User talk:Bdell555

Hello again, Mr. Dell, as you have been willing to help me before, I wonder if you would consider an addition I have suggested for the Gingrich 2012 article. I have noticed this article does not currently have a section about the caucus and primary results, although similar articles for the Romney, Santorum and Paul campaigns do. I've put together a paragraph that I think would work here, and have posted this and an explanation to the article's talk page. I hesitate to add this section myself, and would like another editor to consider its inclusion. Since the talk page has been inactive of late, I thought to approach you since you have previously been active on the page. Thanks. Joedesantis (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be apprised of WP:EW. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already apprised, which is why I have been both altering the edit(s), inviting you to meet me part way by introducing your own preferred reading instead of just deleting, and addressing the issue on the Talk page.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is likely to take you to WP:3RRN if you don't self-revert. I haven't decided whether I'm too lazy tonight to do it myself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. It might be a "teachable moment." It'd be an opportunity for me to explain to persons wanting to mediate and reduce edit wars the importance of applying common sense. The other guy reverted "support" four times in less than 24 hours, twice because he apparently didn't want K Street mentioned at all, and then twice because he wanted a more minimal connection to K Street, despite the fact that "support" is clearly in the New York Times article and he's never identified any reason to believe that source is not reliable. Had he actually considered the material I had originally added in full inside of indiscriminately reverting it all, he would have realized that a fullscale reversion was indefensible and, at a minimum, would have cut the edit war in half by starting yesterday in the war where he started today. In other words the edit war was certainly unnecessarily prolonged by a lack of analysis and, in my view, the edit war would have been completely unnecessary had he done even a modest amount of analysis (like searching news.google.com for "Santorum" and "K Street" and seeing far more sources pop up than he could reasonably deny). I asked him on his Talk page to consider limiting his reversion to the portion of the edit(s) that he finds objectionable (and is prepared to defend his objection), but he's apparently either unwilling or unable to understand the point. I accordingly do not object to getting others involved in a discussion of the origins of and lessons of this edit war. If you're of the view that these considerations are all irrelevant and of issue is just my reversion count, it may still be worthwhile to formally complain because the process of counting our reversions might be instructive to the other guy, who contends that his reversions don't count if they "do not affect any of [the other party's] words." I would actually be fine with that definition if it were applied to all editors equally.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you reflected what I have actually written and not what you appear to wish I had written. And what Wikipedia means by "revert" and the fact that you specifically solicited my rewording compromise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but a rule is a rule, no? 4 reverts, and of identifiable material (what material can you identify that I have reverted "SIX" times?), in less than 24 hours! You say there's a mitigating factor? You know what, I agree! But that's because I am someone who is open to mitigating factors; whereas you seem to be interested in rules, especially when citing a rule can excuse summary action or otherwise failing to inquire further into something. You've proved to be absolutely rigid with respect to citing what you deem to be an "editorial" even when it appears to be pointless to do so in terms of how the article will end up substantively. Open your mind a little, my friend. Cheers.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again - please treat what I say with honesty and accuracy. And remember that I am far from the only editor who actually follows WP:BLP equally for everyone across the board. Collect (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No "Cheers" this time? What should I infer from this unusual omission? If you want "honesty and accuracy", as I do (which includes not compromising on either in the face of someone going on about a politician's WP:BLP), I would encourage you to use quotes, as this can help verify accuracy. When I said you reverted me four times, I ignored what you reverted that was non-substantive to the dispute and focused on what was, and then put that in quotation marks ("support"). If I've reverted you substantively six times, I would think you could do me the same courtesy by putting the word(s) of yours that I've reverted this many times in quotes. Likewise, a faithful and accurate presentation of Wikipedia policy would involve quoting from the policy. Failing that, the accuracy of a statement about what policy is may be disputed, no?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies absolutely equally to all biographies of living persons - politicians, schoolteachers, novelists, actors - everyone. No distinctions in the policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. To ensure "honesty and accuracy" I shall quote from the the policy which explicitly distinguishes "Public figures" from "People who are relatively unknown." WP:WELLKNOWN says that for these people "BLPs should simply document what [reliable published] sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." An example is given of a "politician" with instructions to include if "the New York Times publishes the allegations..." WP:NPF, meanwhile, says for "people who... are not generally well known... exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. ... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions... there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures."--Brian Dell (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attempt at parsing - but contentious claims even about politicians require strong sourcing. Your elision of that important part does not aid your argument here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At issue was YOUR "argument" that WP:BLP applies "absolutely" equally with "no distinctions." This is not language that exists in the policy. It's language you've invented and then passed off as Wikipedia policy. If you are not habitually engaging in this you would start QUOTING from policy and stop paraphrasing. You're been removing considerable amounts of material from various articles the "contentiousness" of which is far from obvious. Even if it were obvious, there is no authorization to remove unless the sourcing is "poor" or non-existent. Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources goes into more detail about what is considered poorly sourced and gives examples. If you are going to remove sourced material, you should be prepared to explain why it is "poor," by, for example, calling attention to WP:RS. An "opinion" piece could be a poor source, and even probably is, but is not necessarily a poor source for all kinds of claims and for all methods of presentation within a Wikipedia article. One final observation I'll make here is that WP:NPOV is deemed a "fundamental principle" and a "pillar". WP:BLP does not have this status, which means that there is no general authorization to bias any articles, including BLP articles, in any direction, including in favour of the article subject.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it still does. Your parsing refers only to an example of a politician and is not in any way a apecial treatment of "politicians" as a class. In fact, the section you claim to make "politicians" a separate class applies identically to all public persons. As for asserting that following WP:BLP causes a "bias" in favor of the person, such an assertion is absurd entirely! Collect (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Brian. Best, Arzel (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hi Brian - I was impressed with and in general agreement with your blog posting about the sopa hysteria and just wanted to give you a bit of support. Youreallycan 23:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The post is too long, dense, and angry, but I've never been a good writer. I just continued to write about the many things that could have been and weren't taken into consideration. What I especially have a hard time with is how "lawyerly" the Wikimedia Foundation seems to have been. It's been as if Wikipedia has been slamming one fist on the table saying we demand our rights and shaking the other one at Wikipedia's many enemies. These enemies are largely imaginary in the sense that very few if anyone is seriously interested in shutting Wikipedia down. The world is a complicated place and the white vs black, good vs evil, rhetoric which incites people ends up creating more problems than it solves.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here for why you might recieve credit for 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks's DYK. BCS (Talk) 22:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the series of arson fires that began on December 29, 2011, was the worst set of arson events in Los Angeles since the 1992 riots? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, succinct, NPOV edit about Jason Chaffetz's work as a spin doctor on his page. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed your comment in the edit summary here. Please note that the talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 50 KB or has more than 10 main topics—both of which existed prior to my manual archive. I tried to verify that all archived threads were inactive (i.e., they had not been commented on for several days) and that they were not integral to the ongoing discussion of other threads. Note also that any archived text is still searchable via the archive search box. Nevertheless, if you ever feel a thread is prematurely archived, feel free to bring it back from the archive. Regards —Eustress ^talk 23:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, my edit to crank up archiving to 60 days affects archiving henceforth, as opposed to being backward looking. I just noted that the current Gingrich Talk page seems to be dominated by complaints that Gingrich Communications Director Joe DeSantis has been editing the article and the Talk page. In fact DeSantis hasn't edited the article since June 2011 and in 2012 has made all of about 3 lines worth of remarks on the Talk page, something that might be more quickly appreciated if January's discussion weren't in an archive.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brian. I stumbled across your comment about Bill Keller editing his own article and his father's article. But, I don't see edits to the BK article from the NYT IP address. Your comment also appeared to me to say that Bill Keller himself made all the edits to his own article, but that doesn't appear to be the case. I must be mis-reading what you wrote. Can you help understand what you said? On a related note, it blows my mind that Bill Keller's article, about the man who practically set the agenda for the U.S. mainstream media for 8 years as executive editor of the NYT, consists of two short paragraphs and a list of his job titles at the NYTimes. PS: I like your attitude! --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may have implied that his direct editing was current but don't believe I said "all the edits" or implied that. I linked to the NYT Times article where Keller said he had "corrected" "minor inaccuracies." The edits were this one and this one. For what it's worth, the edits improved the articles. I was just asking why Joe DeSantis was being given grief for editing Talk pages under his own name while there were no comments about Bill Keller editing his own article directly under an anonymous IP.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian. I do see Bill Keller's edits to the two articles now. I added a new section to BusterSeven's "project" about Paid Operatives that deals with the NYT IP editing. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thabeet has actually played four games so far this season: [1] I've been watching basketball articles for a long time. The article is much, much more likely to be updated if he gets cut—and if no one else updates it, I'll do it—while mid-season statistics are rarely updated at all. I know that you used an "as of" construction, but those end up looking silly if they remain in the article too long. Zagalejo^^^ 21:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good editing to that article but I was less concerned with "looking silly" than having something plainly wrong in a highly trafficked article for an extended period of time. The "Basketball" article averages 10 000 hits a day, yet until I changed it yesterday it claimed that Žydrūnas Ilgauskas "is the tallest current NBA player" despite Ilgauskas having announced his retirement five months ago. If Thabeet becomes inactive a person may need to check some of the pages indicated by the WhatLinksHere tool to keep pages, especially high profile articles, current.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the basketball article. I really haven't looked at that one for a while; I've mainly been focusing on the NBA player bios. But I probably should take a look; there's probably all kinds of other stuff that has gone out of date.

