHeroGurly (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused about this edit of yours. Sounds like you're talking about an AfD, but this was a CSD. Did you put this under the wrong discussion? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Yep, that's exactly what happened. I noticed it before I saw your note at least... Thanks! Hobit (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The thread has been closed, and what I really want to address is hardly related to Andrew anyway, so writing this here. I didn't click your links yesterday because mobile device, slow internet, so didn't address them in the original response. The ABC source is interesting, and I've spent quite some time wondering why someone with scholarly credentials in a relevant field would write those things, but the fact that he explicitly got some of his information from a Wikimedia Commons information page means we probably don't have to treat it like something the same author might have submitted to the Journal of Japanese Studies. As for the NPR source, it clearly either got its information from Guedes, who got it here, or the NPR author directly consulted us. "ancient" is anachronistic as the word is first attested in the middle ages, but our crappy article already called it ancient in April 2011 when the NPR article was published;[1] maybe "ancient Japanese" could be a layman's term for "Old Japanese" or perhaps "Old Japanese to Early Middle Japanese" (the Heian period in which the latter was used is often called "ancient"), but mottai nashi is first attested in Late Middle Japanese -- I've hardly ever seen the fourteenth century referred to as "ancient", but an author who didn't know what a "Muromachi" was might be aware that it means "fourteenth century", and their using the same word as Wikipedia, makes it pretty obvious. It's still a laughable error whether Andrew got it directly from some popular media source who made the laughable error, or he wanted to uphold the Wikipedia status quo and went looking for sources that might kinda-sorta support it, and this would be true even if I hadn't already refuted it before he first made it, let alone continuing to double down on the article talk page weeks later. He doesn't like deletion/redirecting, and will knowingly cite erroneous popular sources to support his view, and this really is not acceptable.

All that said, the article itself is fine now (still looks like NOTDICT to my eyes, but it doesn't push any fringe historical/linguistic theories), and I'd be happy waiting however long it takes for the community to forget that debacle before attempting a more carefully filed discussion on the topic.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you for the comments. If this is a case of Wikipedia creating something from whole cloth that others are using, that is a problem. So it might be that I misunderstand the sources. That said, we do tend to follow the sources rather than the expert opinion of editors. So on this particular issue, we'd need some source that agrees with your comments. (And yes, the expert thing is annoying and probably wrongheaded in many ways. I have a PhD and I tend to stay out of editing Wikipedia in my area of expertise because it gets really frustrating.) All that said, it does feel like you need to step back a bit with Andrew. I've worked near him often and he can be really frustrating. But he's generally not wrong (which is different than right...) Hobit (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Meh. My understanding has always been that we are not under any obligation to cite all sources indiscriminately, and when the specialist sources that only expert editors have access to (it is a Japanese word; editors who read Japanese are of course going to interpret sources discussing the word's etymology differently from those who don't: I know that when a source says mottainai appears in a fourteenth-century work, they are using mottainai as shorthand for the more accurate mottainashi; mottainai could not have been used in the fourteenth century as it incorporates a grammatical structure that didn't exist yet) appear to contradict the popular media sources, we give priority to the former.

Anyway, it's a truism that I need to step back from Andrew -- as I said on the AN thread, I really didn't want to deal with that now, and wish the OP had consulted me first. The only reason I posted at all, in a clumsy, no-diffs manner that I knew would invite blowback, was that I didn't want to miss that chance to bring some semblance of my concerns with Andrew's editing to the community's attention, lest the thread be closed with "Andrew did nothing wrong" and a de facto moratorium on such discussions being opened until long after I was more ready to deal with it. At least this way I know Sitush "gets it", having encountered the same problem with his India-related edits, and several other editors would be open to hearing us out if we presented coherent evidence, and the close was more of a "Yeah, this isn't going anywhere anytime soon" than a "Nothing to see here".