Unfortunately, the explosion of navbox templates has made whatlinkshere almost useless, but I try to do as much as I can to reword things so that they don't go out of date. Current-team affiliations for NBA players are usually maintained (in the players' own articles, anyway), but many other things aren't. It's an uphill battle. Whenever I see someone add something that I know won't be maintained, I try to take action. Zagalejo^^^ 22:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm soliciting editors for a two-part essay I would like to run in the Signpost, and your blog post shows that you would fill the counterpoint slot quite well in the publication. I was hoping you could spare some time to write up a piece, possibly a condensed version of your argument there? Thanks, ResMar 23:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could take a stab at this. Feel free to solicit another if you wish as well since I don't mind if you have multiple options for a particular perspective and decide to go with another. Could you give me a rough word count of what you are looking for? If I felt that it was too constraining I could submit more and suggest the matter can't be properly covered in less, but in all likelihood the main points can be made quite briefly. You could alternatively just tell me what the word count for the other perspective is and I'd try to something similar or a bit less. I take it this wouldn't just be a yes/no retrospective on the blackout but would answer the four questions you pose. Structurally, would you prefer a Q followed by A for the four Qs or just general, integrated prose that addresses the four Qs?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not sure; try to to keep it short, though. If the contributions get too long we can just split it into a two part publication: one essay one week, the other the next. The two should be about the same length; I think what will happen is that one person will submit a writeup and the other should try to match it in length. So no rough wordcount =). Structurally, prose wrapped around the four questions (but not implicitly repeating them) is best, yes, but they're merely guidelines, and you aren't held to directly answer all of them. Deadline for submissions this week is tomorrow, but I doubt the whole thing will come together that quickly, so I think a deadline of next Sunday is more appropriate. Cheers, ResMar 14:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, best try for the March 5 edition.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And on that topic, bump =) ResMar 20:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You "it's Utah I know but non-Americans would not know she is a Republican" is an unjustified comment. If Mrs. Love makes it to the general election she will face a Democratic incumbent, so your assumption that all or virtually all politicians in Utah are Democrats has no factual basis. If it was Massachusetts with 10 seats in the House and no Republican elected to any of them in the last 15 years your snide comment might be justified, but there is no justification for such a statement about Utah. This is especially true since before she announced her candidacy for state office when she was just a mayor, Mrs. Love's political affiliation had never shown up explicitly in any reliable source. Her reasoning behind her entering politics made it likely what her political views were, and she may have ran for mayor as a candidate of a specific party, although at least Salt Lake City has non-partisan elections, but the sources that reported on her election did not state what political party she belonged to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kevin keller.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — trlkly 04:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the image is "currently not used" because you removed it in order to upload a higher resolution (and accordingly more dubiously "fair use") version. The Kevin Keller article does not need such a large image (ie the one you uploaded), it lends itself too readily to reuse, which should not be encouraged for non-free images. Deleting the one I uploaded leaves no backup should this new one be deleted (which I believe it should be). I understand the value of moving to .png, what I do not understand is the need for a larger image as well.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. v/r - TP 14:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I haven't used this yet and will avoid using it unless necessary. In fact I may not need it after October 10 since I am leaving China and I am not sure when I'll back.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring and WP:3RR violations will not be tolerated. You left comments on my talkpage, you came back and edited them. I have never personally edited them. Please do not change them: once you threatened me, you were no longer welcome to post there. As the ONLY person who addressed EITHER of your concerns on ANI, and thanks would have been nice - instead you have gone off on some tangent about something I didn't even do. Some grasp of the English language and a sense of community is a requirement around here. dangerouspanda 19:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, I'd strongly recommend just dropping the stick here. This was an unfortunate series of events, but dogmatically pursuing reparations basically never works out on Wikipedia. Our local panda should probably not have reverted your attempts to tone down your comment, but nor should you be edit warring on another user's talk page. He was, in fact, the first admin to point you in the right direction at ANI, and everything surrounding that thread can and should simply be consigned to the past. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never issued any threats, and if I did, calling me a liar was equally threatening. But this is all water under the bridge as you say. I'm not interested in reparations. What I'm interested in is who has the right to determine what is attributed to me. If you write "apples and oranges, signed Chris" and I come along and delete "and oranges" with the edit summary "I'm not editing your comments because 'apples' is exactly what you wrote", you are just going to conclude that I am not being at all misleading and give up ownership of what is attributed to you? I've made it absolutely clear that because it is not my Talkpage my comments may be deleted entirely, since that would constitute not representing me at all. If my comments are not welcome then fine. But I will not stand for someone else manipulating a page in order to have what's attributed to me read as he or she wants it to read. If you want to block me for not handing over control of what's attributed to my name then fine, I only point out that this, and only this, is all that I feel I have a right to on Wikipedia. I have no moral right over any other content here on Wikipedia. When someone takes how I am represented away from me, that person can either hand it back to me or decline to represent me at all.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final time: you are not welcome on my talkpage. You left a message, you then returned to edit it after I complained about it. Not kosher. You wrote the EXACT words that are there now - I have never personally edited them. Perhaps your future wisdom should include thinking or counting to 10 before clicking "save". As per talkpage guidelines, I have full right to a) remove your later comments, and b) request you refrain from posting on my talkpage. dangerouspanda 09:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you have been warring over is not, in fact, what I "returned to" but actions of mine between which there was no intervening reply from you, either on the Talkpage were it would count or in the edit summaries. If there had been something intervening, I'd let it go, since it would arguably be a jointly owned back and forth. You may think you've "got me" re "clicking 'save'" but since the content difference is trivial you're free to indulge your sense of satisfaction over scoring some sort of point against me there. The issue rather is that it's your Talkpage but MY words and you are not welcome to help yourself to MY words. Any particular comment, yeah, you can delete it. I wouldn't kick someone off my own Talkpage and scrub it of someone's comments but, yeah, you can do it. But once a comment is there, that's the author's territory not yours. This was not a "later comment". That's as false as your claim that my edits constitute vandalism. This was the same comment, MY comment. You have no business in there. I would think someone who has edited a Wikipedia article would know better than to claim that reverting doesn't constitute editing. The fact that you've a partial conscience is evidenced by the fact that you evidently thought your editing of my words required an extraordinary justification, hence the false claims that you were being threatened. Would you deny that if I had genuinely threatened your personal safety you would have actually been more inclined to let it stand than to delete it since such a comment would have made me look like I'm raving? As far as I am concerned, you have stolen my identity by arrogating to yourself what is publicly attributed to me. You now insist on your right to demand that I stay away from the picture you have painted of me. Should I dare to correct it you will endeavor to have me banned from Wikipedia, I suppose. I further suppose you'll feel free to add your own "personal" strokes to "Brian Dell" later since you have declared everything on the canvas yours and off limits to me. This while continuing to growl at those who dare to demand a look at your own anonymous, multi-named identity. Since the change to the picture of me that you have been warring over is in itself relatively minor, I'm going to let it go. My identity is big enough that you can steal it and I still have plenty left.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help but note that you too have an incorrect reading of WP:Alternate account, or indeed the reasons I'm currently only using my alternate account. The previous person who had such a brutal misunderstanding of if then went to ANI about it, and got raked over the coals. It was avoidable, and not pretty, and I feel pretty bad about it, but it was their own mistaken doing.

Look, you have 100% misread our interaction in ANI ... you are the person who expanded it into improper attacks on my valid use of an alternate account, all the meanwhile I had been directing your sourcing issues to the RS noticeboard, and your IP problems to IPBE - indeed, if I had been using my admin account I personally would have granted IPBE to you. I took no sides: content disputes/sourcing disputes do not belong on ANI; period.

I do not care to "get you", or add "personal strokes" against you nor anyone. The sole picture that has been painted was painted by you: I've never held grudges, nor thought less of someone on the internet because of their actions. The sole reason I reverted your later edits to my page is because they a) occurred after I had made some sort of reply (thus changing the meaning) or had been made after you had been asked to stay off. Both are my rights: you have ownership of your original words, and you have no right for your later edits to be accepted. However, show me a draft right here of what you wish to have it say - I'll be happy to look at it. I'm always happy to accept well-meaning apologies and retractions, just as I have only ever given true and honest apologies throughout my life. There's no reason for us to have any feud, and indeed, I'm simply exasperated that you personally escalated a situation (through likely misreading), and that you're continuing a feud that does not exist.

Cheers, dangerouspanda 12:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got on ANI to say I needed to use a banned IP and gave my reasons. There's no automatic right to this so it's fair game to question my reasons. However, I thought it was equally fair game (ie not necessarily "improper") to question someone's need for multiple accounts. It might seem this was a "back at you" but I've had grievances with anonymity for a long time now and since the common policy question here was Wikipedia's anti-sockpuppet systems I thought I'd broaden the issue.

"The sole reason I reverted your later edits to my page is because..." is simply not true, and it is your repeated false claims like this that exasperate me. Your edit summaries, when present, said you were reverting because I had made threats or was being a vandal. You construed my stating where I lived as a threat and removed it on that grounds when it was clearly part of my argument that although I'm currently living in an authoritarian country, I still edit under my real name so why do other people need both anonymity and multiple accounts? I repeated this connection between my disclosure of my particulars and "the whole point of this" in the edit summary. It is the fact you know where to find me that holds me accountable. I removed that in order to accommodate your concern however dubious it was and to make the point that you are taking to the editing of my words as your first resort, not your last, since you could have just suggested to me that I take back what I said and I would have. You then chose to put my statement about my location back in, which made such a mockery of your edit summary for removing it the first place ("Rmv clear threat of "finding someone" if I have an issue") I knew that I was dealing with someone who was not about to start second guessing what they are doing just because they were contradicting themselves. Your last edit of me included the deletion of a new comment, which I'll swallow without complaint because you deleted it entirely (albeit with the protest that a fair minded person would not call it "vandalism"). But it also included the umpteenth reversion of my earlier comment. And what was the difference in that earlier comment? It's the difference between how my comment read at 08:41, 20 September and 16 minutes later, at 08:57, 20 September 2012 (edit summary for the second edit is "more precisely"). There was no intervening communication from you during those 16 minutes, either on the Talkpage, where it would count since, as I noted above, it would arguably be a jointly owned back and forth, or elsewhere. You evidently preferred the 08:41 version since you kept reverting to it. The difference is small, but that wasn't the point. The point is that that's not your call. Your claim that you own what I say unless it is said in one unbroken stream is totally arbitrary. Some people edit Wikipedia in big chunks, some in smaller chunks. The second type ends up with a higher edit account but as far as Wikipedia is concerned it's the contribution that matters, not how is is delivered. Even if it weren't arbitrary, where is the pressing need for you to claim my words coming from? How am I supposed to explain your stubbornness about a trivial difference in how my words read except in terms of trying to send me the message that my words, which are the only manifestation of my identity as an individual on Wikipedia, are yours and not mine? You threatened to try and have me driven off Wikipedia if I should try to take back something that is of negligible use to you but invaluable use to me (my right to speak as I wish to speak). You've got your own voice yet you refused to use it as you insisted on editing my comment instead of replying to it. I have walked away from many an edit war but not one about whether someone else owns me or not. I've indicated that I am walking away from this one anyway such that I don't believe that I am "continuing a feud." This response just concerns the accuracy of your account of what happened.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sole reason I provided is indeed the sole reason. Period. Don't second guess what's behind my actions - my words were, and are always chosen as they are meant.

The most recent reversion - calling it vandalism - is because you had been told multiple times to stop changing it. As such, it became an unwelcome change. You'll note, that I requested another admin physically lockdown my talkpage to prevent you from breaking WP:EW on my talkpage - that should never occur.

Just because you had a beef with IP blocks does not give you permission to take your frustrations out on the one person who actually tried to help you. You entered ANI with two problems: 1) an IP block problem, and 2) the fact someone was not accepting your sources. Unfortunately, the way you phrased your issues, problem #2 took precedence, and you escalated it from there. Nothing gave you the right to question a valid WP:Alternate account, or to attack me for using one - the accounts are linked, so I have nothing to hide or avoid.

You claimed I called you a dick - it never ever happened, and the link I provided proves it. I know I can sleep at night knowing that I tried to resolve both a) your problem, and b) your problem with me to the best of my ability.

In the long run, I resolved (or at least helped you to resolve) both your original problems. You're welcome.

No more will be said. dangerouspanda 18:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your last reversion was for a reason other than vandalism then give that reason instead of alleging vandalism. Your edit summary said "(Reverted 2 edits by Bdell555 (talk) identified as vandalism..." where vandalism was wikilinked to a page that said "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." Note in particular the "2 edits" part. One of the two was the (yet again) restoration of my old comment to what I felt was more accurate. Perhaps you felt that I was in fact just "inserting obvious nonsense" into my own comment and you just couldn't tolerate that. Or maybe it was "crude humor"!

You instruct me to not "second guess what's behind my actions" yet hypothesize that I have a "beef with IP blocks" and a need to "take [my] frustrations out" on somebody. I do not accept your contention that I have "no right" to raise the issue of multi-accounting. Maybe it's warranted and maybe it isn't. Instead of trying to gag people you could let them have their say without taking offence. You evidently decided to take offence anyway, which was fine. Directing me to a page where the text says only "don't be a dick" was less fine. Claiming that my statement that you had "instruct[ed] me to not be a 'dick'" was a "lie" was not fine at all. Most objectionable at all, however, was the false claim that the 08:57, 20 September 2012 edit of mine which you so adamantly refused to accept "occurred after I had made some sort of reply". If this were just an honest mistake on your part about the edit history, the warring could have stopped by your taking a closer look at what exactly the edits were and what the chronology actually was.

You can take credit for resolving my initial "problem" if you like, and even recharacterize it as something other than it was if you wish, but in fact it was TParis who gave me what I needed. I've already told Chris Cunninghan that he had "renewed my faith in humanity (or Wiki admins, at least)" for the way he closed that ANI "discussion" but it's true I should thank TPAris as well.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who pointed you to WP:IPBE. Who granted it to you is not important. 'Nuf said. dangerouspanda 20:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and let me add: you cannot ever show me that I called you a dick, because it never happened. Prove that I did right now, or cut it out dangerouspanda 20:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been saying you "instruct[ed] me to not be a 'dick'" meaning I "cut out" claiming you "called me a dick" (not the same thing) long ago. Pointing to a notice that says "don't be a dick" is functionally equivalent to typing out that notice oneself. I've spelled out these particular details when the un-detailed claim was challenged. Seriously dude, you're going to keep going on about this? The last word, about whatever, is hereby yours to take.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to want to re-read my post: it doesn't even say "don't be a dick" about you. It said "Of course, I did WP:AGF - there were two options: 1) you hadn't read it, and 2) you were mad at Wikipedia because of a block, and decided to be a bit nasty specifically to me as your random target because I dared to tell you that you were in the wrong place. I AGF'd that it was the first.". Parse the phrase - especially the last line that says "I AGF'd that it was the first" .. and the first was "you hadn't read it". At no point does it even make it to the second half of that phrase using any form of logic or parsing. Are telling me you've been pissed of at me for two days because of your own grammatical error?????? dangerouspanda 21:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bdell555,

In regards to your edit at User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves: (cur | prev) 18:06, 20 September 2012‎ Bdell555 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,954 bytes) (+59)‎ . . (→‎Mark your main account: Signing my name. [If] I am threatening you then remove it all and stop having me say what you want me to say with your edits.) (undo)

I just went through similar bullshit with EatsShootsAndLeaves at User talk:Jasonasosa/Archive#Why are you being difficult, where he had been trying to forcefully get me to say whatever he dictated. ANI doesn't help a lick when they back up their own. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 22:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Chris Cunningham tut-tutted a bit to his colleagues about how I was dealt with on ANI although in the end if things intensify such that it comes time to pick a side instead of continuing to be even-handed in one's criticism, yeah, the outcome is more predictable than it should be. We see that here when I'm told to surrender on all counts instead of advising the other guy to let me have my words since I'm willing to raise the white flag on everything else. re this particular admin, if there were a disclaimer saying "This is MY page. *I* choose which version the world will see and accordingly reserve the right to selectively roll back any edits you make even to your own words," I would have known what I would be dealing with. Indeed it is generally assumed that you can rollback the comments of another on your Talkpage if done so fairly, which means in their entirety. I don't agree with that and wouldn't do it myself unless it is honestly just spam but I would not fight someone else on the point. But a partial rollback in order to have what's attributed to my name look the way someone else wants it? Might as well expel me from Wikipedia if I don't exist anyway, which is what the assumption is if comments I leave behind are considered no man's land. Moral of the story may be to stay off other people's userpages if the "owner" is going to insist that ownership means all the rules of engagement are unilaterally determined by said owner. There's too many fair fights on Wikipedia as it is, I really don't need to be in an unfair one.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Brian. It is generally known that if you make comments and you decide to change them, you use strikethrough to cross out the original words. You're not ever permitted free reign to change things on a user talkpage. Article talkpages are similar, but you may or may not have the opportunity to "fix" instead if nobody has commented anywhere about them since - you cannot change the meaning of text after a reply has been made somewhere. dangerouspanda 12:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed "free reign to change things on a user talkpage." panda, and I would appreciate it you did not imply that I did. I happen to believe there is no free reign to change things on a user talkpage even on one's own since a discussion thread is jointly "owned" by all the participants. You could have wagged your finger at me at the time to tell me that I should have used strikethrough, or, if it is truly your job to correct such things, accepted the latter version as the version I obviously intended and inserted the missing strikethrough into my comment instead of taking the version I obviously thought was, as my edit summary indicated, less "precise" and presenting that as if that was what I want to say. Apparently I have to hide my stream of consciousness from you because should you happen catch a glimpse of it before it reaches its conclusion, you'll grab that frame and won't let go. If you disclosed what you did when you presented that frame with my signature, that would be one thing, but when you hide your role as selector, it's a manipulation of how I am represented. I might add that these tactics are more in keeping with trying to score points than trying to advance a mutually enlightening discussion. As far as changing "the meaning of text after a reply has been made" I have long agreed, such that I don't know why you feel compelled to correct me. If someone revises something I have already replied to, I'd nonetheless welcome corrections in punctuation and grammar anyway as it makes the thread more readable, and I'd additionally welcome clarification if respect is shown to the fact that my reply is a reply to what was said at a specific point in time.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, you have one edit to properly use strikethrough in order to clarify your meaning. I do mean one edit. You've been around here long enough and are intelligent enough to know that, but I'll WP:AGF that it slipped your mind for some reason :-) (because we both know what the alternative to AGFing is, and nobody wants to be one of those!) dangerouspanda 18:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I evidently need to be directed to Wikipedia:Competence is required and advised that my "grasp of the English language" is limited I wouldn't get too carried away with the assumption that I'm "intelligent"! Strikethrough is preferable in some circumstances, such as when one is changing one's conclusion (or editing someone else's comment!), but demanding it here strikes me as pretty lame as I was on my way to my conclusion not changing it. My point was that demanding that I use strikethrough would have been better than edit warring with me, not that I agreed that strikethrough was necessary. I don't see an inline need for it here when the change is already publicly available by doing a history diff. More generally, I don't believe that it is a requirement of Wikipedia policy to make a contribution with one single "save" such that any deviation from that requires the use of strikethrough. It's not my editing style. I'll concede that reasonable people can disagree about this. Anyway, you've battled this so hard, surely I should just concede total victory to you, out of respect for your ferocious tenacity! As I've said all along, the actual content issue was trivial as far as I was concerned. This issue was my right to edit.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And thinking that you have a right to keep editing my talkpage after being told to step led me to consider WP:CIR issues. Perhaps that's not the issue; we'll see :-) dangerouspanda 20:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is Begging the question because the very thing being warred about was whether your claim to own the talkpage trumped my right to edit my comments on that page. a right I was always prepared to concede was limited. When you insist on censoring someone or, more egregiously, putting words in their mouth, and that person is not cooperating, perhaps that person is actually competent but simply disagrees with you.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question to User:Brian Dell...Are Administrator BWilkins, User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User:dangerous panda the same person? ```Buster Seven Talk 17:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to reply. The editor(s) has contacted me. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edit was an improvement. However, I think the Buzzfeed exchange addition is not clear about who said what and why. Why did Reines say "fuck off?" MaximusGeneral (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it

1) "published an email exchange" suggests that BuzzFeed was fine with letting everyone see the full back and forth between their man and Reines. It is implicitly suggested to Wikipedia readers that they can find the full exchange online and draw their own conclusions. Adding more detail here would have to be balanced against overweighting this incident in Reines' career.