To be clear, that's not something I'm planning on doing for at least a few months. Honestly I'm considering an AFD vacation once the current completely coincidental but unfortunately connected ANI thread is closed. If you check my contribs, it's basically put all my editing on hold for the last three days, and that's really not something I wanted.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. Lourdes 08:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Hobit. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, do check back at WP:PERM in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Lourdes 08:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Of course, I've also added you to the list of active reviewers at Afc. Thanks, Lourdes 08:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Denied twice. So saddened to see the complete disregard of Wikipedia Policies. What do you suggest to do in this case now? 2405:205:C8AE:D33B:F946:BDF1:DF84:510A (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

• No idea. I can understand where people are coming from, but wow, do I disagree with this. I'd wait for some other source to appear before doing anything else. When it does, reach out to me. If the source is decent, I'll move it to main space. Also, in all honesty, while I understand your frustrations, I'd urge you to be a bit quieter and generally on your best behavior next time around. People here, and at DRV in particular, get their backs up a bit when people are even a bit ranty. "Attract more bees with honey than vinegar" and all that... But yes, if a new source appears, let me know. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The explicit intent of the post at ANI was to WP:WIN the AfD, so, yes, it was blatant canvassing. And it had that exact effect. While ANI regulars stayed at ANI and nearly boomeranged the poster, lots of looky-loos ran to the AfD to post reflexive "keep" !votes (like every single one posted shortly after the ANI) that very clearly took no account at all of anything actually said in the AfD, and simply counted "sources". That's despite the sources being already debunked as inapplicable for notability-establishment purposes (being the subject's own works, other SPS/UGC, non-independent breeder-published sources, non-independent material from the breed registry that "recognized" her, and non-in-depth material in news sources). Despite efforts of the closer to weigh the arguments and not vote-count, the close is actually vote-counting anyway. It even says explicitly that the arguments against these sources, for WP:N purposes, are strong, then closes with "keep" anyway. While I actually predicted this outcome a long time ago (right after the first relisting, on my own talk page, in discussion with the primary editor of the article), it's still sad to see it happen. Every time something like this takes place, it further erodes our ability to police subtly promotional content (CIVILPOV, etc.) being added, both because of the "I'm afraid to buck a numeric majority" closure approach, and the "I can canvass and get away with it" message it sends. This is important, because as we near the start of WP's third decade, the threat to the long-term viability of the project isn't vandals and trolls, like it was in the early days, but manipulation of the content in ways that undermine the encyclopedia's credibility. This particular case isn't a bad one (having a pointless memorial article is the least of our worries), but the process that led to this "keep" can be applied to much worse. I'm not going to open this as a big "drama" thread, for WP:BEANS reasons. The likelihood of overturning this close isn't very high, but the likelihood of spelling out in a high-profile venue exactly how to manipulate AfD is quite high.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Generally having something gain visibility in a neutral location like ANI isn't considered canvassing. WP:CANVAS, second bullet, makes it clear that posting things to noticeboards isn't generally problematic canvassing. I see a different problem here--asking people to evaluate how important a person's contribution is should be outside of the scope of AfD. We evaluate sources, not contributions as a part of a deletion discussion. Maybe that isn't how it should work (I have doubts some days), but it is what our guidelines ask us to do... Hobit (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey man, thanks again for finding those sources. Unfortunately, by eliminating all of my merge targets, they have effectively throttled most of my AFD participation (which may have been their goal). Oh well, with a small army of deletionists having a big ol' party and little support on my side, this is just how it's going to go for now. :) Anyway, the closer on the 1E AD&D monster list redirected the list page to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, which is where I am thinking of starting over on a much smaller scale. If you've looked at a few of the list AFDs, you will see several spots where even the deleters concede that a single list including anything with at least one RS would be OK, so that will be my eventual goal. Hopefully, I can get to starting on this before the end of the month. BOZ (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Good luck. Between this and the portals going away due to people just seemingly liking to destroy others work, I think I'm out of here for at least a while. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I completely understand your frustration, and I share it more than a little. Hopefully you won't be gone too long, as I think this is a better place with you in it. Best wishes in the meantime. BOZ (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I put a start into rebuilding at Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Notable monsters based on the existence of independent reliable sources, and will add more as I find them. BOZ (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

[2]. Of course, we don’t have to always agree, but we usually do, and when we don’t I’d like to understand your differing view.

I’d like to know what, specifically, you agree and disagree with. I realise I am stretching to Endorse a difficult and messy AfD rough consensus call, and am possibly over-influenced by how I would have !voted. I am particularly interested in whether you disagree with my reading of policies, as opposed to my reading of the AfD and it’s close, which is admittedly messy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time to ask. I felt I was badgering and didn't want to drag it out more for fear of being rude (and it seemed unlikely I was going to change opinions, so it wasn't really the right place).

I do disagree, though I'm not certain if I'm right on policy. To me, WP:V is about things actually being verifiable by a source that can be relied on to be correct. Primary sources can be fine for that (under my reading). A court document saying it was Bob vs. Tom is reliable for saying Tom was one of the folks involved. In the same way, a work of fiction can be used to say that Tom is a character in that work. Of course none of that helps with notability. But my reading of the close was the trump card of "not verifiable" was played (which should be a black-and-white issue that should result in deletion) where it was really an issue of notability. Or at least that's how I read it.

Thanks again for swinging by! Hobit (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are right about WP:V. The close was poor to refer to WP:V. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I do fully understand the LISTN argument for deletion. Hobit (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Last double DRV I can recall being involved with was Jack Wilshere - who may have set a record where there was no hoax and it was all in good faith, with 3 Prods and 2 DRVs (both endorsing deletion) within weeks. It was also speedy deleted 3 times, with a total of 5 deletions and 3 more technical deletions log. Wrong in so many ways, being prodded thrice (with the second one accepted for deletion) followed by an AFD where NFooty was felt to weigh more than the tons of GNG references - but all done by the book. I still shake my head at that one, a decade later. It probably wouldn't have been quite as messy if I hadn't been on vacation for the entire AFD ...

Typically a second DRV is probably not a great idea. Better to recreate and improve the article, and do an new AFD. Nfitz (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

No worries about that, I have been busy. ;) BOZ (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's time to follow up on your statement "I'd love to fix it up. ..." This is not going to be deleted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Just got back from a trip (interestingly, to one of the places mentioned on John Tiedtke's page!) and it looks like you and others improved the article a lot already--more and better than I could. Nicely done. Hobit (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

As per your request, this is the deleted history of List of Major League Baseball players investigated for domestic violence. I suppose a histmerge would be the most correct form of attribution, but I'm not familiar with how they work. Sandstein 21:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