2) Hastings was clearly irritating from the get go but when Hastings' word choice became more vulgar the word was applied to Reines' "answers". Reines then dropped all restraint. The context here is that Reines is not just a ordinary "source" being needled by a reporter. An understandable reaction from an "ordinary" person is not necessarily equally understandable when it is coming from someone whose primary job is managing the media.

3) It currently reads as if it should be just taken as a fact that CNN had "disrespect for the privacy wishes of Stevens' family." That's a pretty strong statement. If CNN truly did not have respect CNN presumably would not have tried to contact the family in the first place, and if the family was truly aggrieved presumably the family would have remained more available to CNN (or other news organizations) instead of observers having to get "the other side of the story" from just what Reines (who has a conflict of interest given that CNN's reporting was raising questions about his boss's legacy) had to say. I put that "disrespect for the privacy" in anyway despite the risk to CNN because BLP guidelines apply to Reines not CNN and it suggests that Reines' anger may be more justified. In other words if more "blame" for inciting Reines is to be assigned to Hastings, I would insist that less blame be assigned to CNN. This would include changing "diary" to "journal" since it is not actually clear just what sort of journal it was. I would ask whether that would really change much in terms of Reines' portrayal on net.

4) After reading "A ‘hit man’ for Hillary Clinton" by Dana Milbank, I dare say that, if anything, Wikipedia is treading too lightly with respect to how Reines is portrayed overall. I don't see a call for "contextualizing" or otherwise watering down Reines' use of the F word unless Milbank's view should be shown to be substantially inaccurate.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you removed a section I added in the article U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi saying "remove WP:ORIGINAL research saying update status of a .gov webpage is relevant to this article. Find a newspaper story about this if noteworthy".

Well I just sent an email to the US state department's website asking about their update status. If you give me an email address I can forward their response to you. I don't know of any newspaper or news website talking about this, but I found an independent fact checker who mentioned it : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nPf0waX2HI#t=2m42s But I don't know if it can be considered a reliable source.

You can email me at balistik94[at]gmail.com

Emailing the State Department is what is generally considered original research, though. See this: Wikipedia:No original research. There isn't much substantive that turns on this anyway, since it does not really matter what sort of mission this was. The simple explanation for why it is not identified at state.gov is that America's official representation in Libya is very new. Note that the Ambassador was appointed in June. So things are not firmly established and it is likely that this "consulate" will be closed for the near future as well. At a minimum, your observation should go into the body of the article somewhere. Thematically it shouldn't be a new topic all of its own.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Bdell. About a month ago, User:TParis granted you an IP Block Exemption to allow you to edit from a country that censors Wikipedia. He logged it on my tracking page, and your name just came up for review. Do you still need the exemption flag, or is it safe to remove? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This can expire. I do not need it for at least the next few months.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've removed it. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brian, I like your user page. In fact, I'm going to snitch your Weber quote. Needing to cite it to something other than a Wikipedia user page, though, :-) I've discovered it's a synthesis of Weber's work, not a direct quote. It's by Julien Freund (I guess you read French.) in The Sociology of Max Weber (New York: Pantheon, 1969), p. 24, according to a footnote on p. 502 in a chapter by Daniel Bell here. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, so both quotes are from Bell then, the first one actually being a quote of Freund. I'd first read this piece by Bell more than 15 years ago and jotted those excerpts down electronically and as they migrated from storage to storage I had forgotten their origin.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Wildrose/colhead requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that WP:ARBCC sanctions apply to articles relating to climate change, and in particular to Michael E. Mann which is a WP:BLP and requires even higher standards. Edit warring to remove well sourced information is not acceptable. . dave souza, talk 20:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "well sourced" I would think it would be unnecessary to ask me to prove the negative ("do you have a reliable source disputing that?"). I happen think BLP is getting a great deal of deference already when there isn't even the slightest hint in the article that Mann might have ever inappropriately suggested he was a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence you added because you had added a broken ref that left a bold red warning message at the bottom of the page. My removal of the sentence had nothing to the with the content. Thanks for fixing the ref before adding it back. FurrySings (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stealing this from Montanabw to place here on my own talk page so that if it needs to be used in the future I'll know where to find it.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be bothered to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrea Canning 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/Andrea Canning 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 template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"do not remove" or what? This source alone suggests the subject is notable. Did you bother to look for these sources or is this a drive-by tag?--Brian Dell (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a standard WP:TWINKLE template and the "do not remove" is policy. Anyway, one source does not make for WP notability - there is a need for "significant" coverage (and that is open to interpretation. ~ -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)

I am aware that "do not remove" is part of the deletion review label. I am suggesting that this fact means that a deletion review and its associated tag should not be so casually applied in the first place. There are several more sources should you care to take a current look at the article you want deleted. Someone came along on December 11 and deleted some of these additional sources on December 11 and instead of fixing that you call for the whole article to be deleted. Fact is, had you bothered to look for that Maclean's article and rejected its "significance" in your deletion nomination as you do now I wouldn't object. But you never bothered to consider any of these fixes, did you?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to say that your edit here is great; I can already see many conflicts arising over the article, and your division into pro and con-nom would make everyone's lives so much easier in the future.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of organization is not always recommended, since it can serve as an invitation to turn Wikipedia into a back-and-forth forum. Given where the article was, though, and appeared to be going, this seemed necessary to keep things corralled.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your good work on the Hagel article. I would suggest you consider reverting this edit. The main reason is the following -- much of the discussion about the comment is that the two are not the same.[2][3][4] The second is that when it is a quote (especially), I believe it is generally considered less than good form to wikilink to an article where there may be any ambiguity, as is the case here.[5] Thanks.Epeefleche (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and oh yes -- I agree with your comments.Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it there are two sides here, with one side, including the speaker, seeing interchangeable use as permissible even if not recommended or as precise and the other side viewing any use of "Jewish lobby" as objectionable. Wikipedia is not compelled to come down on one side or the other here, but rather to acknowledge the dispute. So where has Wikipedia been on this? Looking at the wikilinked article, "Jewish lobby" appears to be a recognized variant. So I linked it and felt that that it was additionally permissible within the quotation marks because I don't believe there is evidence that this is not what the speaker intended. At the end of the day, our job is provide resources to readers, and there's a lot of potentially useful material in the wikilinked article. However, I removed the link on your request since one can argue that the link ought to be to Jewish lobby instead since there is a separate article for Jewish lobby, and it is indeed generally preferable to wikilink outside of quotes when possible.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point that there are multiple views. By not linking, we don't (as wp) impose on the readers a view (perhaps wrong) as to what the speaker was saying. I also agree that it is great to wikilink in general when we can impart more information to the reader. Here, given the ambiguity and the fact that it is in quotes, I think we ended up in the right place. Otherwise, we could mislead the reader, by saying he meant x, when that was perhaps not the case. It is the same as avoiding linking -- when someone says "new york" -- to new york state, if they could mean new york city. The test isn't whether we know that the link would be wrong. I think we have to know the link is correct, in order to link. Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Jewish lobby (disambiguation) page, however.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. There shouldn't be. It's pure POV. For the reasons stated in the article I first cited, above.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which addressed the U.S. fiscal cliff, was passed by the houses of the U.S. Congress near the beginning and near the end of New Year's Day 2013? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to join the RfCdiscussion at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#talk:Paul_Krugman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are a financial markets guy. It is my opinion that the coverage of finance and economics on Wikipedia is sub-par. I see that you are contributing in that area. There's much to-do. I haven't as much, because it feels too much like work, but if you ever want to bounce something off someone, give me a ping.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah although I don't generally edit on finance cuz of of the proximity to working on one's free time. I'm happy that my mentions of you haven't caused aggravation because of course I'm just addressing the interwebs or amorphous "editing community" and specifying an action or remark as an example as opposed to trying to address you personally apart from that in any way. Except for right now;)--Brian Dell (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You probably posted that before seeing my response to you. :) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the response was largely in line with what came before except for the "way off-topic" charge. If my half clause was way off-topic then your extended bullet point was surely every bit as much off-topic. In my books it's one thing to have some variability around the topic trendline and and another thing to initiate engagement at a point that's off the trendline. So it was that I responded to the other guy's allegation that I was original researcher on his Talk page.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've closed your talk page to me. As I'd already got in the balancing remarks I wanted to say (aside from the typo where I neglected to say "my" before "own" in "vast majority of own expression"), which noted that the biggest problem was how your views on the Krugman article, however reasonably advanced in and of themselves, enabled some bad behaviours by others, I don't anticipate a desire on my part to see it re-opened. However, I will say that this talkpage is always open (and its history as transparent as possible).--Brian Dell (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Brian. Just to let you know, Tryptofish proposed a new revision at the RfC on the WP:NOR talk page. Will you take a look and let us know what you think? I anticipate that you will be happy with it because it removed some of the stuff you had an issue with. Charles35 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd made it clear that I object to the "by the source" language since that rejects other, perfectly legitimate sources.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "'by the source' language", but yeah, you made your view clear (although there are still some things I'm not so sure I fully understand). But you can contribute to consensus on Tryptofish's specific proposal on the exact wording we should implement. That is, only if you want to (you obviously don't have to). Charles35 (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I have been clear, in the comment that I'm about to add to [6] that I agree with and support the claim that you made and I'm asking you to modify. I'm asking for the strike-out ... amend my "Not UNDUE" reason ... insert certain text else where ... with a view toward dealing with the people, on the other side of this dispute, who are attempting to use the methods described in WP:CRUSH.

Please contact me if I wasn't clear. Thank you. Deicas (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that my request, see copy below, at [[7]] was clear:

I ask, please, that you you add your comments to my text, copied above starting with Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin ... [is] ... *so* prominent ... and create an addition to this section. That addition would say something to the effect of "I amend User:Deicas refutation of the claim of WP:UNDUE, above, with ..." <User:Bdell555's reasons> + User:Deicas's reasons.

I don't want to be seen as telling you what to do. But this is my *suggestion*. Take, amend, or ignore at your discretion. What I'm suggesting is a chunk of text that looks something like something that reads to the effect of:

I (Brian), amend User:Deicas refutation of the claim of WP:UNDUE, above, and assert:

1) Krugman's endorsement of the coin can't be UNDUE because it says a lot about his worldview. For some time now Krugman has been hammering away at the following contentions: a) Policy makers continue to fail dismally in responding to the output gap and; b) Central banks have increased the size of the monetary base and the effect of this on either inflation or output is nowhere to be found and; c) If central banks were to ratchet up expectations of inflation over the medium term this would reduce real interest rates and have an expansionary effect on the economy.

Thus Krugman believes that minting the coin could potentially work where other measures have failed and endorsing the coin is thus the natural extension of Krugman's views, including his views of how and to what extent to which Republicans in Congress should be negotiated with; the extent to which the Bond vigilantes should be be worried about; and the extent to which the tut-tutting of the Very Serious People should be heeded.

2) Krugman's on the coin are more relevant, and thus *not* UNDUE to an article about Krugman than to an article about the coin because Krugman's views did not influnence the inital creation of the coin idea.(as contrasted with the terms "bond vigilantes" and "Very Serious People", phrases that Krugman played a major role in developing). What is particularly notable about the coin idea for Krugman's bio is that he has a wider readership than the several others who have written about it.

3) Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin can't be UNDUE because it's *so* prominent: Google News search produces >1,400 hits including reference from The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and Paul Stewart and Paul Krugman are trading barbs on the topic. Deicas (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The failed DR may leave us back at square one but at a PARTICULAR square one, a square one that happens to include a mention of the coin. They wouldn't be badgering the mediator if the failed DR was 100% inconsequential. If this isn't pointed out to readers who aren't aware of the DR then the DR was indeed 100% wasted effort. If I'm off the topic of WP:UNDUE that's simply because WP:UNDUE is what you chose to title the new section you started (instead of just continuing with the old one titled "Endorsement of the potential issuance of a trillion dollar coin") as opposed to what I think is topical. You seem to want to draft a joint statement that we could both sign, in effect. The drafting and parsing that this would involve isn't worth the effort, in my view, since we can just say our piece individually and leave it at that.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I understand that you don't think I should have taken the vigorous exception that I did to what another editor asked the mediator/volunteer to "see differently." What the editor wanted the mediator to entertain was the possibility that I was your meatpuppet. I objected on the editor's Talk page and promptly after denying that the mediator had been asked to do anything but "see it differently", the editor told the mediator, "I'm extremely disappointed in my ability to articulate my position... I'll have to try harder" which indicated that my point, which was that there is a self-willing human individual here by the name of Brian Dell, was not registering at all since the reference to exclusively own effort suggested that the editor remained of the view that the dispute just involved the editor's own will and the mediator's will. That I will something else isn't acknowledged. In most cases, something need not be said because someone else will have said it before. But in this case the editor was an admin and one who consistently used a civil and measured tone. Someone in a position to make cavalier, unresearched accusations of meatpuppetry and refusals to accept mediator decisions generally acceptable, in other words. Indeed, in the end I complimented the editor on "both temperament and tone" and explained that my greatest concern was for the effect on the "company you keep".--Brian Dell (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may of nominated Matthäus Hetzenauer for deltion in error. An article that you have edited and now you are placing puzzling edits on an article that I created see John M. LeMoyne after you have made comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/File_mover#User:TucsonDavid can you explain this?TucsonDavidU.S.A. 23:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings, "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: ... Speedy deletion tags ... do not just remove the tag." You then proceeded to... remove the tag from your Talk page and from the article as well. Combine that with your effort to get the Hetzenauer article deleted and it suggests limited familiarity with Wikipedia processes. That's a good faith assumption. A bad faith assumption would be that you are familiar but do not respect Wikipedia processes, and I've never suggested that. You could have avoided the deletion tag on the article you started by not publishing it when all it said was "Just sarting article" [sic]. Consistently going offside with regard to Wikipedia's processes suggests that it would be in the interest of the project to review your edits. If you dispute my edits to the LeMoyne article you can raise your objections on that article's Talk page. re Filemover, you deemed the user chosen name "Obamas Barrack" to be in need of deletion or moving/remaming. It's far from clear that there was a problem there, just as there wasn't a problem with the Hetzenauer article that required deletion. You seemed to be inclined to use your intuition as what needs fixing, but there's plenty on Wikipedia that could benefit from your attention without taking it upon yourself to make these sorts of judgement calls.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

while I agree with you that nomination of Matthäus Hetzenauer was an error. To address your points of the tags the first one I removed by lettiong the origional editor who place the tag know I was removing it. The second tag I remove because I placed it myself. as to the name "Obamas Barrack" that is to close to the President's name which would not be allowed. And as to the fact that you edited an article right after I nominated one and object to my application. Hints at and might lead one to assume your edits are in retalliation. So as you suggest maybe it would be in the interest of the project to review your edits? But I choose to AGF however, I have asked two non envolved admins to reviewTucsonDavidU.S.A. 23:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that your objection to the username wasn't acknowledged and it's still out there indicates that it IS allowed. I readily admit to reviewing your contributions on the grounds that your effort to nominate the Hetzenauer article for deletion raised doubts about whether that dubious move was part of a pattern, particularly with regard to the File namespace (including article deletion and creation). That's not personal "retaliation." A relevant accusation would be of Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, but this isn't a case of wikihounding. A classic example of true "retaliation" was your reverting Materialscientist's correction of your misspelling of "Government" back to your original "Goverment" (and reverting my correction of your failure to close the italicization after "Hail Mary").--Brian Dell (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I decide to follow WP:FAF. I believe we both got alittle caried away. me on Matthäus Hetzenauer and you on my article. I think we were both need time to cool down. Heck I even considered WP:RTV. But let's put it behind us now.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 02:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've suggested you're rather impulsive but you have the compensating virtue of being relatively quick to reassess after the fact.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian. Just letting you know that I agree with your restoration of the Dana Milbank quotation from his Washington Post column that somebody had deleted.(I actually thought that you had deleted it at one point, my memory apparently served me wrong). Regardless of whether it is rumor or not, it was in print and cited the retelling of a circumstance that is pertinent to the topic at hand. And to my knowledge the Washington Post is, in fact, a reputable source of information. Additionally, the writer is a regular columnist of the paper for a number of years, not a fly-by-night opinionist as some other publications would have with a "guest columnist" or such. The deletionist seemed to imply with their "edit summary" that this was the case, but it is clearly not. So I agree that that original inclusion should never have been deleted. When I saw your restoration I was actually in the process of reviewing the deletions in the Susan Rice article (there are several) that should never have been deleted to begin with. Thank you for putting it back... Regards... Steve. Stevenmitchell (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your memory serves you correctly as I DID delete it after a while as I try to accommodate those who object when possible. I restored it a time or two and then when I felt the article was more balanced and complete, decided the point could be made using other material. But it certainly did no harm in my view to include and for some time it was necessary to battle to keep it in.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_School#The_home_stretch Byelf2007 (talk) 4 March 2013

Please see my note in response to your post in the pending request for arbitration. (Cross-referencing here just to make sure you don't miss it, as it's important.) Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I replied over there to note that re WP:CLUE, the reason why that language ended up in the essay is because the notion first emerged in a conversation from January that you were a part of, neither you nor any other admins challenged the notion at that time, and an admin who announced his enthusiastic endorsement decided to add it, this time with an explicit contrast to non-admins, to WP:CLUE. In other words you had a front row seat to the emergence of the doctrine and weren't inclined to try and nip it in the bud at the time. I'm not trying to be antagonistic here though, if you will be in Hong Kong for Wikimania later this week it would be my pleasure to meet you.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's fair to say that at the time an administrator candidate passes RfA, there's a consensus that the candidate possesses Clue among the editors who have participated in the RfA. And I would suppose that if an editor possesses Clue, it can be presumed, or at least hoped, that he or she will remain Clueful going forward. This is, however, definitely a rebuttable presumption: sometimes something goes wrong.