(diff) 19:21, 14 March 2020 . . Eagles247 (talk | contribs | block) 10,406 bytes (rmv list of players/managers "arrested or accused" before August 2015 per BLP)
(diff) 20:14, 13 March 2020 . . Namiba (talk | contribs | block) 10,805 bytes (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball players investigated for domestic violence. (TW))
(diff) 06:06, 15 February 2020 . . Lepricavark (talk | contribs | block) m 10,265 bytes (→‎top: added short description) Tag: AWB
(diff) 21:34, 2 January 2020 . . Muboshgu (talk | contribs | block) 10,220 bytes (→‎List of players investigated)
(diff) 21:32, 2 January 2020 . . Muboshgu (talk | contribs | block) 10,194 bytes (→‎List of players investigated)
(diff) 17:22, 9 November 2019 . . CRussG (talk | contribs | block) 10,012 bytes
(diff) 18:02, 20 September 2019 . . Bbny-wiki-editor (talk | contribs | block) m 9,970 bytes (→‎List of players investigated)
(diff) 06:19, 20 September 2019 . . 2605:e000:121b:8900:70c8:1e0c:4921:9a1b (talk | block) 9,955 bytes (→‎List of players investigated: Fixed stats) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
(diff) 18:39, 19 September 2019 . . 108.50.252.105 (talk | block) 9,971 bytes (→‎List of players investigated)
(diff) 18:30, 19 September 2019 . . Mdeam (talk | contribs | block) 9,906 bytes
(diff) 18:29, 19 September 2019 . . Mdeam (talk | contribs | block) 9,907 bytes
(diff) 18:28, 19 September 2019 . . Mdeam (talk | contribs | block) 9,891 bytes
(diff) 18:27, 19 September 2019 . . Mdeam (talk | contribs | block) 9,879 bytes
(diff) 18:26, 19 September 2019 . . Mdeam (talk | contribs | block) 9,861 bytes
(diff) 14:11, 8 August 2019 . . BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs | block) m 9,651 bytes (remove links to deleted portals) Tag: AWB
(diff) 23:41, 5 July 2019 . . 24.115.73.84 (talk | block) 9,669 bytes (→‎List of players investigated: updated Odubel source)
(diff) 23:41, 5 July 2019 . . 24.115.73.84 (talk | block) 9,669 bytes (→‎List of players investigated: updated Odubel source)
(diff) 23:38, 5 July 2019 . . 24.115.73.84 (talk | block) 9,561 bytes (→‎List of players investigated)
(diff) 23:38, 5 July 2019 . . 24.115.73.84 (talk | block) 9,585 bytes (→‎List of players investigated)
(diff) 23:36, 5 July 2019 . . 24.115.73.84 (talk | block) 9,559 bytes (→‎List of players investigated)
(diff) 23:51, 17 June 2019 . . Sasquatch (talk | contribs | block) m 9,536 bytes (Reverted edits by Milololipop (talk) to last version by Bbny-wiki-editor) Tag: Rollback
(diff) 23:50, 17 June 2019 . . Milololipop (talk | contribs | block) 9,610 bytes
(diff) 01:49, 29 May 2019 . . Bbny-wiki-editor (talk | contribs | block) 9,536 bytes (→‎List of players investigated)
(diff) 01:25, 29 May 2019 . . 2604:2000:e010:1100:2dff:8ffe:2695:6cd8 (talk | block) 9,314 bytes (→‎List of players investigated: currently under investigation by MLB, per ref)
(diff) 16:24, 28 May 2019 . . PearlJamNoCode (talk | contribs | block) 9,093 bytes (Undid revision 899215389 by PearlJamNoCode (talk)) Tag: Undo
(diff) 16:24, 28 May 2019 . . PearlJamNoCode (talk | contribs | block) 9,223 bytes (→‎List of players investigated)
(diff) 17:15, 1 May 2019 . . Gprobins (talk | contribs | block) m 9,093 bytes (Replaced a dead link with MLB reference.) Tag: Visual edit
(diff) 17:24, 26 April 2019 . . Trappist the monk (talk | contribs | block) m 8,973 bytes (→‎List of players investigated: Fix multiple names in cs1|2 template |author= parameters (and aliases);) Tag: AWB
(diff) 18:22, 22 February 2019 . . Cubbie15fan (talk | contribs | block) 9,026 bytes (history added)
(diff) 04:34, 7 October 2018 . . Johnny Au (talk | contribs | block) 7,769 bytes (→‎See also: added Domestic violence portal)
(diff) 04:34, 7 October 2018 . . Johnny Au (talk | contribs | block) m 7,751 bytes (→‎See also: corrected typo)
(diff) 04:33, 7 October 2018 . . Johnny Au (talk | contribs | block) 7,750 bytes (→‎See also: added Baseball portal)
(diff) 02:01, 6 October 2018 . . Muboshgu (talk | contribs | block) 7,731 bytes (→‎List of players investigated)
(diff) 01:31, 6 October 2018 . . Johnny Au (talk | contribs | block) 7,730 bytes (→‎References: added MLB template)
(diff) 01:31, 6 October 2018 . . Johnny Au (talk | contribs | block) m 7,721 bytes (→‎List of players investigated: added note)
(diff) 01:30, 6 October 2018 . . Johnny Au (talk | contribs | block) m 7,650 bytes (→‎List of players investigated: fixed formatting)
(diff) 01:30, 6 October 2018 . . Johnny Au (talk | contribs | block) m 7,650 bytes (→‎List of players investigated: fixed formatting)
(diff) 01:29, 6 October 2018 . . Johnny Au (talk | contribs | block) m 7,650 bytes (→‎List of players investigated: made chronological order per unmentionable website)
(diff) 21:07, 3 October 2018 . . 107.220.108.202 (talk | block) 7,650 bytes Tag: Visual edit
(diff) 21:13, 27 September 2018 . . Keith D (talk | contribs | block) m 7,711 bytes (Sept -> September)
(diff) 18:29, 27 September 2018 . . 2601:240:d500:2eb1:751c:8c2a:62af:6774 (talk | block) 7,706 bytes (→‎List of players investigated)
(diff) 22:47, 22 June 2018 . . Muboshgu (talk | contribs | block) 7,193 bytes (→‎List of players investigated)
(diff) 22:45, 22 June 2018 . . Muboshgu (talk | contribs | block) 7,103 bytes (→‎List of players investigated)
(diff) 09:29, 19 June 2018 . . KolbertBot (talk | contribs | block) m 6,732 bytes (Bot: HTTP→HTTPS (v485))
(diff) 20:44, 8 June 2018 . . Muboshgu (talk | contribs | block) 6,731 bytes (Filled in 1 bare reference(s) with reFill ())
(diff) 20:39, 8 June 2018 . . Muboshgu (talk | contribs | block) m 6,570 bytes (Muboshgu moved page List of Major League Baseball players suspended for domestic violence to List of Major League Baseball players investigated for domestic violence: on second thought...)
(diff) 20:35, 8 June 2018 . . Muboshgu (talk | contribs | block) m 6,570 bytes (Filling in 12 references using Reflinks, date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script)
(diff) 20:32, 8 June 2018 . . Muboshgu (talk | contribs | block) 4,525 bytes (←Created page with 'Major League Baseball (MLB) and the MLB Players Association (MLBPA) announced the creation of a domestic viol...')