Unfortunately, I won't be in Hong Kong—but I do expect to be in London next year. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If only more admins read passing a RfA that narrowly. Should I have a conflict with another editor, if I were an admin and the other were not, in @Jehochman's eyes (to return to that example) I would not just enjoy a rebuttable presumption (or "hope") in my favour, but it should be a matter of policy that admins be exempt from the disciplines that are applied to non-admins, with only behaviour requiring desysopping calling for "formal process." I should probably run for admin myself, not because I need the tools, but for the status. This wouldn't be necessary if a successful RfA were not so prone to overinterpretation or overapplication.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your work on Steve Pearce (politician). Bearian (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• which, according to the Ministry, did not comply with international regulations.<ref>Alastair Gale (267 November 2013, [http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2013/11/27/south-korea-familiar-with-b-52-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ansett (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting disputed material without forming a consensus for inclusion on the talk page. This is edit warring and is a blockable offense. Binksternet (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained on your Talk page, I think the definition of both consensus and edit warring is defined by the community, not you. If you disagree, then I invite you to take it before the community by requesting my block.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that the recent edits you've made to Russ Tice are far from neutral, and constitute a violation of WP:BLP. But what do I know? I've asked at the noticeboard for someone more knowledgeable to look into it. petrarchan47tc 04:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that it is in fact your reverting of me that is intended to produce an article that is "far from neutral." re "what do I know?", you evidently believe you know more than I do given that you are edit warring with me. Do you agree with Tice that the intelligence community avoided budget cuts because it's got "leverage" over not just Congress but the President and the judiciary as well ("our three branches of government")? If so, why isn't this corruption of the U.S. government at the highest level not getting more press?--Brian Dell (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Venona project, you may be blocked from editing. You seemed to be expressing your personal opinion. See WP:NOR. —Danorton (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you jest. The original research in that article is primarily in digging up those rare cases where VENONA's evidence has been challenged and giving those fringe views far more coverage than warranted. Name some serious scholars who are not connected in some way with The Nation that reject the contention that the VENONA evidence incriminates Hiss or that Hiss more generally was not a Soviet agent. By the way, you're aware that there is a Talk page that can be used to discuss content disputes? Or is your behaviour here meant to send the message that you don't believe my editing worthy of substantive engagement? By the way, it has occurred to me that you may have looked at the history of my Talk page here and decided that the fact I've had my critics in the past means that criticism was warranted and I'm a problem editor. I suggest looking at the details before drawing a conclusion.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not jest. Again, you seemed to have added personal opinion in your edit and, again, see WP:NOR. This isn't a topic of general interest, so it's not on that talk page. Unless you can show me what reliable source used the word "left-leaning" as you did in your edit, I can't see how this is anything but vandalism. I did not see your talk page first, but I was not surprised by the others's complaints. —Danorton (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you, The Nation SELF-DESCRIBES as "the flagship of the left" and the view that ALES does not refer to Hiss is pretty much exclusive to someone connected to The Nation. Do you dispute this point of fact? Do you see the discussion about "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources" at WP:NOR? Please explain to me how I am misusing sources with reference to that discussion. The New York Times has noted the left-right distinction on the point of whether VENONA incriminates Alger Hiss (contrasting "conservatives" with "liberals") yet you evidently consider it "vandalism" to include this fact. Fine. You stand by your charge that I am a vandal, I stand by my edits. I await your taking your complaint to the adminstrator's noticeboard so you can make good on your threats. I just ask that you point out what I said about the edits at issue on the article Talk page.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Athan Theoharis is not "left-leaning", yet you lumped him together in that label. Your attitude here is full of WP:BATTLEGROUND heat; I recommend toning it down. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend taking this to the article Talk page. Remember that joke about a "conservative" view being what you hear from someone who just got robbed and a "liberal" view what you get from someone who just got arrested? Theoharis is well known for his complaints about Hoover's FBI and its arrests. He is quite clearly a civil liberties liberal. Seriously, how many "conservatives" have received a Lifetime Achievement award from the ACLU like Theoharis has? Theoharis' reasoning re Venona "follows the general progression most VENONA deniers have undergone: First, resist accepting that Americans did much spying for the Soviets; next, when presented with evidence that they did, carp at the details, stress any inconsistencies or ambiguities, and urge caution at reaching conclusions based on one source; finally, when shown corroboration for VENONA, claim “what’s new?” and argue that the spying had little effect on anything important." Theoharis does not have some sort of unique take on VENONA that separates him out from the main venue for VENONA criticism, The Nation, aside from Theoharis ultimately conceding that Hiss was guilty.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• District of New York: American Civil Liberties Union v. James R. Clapper (13 Civ. 3994) (WHP))|url=https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/order_granting_governments_motion_to_dismiss_and_denying_
• document/ NSA Agent’s Identity Exposed in Poorly-Redacted Snowden Document] ''The Daily Banter]]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian Dell, I came over to ask you to take a look at my insertion of Bieber's various legal troubles (not controversy!) up to his arrest. It is disconcerting though, that your talk page has various allegations of edit warring, violation of BLP, disruptive editing etc. I am sure my edit will require your support, but please do not break the rules while you support it. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 09:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also started a new section on the talk page regarding my edit. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 09:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that someone might accuse you of Wikipedia:Canvassing by arguing that you approached me despite believing I have a dubious reputation. Best to approach editors you believe would "not the breatk the rules", have expertise in the field, etc.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I judged you from the "controversy" section in the talk page, not much rulebreaking was apparent there. Sure, you might have (been accused of, at least,) broken the rules before, but hopefully you have changed. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 03:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I would like to hear your opinion regarding the new (and trimmed) "legal troubles" paragraph at Bieber's talk page? I have colored the words purple. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not helping your cause with your snark and oblique personal attacks on Petrarchan47. Try sticking to the merits and resist showing contempt. Unless your goal is simply to unload your thoughts for therapeutic purposes, remember that the way to "win" here -- especially against the most stubborn and frustrating of editors -- is to recruit other editors to your position. Make it easy for them to pitch in. To do so I'd suggest raising and arguing issues more concisely with clearer information up-front about what the dispute is about. At least a couple of discussions you've started recently have rather opaque, unattractive titles and the first few sentences don't help much either. And few editors choose to "stir up trouble" by butting into disputes that appear acrimonious. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Bdell555 wishes to continue to remove cited information, an RfC at this point is the best way forward. I would prefer a community discussion to taking on this arguing against RS by myself, day after day. Please take this advice, Bdell555, and stop edit warring at Edward Snowden. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 18:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably let Gandydancer know s/he was referenced. petrarchan47tc 06:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I am retaining the most relevant cited information ("bullet in his head" etc) while you are removing that and the other material from the Buzzfeed story that would present it more neutrally. Please take a moment to actually read Wikipedia:Edit warring instead of misrepresenting it. The very first line says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Discussion means addressing the many objections raised on the article Talk page. As for RfC, I've already done that. To Dr F, I'll note that the one time I went over the line or at least pushed right up to it was in the back and forth on the BLP noticeboard concerning Russ Tice, but the only third party input there was "Brian Dell seems to be making the better argument on this page." So appparently where one person sees an argument another person sees "oblique personal attacks". People will see what they want to see. That isn't to say I'd deny a cynical tone. I don't see how anyone can witness Wikipedia shutting down in 2012 in order to lobby Congress and not treat claims that the median Wikipedian is non-political about these particular topics without cynicism. In any case, it is the nature of the particular dispute at Edward Snowden that other editors cannot just wade in casually. One has to get into the weeds, which is why I do so on the Talk page and why I have no illusions that I am going to get any "drive by" support.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the attraction of "drive by" support is what Wikipedia is all about, but to each his own. I wouldn't even bother trying to actually convince Petrarchan47 of anything. He/she is simply too stubborn and and intolerant of criticism; or at least, that's been my experience. The two of you should make a deal, simply note the issues you disagree on and treat them as having no consensus. That will probably lead to more time to work on areas of common ground (as well as better mental health). (P.S. What I referred to as "oblique personal attacks" might be described as your cynicism showing through. It's not helpful regardless of what you call it.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a good one--advises Petrar and me: "This "you are exhausting" talk is destructive, non constructive, and is contrary to the spirit of the project." However, s/he sees nothing at all wrong with saying, "I wouldn't even bother trying to actually convince Petrarchan47 of anything. He/she is simply too stubborn and and intolerant of criticism". Gandydancer (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My working relationship with Petrarchan is irretrievably broken, in my view, which is the main reason I no longer do much editing at Edward Snowden and related articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:BentleyFBeaver.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posts at the BLP-noticeboard are not a "request for comment" (RFC). See wp:RFC. BTW, I think it would be a good idea for the next step.TMCk (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you got me. A request for comment is not a "Request for Comment". I should have spelled out "request for comment" in lower case or said "a noticeboard" instead of using the RfC acronym. Note, however, that Binksternet has ridden in on his white horse yet again to delete the offending text here (and some other besides). I don't think much rides on the technical distinction here: we went to a noticeboard, the only third party input received was that I was "making the better argument", and that ended up meaning... nothing. What am I supposed to ask at RfC? Please tell Petrarchan to stop reverting "Kucherena" back to "Kucherina"? Who could disagree with that? Yet that particular error still remains, and nobody is inclined to fix it, apparently because that would constitute meddling in Petrarchan's paragraph while the paragraph is under enemy siege. Such are the dynamics here.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Stay off it. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you invite yourself here, I see. Fine. I wouldn't want to deny you your freedom of expression! I will use my own Talk page then to state that if someone uses any Wiki page to accuse me of "misrepresent[ing] the truth" I will call attention to the record if the record does not support the allegation. If someone does not want me to reply to such a charge, he or she can decline to make it in the first place. Am I being unfair here?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Snowden may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• com/lawyer-snowden-place-live-russia-112855767.html Lawyer: Snowden has a place to live in Russia] ''[[Associated Press]]''</ref>
• District of New York: American Civil Liberties Union v. James R. Clapper (13 Civ. 3994) (WHP))|url=https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/order_granting_governments_motion_to_dismiss_and_denying_

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Edward Snowden. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23, I don't see how anyone could read your instruction "first try to discuss controversial changes" and think you even bothered to read what I said about this, never mind giving what I said there the courtesy of a reply. "It's in the Template," perhaps you'd say. Well, how hard would to be to tailor what is said here? Everything about this incident reflects such colossal rigidity and opposition to the whole point of Wikipedia's edit warring guidelines it is astounding. I invited you to encourage all parties to use the article Talk page and you've refused to do so. If you are going to operate like a bot, I suggest saving the project time by automating what you are doing. If you are using any discretion at all, I would suggest providing evidence of that.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23, I see that your rigidity has been an object of complaint on the admin noticeboard in the past. Rather than go back there again, I've proposed a change to the controlling definition here that would require greater consideration of the Talk page, edit summaries, and editor intention. You are welcome to add your views there.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, you and I have differing POVs on the subject matter but that isn't even a slight concern of mine right now (or ever; differences of opinion are what make Wikipedia great). Right now we need to focus on restoring an open and collaborative editing environment and ending the pattern of disruptive ownership that's been going on far too long. This will not be easy, given the forces lined up against us. <sarcasm>Isn't it obvious that the Russians are engaging in perception control? Hey, if it quacks like a duck... </sarcasm>

If I can give you a bit of friendly advice, of course we all have our own editing styles but you might find yourself being more effective on talk pages if you tighten your comments up. I'm having a hard time getting through some of your longer paragraphs. Focus on your stronger arguments and keep your comments to a few lines max. Some folks we're dealing with have a tendency to pick on the weakest arguments and completely ignore the stronger arguments. This is of course intellectually dishonest, but sadly there's no way to stop it. The best comments are usually the one-liners that cut to the heart of the matter. If you absolutely must write something long then it's best to do it with careful formatting and bullet points.

I admit I haven't always followed my own advice on this. Sometimes it's good to step back from the content dispute du jour and exchange some constructive feedback. Cheers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, although I'll say it is not the obvious problems (that can be shown to be problems with one liners) that are persisting in the article so much as problematic nuances. I will nonetheless grant that with respect to the freesnowden.is thread in particular, my explanations have not accomplished much in terms of getting my point through that removing all mentions of this website while retaining the material that ultimately derives from nowhere but this website is making the problem worse in terms of giving readers the info they need. I feel Binksternet appreciates my point there more than you do, in fact. But my main issue with you Doc is that I feel sometimes you take issue with me because you feel you need to be even-handed and dish a little out to everyone as opposed to having a substantive objection that would exist if it were just the two of us. Avoiding any "team play" means we simply maintain our independence instead of trying to have the other guy's back (that is, look at WHAT is being done instead of WHO is doing it, something I keep pushing @Binksternet to do without success; the best evidence that Binksternet is a "team" editor is the fact that for all Binksternet's changes to the article, the amount of material that can be traced to his word choice is very low, the vast bulk is written by Petrarchan and Binksternet sees his role as protecting what she has written simply because she wrote it), it doesn't mean we need to direct fire at each other on occasion to show we are not in cahoots.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking any positions to be even-handed. I simply calls it as I sees it, and I only engage in so-called "team play" when I happen to agree with my fellow editors. (As an aside, I really have no problem with material that was ultimately derived from freesnowden.is as long as it has been reported on by reliable independent sources.) I would really like to focus laser-like on the common ground between us, which is to stop this persistent disruption so that someday we can all edit in peace. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, either the material on freesnowden.is is propaganda or it isn't, apart from whether any other media outlets have looked at it or not. The dark side of the moon didn't first come into existence when we first sent a probe to take a look at it. It is what it is apart from another's reading of it. If it's propaganda and if another source repeats it, it's still propaganda. The water isn't changed into wine here. The worst thing you can do is present it as wine and hide from the reader where it originated from.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me this is about promotion, not about propaganda. A number of reputable media outlets (including the New Yorker) have attributed those words at freesnowden.is to Snowden. That's sufficient to establish verifiability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On The New Yorker website you will also find "Why Edward Snowden Deserves Amnesty" and "Why Edward Snowden Is A Hero" That isn't promotional? If something is promotional on website X and it then gets reprinted on website Y, how does that render it unpromotional, Doc? The quoted text is still the exact same. If it is disclosed to the reader in the text or at a minimum in the citation that this material originated on "Free Snowden" then readers are at least clued in as to the possibility of promotion.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, those sources are biased opinion pieces, but they don't appear promotional. Those writers are simply stating their own independent views on the subject and do not appear to be trying to boost Snowden's cause beyond that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So eyes on the prize... Would you be interested in doing an WP:RFC/U with me? I've never done one before; it appears you need two editors, one to write, and one to certify. I'll write if you'll certify. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about P, the spite of P's self-described "friend"s should not be underestimated and they'll probably present edits like this to suggest that you are creating more heat than light by going down this road. The situation with P is that she's a stubborn obstacle not because she has a kick-your-head-in character but because she thinks she's on a mission from God. I actually have some sympathy for a woman trying to make her way in a man's world (Wikipedia) but clearly her idea that there's "powerful forces" arrayed against her has resulted in her taking the "can't give in to the conspirators and their evil machinations" mentality to a disruptive level. So if in a request for comment forum she goes off on another "I can't handle the stress.... love Wikipedia and the truth, and those who are here for other purposes... they don't care if another person is hurt in the process" rant something might be gained by this since there's a good chance she'd be cautioned to drop her persecution complex. But I am not particularly keen to spend a lot of time trying to get someone more grounded in their worldview when I don't find her hand-wringing, drama prone character nearly as objectionable as, say, Binksternet who seems to like taking a swing at me just to remind me he's there. My hope is that the more time that goes by with independent, neutral editors declining to ride in and strike down her imagined tormentors, the more it might occur to her that perhaps there are simply routine differences of opinion at play as opposed to some sinister plot. She'd then ease off her gatekeeping some. We had a grand argy bargy over at the Russ Tice article and in the end she seems to have let most of what I felt needed to be in there remain. If your main issue with her is not her taking out what you add but the stuff she adds, she's a lot more stubborn about that but I frankly don't have a huge problem with puffery on Wikipedia as long as it isn't downright false. As long as the facts are mixed in there somewhere readers can presumably discard the self-serving polemics and POV pushing by using their own critical faculties.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good points all. I suppose you have a greater tolerance for what's been going on lately with Petrarchan. To me, Bink's behavior is irksome but it doesn't interfere with my editing so I can ignore it. So, is that a yes, a no, or a maybe? Or a "draft something up and then let's talk?" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it means no promises. I might not have time to review because the eventual impact on content is an indirect and uncertain. There's a human behind the signature and I'm concerned she'll take it so personally it affects her husband and kids if she has a family, etc etc. Who knows what the situation is there. I get the sense she lets issues bleed into other areas of life because she certainly doesn't keep things compartmentalized here on Wikipedia. I'm not much for turning the other cheek to a jerk but what we have here is more of a head case. Once in a blue moon she wants to make nice. Perhaps she's reading this conversation and if I say here we should give her a second chance she'll take that to heart and make a good faith effort to relax and give other editors more space.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, there was a time (I believe in December) she and I at least superficially made amends and I thought she had found a little zen in her heart. But the next time we had a content disagreement she went all ballistic on me and it's been downhill ever since. She is clearly burning with anger right now, as this comment demonstrates. (It's pretty ironic that she espouses Mahayana Buddhism.) How I do wish we could all edit in peace and learn to disagree all friendly-like. Ok, I'll give this time to run its course and then re-visit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect the "D" in WP:BRD and refrain from re-reverting (low-level edit warring) in the future. You have done this many times recently, and I have to be honest, it's quite irritating. Take your rationale to talk where we can have a discussion not limited by the edit summary length limit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Doc, the investigative reporter who may have spent more time checking this out than any other reporter anywhere says the most important lacuna in the whole Snowden story is just why he ended up in Russia and you deny the lacuna, insisting that it is a settled narrative that Snowden was "stranded" against his will, apparently because of his passport being revoked by the U.S. (that being the only possible explanation suggested in the paragraph) and all you have said in justification is an edit summary comment calling the matter "minutiae." May I point out that you are not "limited by the edit summary length limit" here? You insist that I am refusing to respect what WP:V says but now that the shoe is on the other foot and I am the party adding material you suddenly don't consider satisfying the bare minimums in WP:V the end of the matter. I find it interesting that Binksternet is clearly observing the article but has not yet restored your preferred version. I'm sure someone like JohnValeron or other relatively independent party will step in here and restore your version if consensus is in fact what you say it is.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about that BRD comment I made above? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? You request "a discussion not limited by the edit summary length limit" and then when I lay out the matter on the article Talk page you say I have presented "too many arguments" for you to be bothered to address them. This after wagging your finger at Petrarchan when she said she was too "exhausted" to address my concerns! Our biggest problem here is the rigidity of your thinking. Obviously promotional material appears on freesnowden.is and you consider it as black as night, absolutely and totally inadmissible. Another website, that has hosted pieces also advocating for the subject, reprints it and then you consider it was white as the purest snow. All elements of promotion and advocacy have vanished as surely as if the material had been washed in the blood of the Lamb! Even thought the text remains the exact same! The reality, of course, is that material that was in a grey area to begin with became marginally less grey because The New Yorker's editors decided to reprint it. Re "stranded", you don't seem to be able to tolerate any shading. It appears obvious to me that you want the material cited to Harding and Der Spiegel removed not because there is any violation of WP:V but because including this throws a wrench into your black/white dichotomy. You admitted yourself that after reading the Spiegel piece that the matter was not clear cut. But then you posit yet another "water into wine" phenomenon where a subsequent article that does not in any way suggest that it intends to address the matter of the mess and clear it up serves, in your mind, to do exactly that. I refer you to last month's PRI article, which says explicitly the mess (that is, the uncertainty) is very much still there, and your world evidently just can't handle that.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Please respect BRD" means: don't re-revert without consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You never had consensus to remove the attribution in the lede. No one has agreed with you that attribution should never be used in an article introduction. And no policy agrees with you either. Please respect BRD means also respecting the D. You come here to complain about being "limited by the edit summary length limit" and now both here and on the Talk page you've reduced yourself to one liners.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus that "stranded" is reliably sourced and appropriate for the lead. Framing the attribution issue as a new and separate issue is an end-run around the "stranded" issue, as is your latest effort to include the content that you said made "stranded" unreliable. Honestly it strikes me as being a bit disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to understand where you are coming from to the point of trying to make sense out of Harding being a "person" as opposed to just acknowledging your statement there for what it is (that is, evidence that you will go to any length to avoid putting your mind to where I am coming from). Honestly I think the reason you continue to refuse to ignore what I have said on the Talk page, complaining of "too many arguments," is because it causes you cognitive dissonance. Framing that attribution as a new and separate issue is what YOU are doing, Doc. And you are engaging in that framing in order to portray it as an end-run (around your closed mind). I've tried to pry open your closed mind and you consider that "disruptive." Well of course. . There is, in fact, no consensus that the issue is what you have been trying to reduce it to. You count Petrarchan as agreeing with you but there is a fundamental difference between you and Petrarchan and that's that she had (on occasion) an interest in trying to sort out the passport story. You have exhibited no such interest. It was after Binksternet took an interest in the passport chronology that he decided, yeah, Hong Kong authorities said it was a technicality that tied their hands, but really they were not so tied. You are solely interested in looking at the element you want included in isolation without regard for whether it can be rendered coherent with the rest of the narrative. You're just not interested in writing Wikipedia, in other words, you're interested in adding a phrase. Because that's how you understand the difference between WP:V and the relevance of the "truth." If the narrative should be filled out to more fully reflect what the sources say and this more fully reveals the problem with including the element you want included, well of course you consider that disruptive because you are interested in having the element integrated, not having Wikipedia present the story. The latter is an "end run" as far as you are concerned. You say you have consensus here, but you don't have it where it matters, which is that the larger narrative is irrelevant. What consensus applies to is a specific edit proposal, and on that count, we've got "Brian proposes: '…he remained in Russia.' I second Brian's motion." I see no such support for your edits and I suggest you find such support instead of just presuming it.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR. Tighten it up please, we've been over this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I suggest you stop coming here to complain that the length of discussion has been too short? If you don't have the time to read you shouldn't have the time to edit war. There's plenty of other subjects on Wikipedia you can take an interest in.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have written what I wrote about the length limit on edit summaries. That was just a quip. The point of my coming here was, please don't re-revert without consensus. When I wrote that above, your answer was that I didn't have consensus. That's beside the point. If an issue hasn't been joined on the talk page then there's no consensus so neither side should re-revert. The bottom line is, when you get reverted, go straight to talk. Except for BLP violations, vandalism, etc. That's BRD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the reason why you have refused to acknowledge "We don't use Wikipedia's voice to say it, instead we use inline attribution" for "potentially inaccurate material," is because that's from an "essay," WP:BRD is also an "essay", but I will nonetheless note that I did, in fact, follow BRD and you, in fact, did not. I should not have to waste my time having to correct your errors of fact when they having nothing to do with Wikipedia's content and are only concerned with your bogus charge against me as an editor, but since instead of letting this unfounded accusation of yours go you just keep repeating it, evidently I have to spell it out to you (despite the risk of getting another "TLDR" response from you):