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, really sorry to disturb you but i need your help in reviewing Draft:Tolu' A Akinyemi the article was deleted without relist even after the discussion at DRV I further recreated the article at AFC but surprisingly nominated for speedy by the same nominator. Please kindly help review. It really doesn't have enough reliable sources or SNG? Because those are the only information i could get others are blogspot posts and sources that are not in english. I also noticed some of the comments disappeared and could only been seen in the history logs--Olatunde Brain (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Per your comment here, I didn’t mention anything about sourcing. What I did say was per the AFD & the DRV a consensus to delete the article was established. I cannot accept an article in which the consensus of the community is to delete. Furthermore, no, the subject of the article doesn’t pass GNG, the sources presented in the article discuss his works & not the subject per se. Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

• @Celestina007: WP:AUTHOR#3 specifically allows for reviews of the author's work to be enough to have an article on an author. Hobit (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  @Hobit, I don’t necessarily disagree with you on that. That’s why I specifically said he didn’t satisfy WP:GNG. Now if or not a single criterion from WP:POET is sufficient enough to overide an AFD consensus to delete & a DRV consensus to delete is something I’m unsure is plausible hence I declined it. Furthermore we both know if that article makes it to mainspace it would be CSD G4 deleted & possibly salted. Celestina007 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Na, it wouldn't get a G4 candidate. The old sources weren't considered and new ones have been added. Waiting on the deleting admin, but I suspect it will be back in mainspace shortly. There are a ton of sources out there. No one apparently considered following WP:BEFORE even if they did read the article (which I have grave doubts about). Hobit (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

...check the sequence of edits again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

• @Beyond My Ken: I don't think so, but maybe I'm missing something. Info as added on June 17th. Reverted by the OP of that thread on the 21st. Seems like a revert in the BRD sense. Four days doesn't seem like so long that it's too late to revert a bold and previously undiscussed (I think?) edit. Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, you're talking about the QAnon thread, I thought you were responding to Koavf's complaint re: Mary Tyler Moore, just above your comment. My mistake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I had tried to clarify by using "OP", but even then it is unclear. Sorry about that. Hobit (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

NP. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for being willing to help with them content. I’ve just asked for the deleted content to be approved per DRV procedure. Once this is done you should be able to see that it shouldn’t qualify for WP:G4 since it’s entirely different from the past article.-—Prisencolin (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Sounds good. I'll be taking a wiki break soon (probably), but ping me here when it's ready and I'll look it over. Hobit (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • @Hobit: Hope you enjoy your wiki break. The previously deleted version is here. I think the article should be ready to for AFC submission.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, feel free to recuse yourself from any future discussions on the subject. All I'm asking is for the draft to be approved if you think it meets article standards.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • I know you said you’d be taking a break soon, but to conclude the current saga, a draft of the champion article is on my user space at the moment user:Prisencolin/lol. Thanks and take care.—16:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

A few months ago, you participated in an RfC asking how we should describe the governance of the University of Pittsburgh. That RfC was closed as "no consensus." Another editor has opened a new RfC asking a similar question for this and a few other universities; your participation would be welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

• @ElKevbo: Thanks! Hobit (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I love your tag at the top of your user page! I wish there was a way to address that cultural issue more broadly. I'm still learning. Right cite (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I stole it from someone years ago, wish I recalled who. Hobit (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what I can do in this particular situation. My family friend's son is a kid who likes these indie video games and I thought it could be fun to improve articles about them. I guess worst case scenario, I can hope they allow me to continue to work on it in my user space -- and also hope more news articles come out over more time about the topic? Right cite (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yep, that's where you are I'm afraid. I think the deletion was wrong on a lot of levels... It is discouraging for certain.Hobit (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Albert Einstein is not notable because he is only inherited notable from Einstein's Theory of Relativity, so therefore all articles talking about Einstein's Theory of Relativity should NOT be used to talk about Albert Einstein. Apparently.... Right cite (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Drevolt (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would like to work with you to develop a proposal (or proposals) to clarify the notability of political candidates. --Enos733 (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'd like that. I'm pretty hosed at work though until at least the end of next week. So not much bandwidth until then. Would waiting until then be okay?

Of course. --Enos733 (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Great! Hobit (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

[3] Dream Focus 16:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Yep, I sometimes don't bold things. My hope was to get him to read it rather than just getting mad at another endorse... Hobit (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Seconded. I'm glad we have a conclusion, especially one that is so convincing, well reasoned and thoughtful. Thank you, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks folks! Hobit (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thirded - really glad to see someone bit the bullet and sorted this out, and it's a really clear and coherent justification. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's an ambitious project that I've barely started and it's already huge, but if you spot anything that stands out as potentially salvageable at User:BOZ/Games deletions, just let me know and I will draft it. :) BOZ (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.Reply

Your statement here that "if you gave a dozen highly-knowledgeable people the ability to write this article, there could be a dozen very different articles that could reach the FA bar" is a concept that's been on my mind, but I have been unable to put it into words as you have. Might nick it, or a close variation, in the future. CMD (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the kind words. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

With respect to this comment, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your comment (well, everything after the first sentence). Off-point, personalized comments like Lightburst's are a huge reason for the poisonous atmosphere around some deletion discussions; if more people who shared the same substantive position would point out bad behavior on "their side" (to put it crudely) and encourage a better kind of engagement (choice of venue, civility), the world would be a better place. Obviously I am not a good messenger for that -- perhaps you could try to be. --JBL (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks, trying! Hobit (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just letting you know about the stricter rules for gender and sexuality related topics on Wikipedia. Don't worry, it's just a standard notice that has to be given and you've not done anything wrong. Sideswipe9th (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Hobit,

It looks like the page creator closed the discussion you started. I'm not a regular at AFD but I don't think this is how deletion discussions are typically resolved. The result would probably be the same no matter who closed it ("Draftify") but I don't know what the standard procedure is for an unexpected NAC, COI closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

• @Liz: Yeah, that's irregular (at best) but I think a fine outcome. Thanks for letting me know. Hobit (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, don't want to be derailing the arb discussion but your comment I will note that where you see the bright line on sources counting isn't always where consensus falls on those issues and the facts are at odds. Sure I get it wrong sometimes, we all do. But in the vast majority of cases, I'm with consensus. Clearly we have different !voting tendencies but all the same, your statement is unnecessarily incorrect. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

True, but I'd say you are likely the farthest outlier on WP:CORP in terms of what's not allowed as sources. The point I was trying for, and maybe missed, is that it's possible that the folks claiming WP:BEFORE issues on corporate AFDs are providing sources that others might reasonably believe are useful sources that should have been found and identified. Hobit (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but again, if that was the case and I had an extreme view or was "the farthest outlier", I respectfully suggest that this would be reflected in the stats. It is not helpful nor collegial to try to place an unwanted and unwarranted label on my editing. If you believe my interpretation is wrong or overly harsh, I'm really very happy to learn and adjust. I can't emphasis that enough. I don't have any axe to grind, I simply try to implement the guidelines as they are written and according to consensus. If you think I've the wrong end of the stick on a particular source, please point it out to me on my Talk page and we can discuss and I promise to listen to what you have to say with regard to interpretation of guidelines or whatever it is you wish to say. I tend to only focus on NCORP-related AfDs, it is a narrow scope but one that I believe has helped me develop a good understanding of the spirit and wording of those guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

On a different note. You appear to be much better versed and are more involved in procedures surrounding wiki administration and stuff, perhaps you can give an opinion or help. Over time, I've seen some topics come up at AfD that fall under NCORP and which, in my opinion, probably shouldn't. One example is record labels who may have a notable list of artists and have produced/marketed notable albums. Something like NMUSIC might be a better yardstick. Similarly, video game producers. How do you think this should be tackled at AfD? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

• @HighKing: Sorry, been away for longer than I think I have in years. I should be back and editing by Wednesday or so. I'll get back to you when I return. Life (mostly fun things) have gotten in the way. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

#1. Consider the BBC article that Kudpung provided which references a source that describes deluded / delusional as an ableist term:

Refers to people with psychosocial disabilities / mad people / mentally ill people, when experiencing altered states such as hearing voices, having intrusive thoughts, or experiencing paranoia. Often used as a metaphor.
Consider instead: out of touch, totally disconnected, unrealistic expectations