BRD defines "B", "R", and "D" and when doing so says that it is the revertER, not the revertEE, who is instructed to use the article Talk page: to quote, "When revertING... see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one". In the "R" of BRD it does not say "When revertED..." as you so boldly boldface. As for "an issue hasn't been joined on the talk page", the facts are that, unlike you, I did not revert until this condition had been satisfied, as the editing chronology indicates:

• I added material cited to PRI
  
• You revert my addition entirely, DESPITE BRD's instruction "Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it..." AND BRD's instruction "When reverting..."
  
• I, the revertee, go to the Talk page concerning your reversion. Having taken the initiative that you failed to take, I then proceed, the only objection before me looking quite cursory: a single word in your edit summary, "minutiae", which suggested to me you never bothered to check in the source the context in which the claim was being made (if you insist that the rest of your edit summary there, namely "stop beating this horse to death," should have served to stop me, never mind the fact I DID stop to raise the matter on the Talk page, please explain to me how my addition of the PRI story makes me simultaneously guilty of both beating a dead horse to death AND introducing "a new and separate issue," your later complaint about this!).
  
• You then decide to come HERE to lecture me about failing to use the Talk page, INSTEAD of first replying to my comment about my addition on the article Talk page. You later cap this off by complaining that I have placed "Too many arguments" on said page.
  

Enough with the self-righteousness already. If you were able to find the time to come here and badger me about "go[ing] straight to talk," you could have gone straight to Talk like I did instead of detouring over here! If your issue here is that you feel BRD gives you a "free" revert and this sense of entitlement of yours wasn't respected, please note one statement in particular that is found in this essay: "Note: The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD."--Brian Dell (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've done it several times, but you're right, it seems pointless to re-litigate the past at this point. The request was made. I'll just have to point it out the next time you do it again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do not "have to point" me to this essay again, and I strongly advise you to drop the stick already. Wikipedia:Edit warring is POLICY and that POLICY says "disagreements should be resolved through discussion." I suggest you follow that policy instead of misusing essays to give yourself a free "no need to discuss" reversion of another's work.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pls do specific edits, dont revert to bare URLs Kendall rayanne (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that bare URLs should be avoided. So I'm not sure what you're talking about because I'm unaware of my doing that.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your corrections at MH370. I should've been more careful, but I'd been in a rush to rm the synthesis that was there before. — Lfdder (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly just a matter of precision.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fearlessly trying to educate folks on how journalism actually works. And how Wikipedia relates to it. Some folks can't/wont see a distinction between impartially quoting a distinguished secondary source and endorsing their anonymous primary sources. Reuters, AP, Washington Post etc. don't use bozos who make stuff up despite the conspiracy theorists' ravings. So we have to rely on them until their sources are outed. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters, AP, etc greatly assist us in writing Wikipedia, but many editors sadly don't have much time for the gatekeeping role these agencies play, which is more of an art than a science, or if they do have time, they apply it indiscriminately across the board such that everything a given source says is of identical status. What is really needed out of editors at the end of the day is a appreciation for nuance and the relevance of detail.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, we're clearly in disagreement on how much reliability to assign to journalists quoting unnamed sources, but personally I'm aware of several cases in which journalists have been bitten by unnamed sources in aerospace cases, Pierre Salinger over TWA800 most notably (which effectively destroyed him as a serious journalist). I'm not a neophyte WRT the press, I've dealt with the media (print, radio, tv) as a named source WRT some of the charity/disability rights work I do, many of my friends do this even more regularly, and as another consequence of that disability rights work have far more knowledge of government spin making it through into the editorial process and into news columns than I would prefer (when the National Statistical Authority repeatedly takes issue with the press releases in question, and ultimately invokes its legal authority to stop them, the 'spin' passes from being a matter of opinion). I've even been bumped live on national news when a more interesting story has crossed the editorial event horizon ;) I've got a pretty good grasp of the editorial process, I know they make their best efforts to verify sources and stories are reputable, but sometimes they do get it wrong, and we need to acknowledge that reality is out there, particularly with specialist areas where they aren't able to apply their normal critical faculties. My only interest in this debate is making Wikipedia's coverage of aerospace as authoritative and error free as possible, and when a single journalist quotes an unnamed source, is it unreasonable to stop for a second and ask ourselves 'why isn't anyone else reporting this?' 82.45.87.103 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowa, please be my guest with using some of the material from my discussion below about primary and secondary sources on the WP:RS talk page if you want. I would like to argue that especially in the case of current events: If a reporter saw it with his own eyes, then it can be used and this is a good source for facts (but to be reliable, it has to come from a reliable media, and probably has to name the reporter). Ideally two independent witnesses are needed. If a reporter is just repeating a press release/statement, then this is pure hearsay, and the press release must be used as the source if at all possible (this will often actually be a secondary source, as the spokesman probably wasn't directly involved in the event). If the reporter is quoting from a live press conference, and there is no video or transcript of what was said, then great care must be exercised, because this is notoriously unreliable. In the case of current (news) events, interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources will be somewhat uncommon (reporters may not have time), so care should be taken about the reliability of any interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the news. In the case of current news events, it is almost inevitable that most of the article will be reports of the facts with little interpretation, analysis, or evaluation.

This is a reply to your comment on the MH370 talk page. Please also see my other discussion about sources on the MH370 Talk Page.

I have also copied this to Nowa. Kulath (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You got it exactly right in your edit summary, which is why I can't understand. We must still presume Zaharie is still alive, so don't you agree we should not be indulging this sort of speculation or character assassination. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article already drops a cloud of suspicion on him: "...police searched the homes of the pilot... flight simulator in the pilot's home..." the way I see it is that if we link to Anwar Ibrahim ("Anwar, 66, is the most potent threat to the government of the prime minister, Najib Razak") or Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