#2. As I said previously, TNT seemingly mentioned [the statement "calling someone who has publicly disclosed a condition"] in order to justify their offense. Unless I'm gravely mistaken, there's no implication from that that Spartaz was expected in any way to be aware of TNT's condition. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

• @FormalDude: I don't think either point is in debate. I wanted to strike that, I think the first point is not in debate. The second point I think is--or at least I'm unclear why it was relevant if not. If Spartaz wasn't expected to know, how was it relevant? In all cases, my point was that taking offense when the speaker had no idea that they'd said something offensive is inappropriate. Do you feel Spartaz knew it was deemed an ableist trope? Do you think TNT handled the situation appropriately? Hobit (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I don't think he knew it was deemed an ableist trope, but, again, he doesn't need to know it for that to be the case, nor for it to be the case that it is an insult. TNT's comment was relevant because it explained why they would be particularly offended by a comment like that. It is essentially evidence to support their reaction (a reaction which was quite mild). And instead of responding with a lick of empathy, Spartaz immediately requested their recall and started a noticeboard thread. So yes, I think TNT handled the situation quite appropriately. Including by not responding to this inquiry of yours. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I think person A calling person B ableist (or sexist or racist etc.) when we agree person B had no intent of being so is quite frankly rude and very much a personal attack. The best thing would be for all sides to apologize. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  (talk page stalker) Saying someone is "pushing ableist tropes" or "calling someone who has publicly disclosed a condition which can cause actual delusions 'delusional' is ableist" is far off from calling a person ableist. One is a critique of behaviour (a justified one at that), and another is a comment on someone's character. There is a worlds' worth of difference. TNT does not have to apologize for anything. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
  _{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 10:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  "Says the admin pushing ableist tropes.. I think not. Stay off my talk page, please." feels like a comment on someone's character. That said, what feels like a very heartfelt apology was made and I for one think that's more than enough. Hobit (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

• The worst of this discussion and at ANI is the people who just can't give it a rest. What's the point in baiting TheresNoTime? I was baited to the point I snapped and I got desysoped for it by the very arb that started the baiting. I wouldn't want that to happen to TNT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • To me Spartaz leaving was a problem and I was hoping to get an acknowledgement that things were handled in a non-ideal way. That has happened and I for one am happy to drop it all at this point. Hobit (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please review article Draft:Battle of Malerkotla and accept it. Thanks. 2601:547:B03:4A37:BD5:7A0F:CB79:C089 (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. I saw that you participated in a discussion on a similar topic. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, did you ask me for 3 reliable sources for this article? Keremmaarda (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

• @Keremmaarda: I actually asked for what you felt were the three best sources. But yes. Hobit (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1047941693749592094/1059126027655315566/Osmanl_Kaynaklarna_Gore_Fatih_Sultan_Mehmedin_Siyasi_ve_Askeri_Faaliyeti_Selahattin_Tansel_z-lib.org.pdf

  https://opendata.uni-halle.de/handle/1981185920/38344

  https://archive.org/details/frasheri-kristo.-the-history-of-albania.-a-brief-survey/mode/1up

  These are the three sources I trust most. Selahattin Tansel is an expert on Ottoman war history and Colin İmber is one of the greatest Ottoman historians. Frasher Kristo is the person who wrote the most academic work on the history of Albania. Keremmaarda (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

I played Champions, Car Wars and SFB, and I imagine the intersection of folks that played all those is vanishingly small.

Well, I exist, so it's not a set of one. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Weird question, any chance you were in Chicagoland in the late 80s early 90s? I imagine SFB and Champions had a fairly independent set of people playing them, but I played with a group that started with mostly SFB and moved over to mostly Champions. I've probably played each for significantly more than 200 hours. Car Wars I think I played like 10 times (so 40 hours?). Maybe the set is just much larger than I'm guessing but it would be amusing if you were part of the same group back then. Hobit (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Letting you know that the edit notice is now live - if you edit any article with refideas listed on the talk page, you will get the notification. :) You can click "edit" on Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game) to see it in action, if you have not already seen it. :) BOZ (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I believe this was premature. While there was currently a strong preference for Option 1 by vote count, consensus is not determined by counting votes, and indeed some of the arguments were problematic. It is also worth noting that some of the editors !voting option 1 did so by presenting arguments opposite to what they had recently presented in other RSN discussions.

The discussion has only been running for three days; I think it is appropriate to let it continue. As such, I ask that you reopen it. BilledMammal (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• @BilledMammal: I know my close only mentioned the numbers, but strength of arguments are also strongly leaning toward Option 1. As mentioned in the discussion, they just won [4] for coverage of the war in the Gaza. That's a pretty darn strong argument that they can be treated as reliable. In any case, the numbers were enough (IMO obviously) so I left out the strength of argument side because I felt it was unneeded. But I see no way this is going to end with anything other than Option 1. If you wish to have the close reviewed, that's reasonable (and not unexpected given the topic area and the fact it's a NAC). I believe the right venue would be WP:AN (or is the close review board still active?). Hobit (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Also, as a note, I'll be doing work stuff for the next 1.5 to 2 hours. I should be back online after that. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about what I think are minor errors, just needed fixing, not reverting.. It took me forever to edit that, I kept getting edit conflicts with myself, odd messages about discarding or keeping changes, etc. I finally switched to Firefox. Doug Weller talk 08:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• No problem. If I didn't recognize your name, I'd have probably reverted. But you are a much better main-space editor than I will ever be, so I figured it was just a bad day. Hobit (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  That's very kind. A combination of Parkinson's and some horrible chemotherapy, sadly. I think the edit conflicts were something to do with preferences and I seem to have fixed that. I hope. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Ouch. In all cases, thank you for all your work here! Hobit (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

First of all, thank you for your contributions (that have all been undone just now).

We have a clearly proper map that has been around for many years. (ShebaaFarms.jpg)

There was never ANY FFD deletion. FFD was discussed and dismissed in the "speedy deletion" process. But how can you speedily delete a map with no discussion that has been around for years?

It went through "speedy deletion" by one editor on the grounds that the new map I created of the same map was "redundant" (I only created new copy because it wouldn't let me repost old copy.)

And Sandstein just decides he doesn't like it so both maps are gone forever? How can this happen?

How can one editor destroy a map that is clearly proper?

Can you undo it? If not, please tell me how to seek formal arbitration.

GreekParadise (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry, I started to respond earlier then life intervened. Sandstein's close was a reasonable reading of consensus. I disagree with the outcome but there were fair arguments on both sides. I'd recommend you work with him and suggest what I suggested in the DRV:

  Add content to the article that specifically addresses the map. I think you'd be doing something like adding "XXX claimed YYY" territory according to the map in ZZZ". It's a primary source, but no worse for that. And then discuss on the talk page if adding the map is a good idea (I'd say it clearly is). If an when that consensus is built, go with a new upload.

If he's good with that plan (and I'd think he should be, but I'm not the best at NFCC issues) then pursue it. If he's not, bring it to an appropriate noticeboard and see what folks there think. If they shoot it down, you've lost. Wikipedia is, IMO, the worse for preventing having things that clearly fall under fair use rules (and this does by a mile). I actually teach a bit about this stuff (though IANAL) and find the whole things frustrating. But it's where we are and Wikipedia works by consensus. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

How was Sandstein's close a reasonable reading of consensus?

Again, there were two redundant maps, and both were deleted on the grounds of redundancy.

This cannot be wikipedia policy. If it were, I need merely create redundancies of any image I don't like and then delete the original and the replacement!

It's true that NFCC issues were brought up obliquely but not directly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can't do speedy deletions based on NFCC. This map has been accepted for almost a decade. If Sandstein wants to delete the map, I think speedy deletion of a decade-long consensus is improper, particularly with an extremely limited discussion and more editors saying it shouldn't be deleted (you, me, Zero) than those that say it should be.

I don't know how to bring it to a noticeboard. Can you help? I fear folks often use the arcaneness of wikipedia procedures to have their way. I can simply request review again on the grounds that it did not follow a proper review process. But I don't know if that's right. Could you please bring help? I think they will respect the request more if it comes from another editor than me.

I've also brought this to the attention of Sandstein.

If anyone can speedily delete anything they want and then claim consensus when there is none and get their own way, wikipedia is an even bigger mess than I feared. GreekParadise (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

As to your request, it's undisputed that the United Nations used 61 maps, including Lebanese military maps like this one, to make its claim, which was accepted by the Lebanese and Syrian governments for more than 50 years but contradicts the Lebanese position now. I was trying to avoid the controversy and just preserve the right to show the map on wikipedia because I don't want people who feel one way or another about the Middle East to let that color their views about whether a map should be allowed or not. If you need the source for this, let me know. It's the official UN report on the situation. GreekParadise (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply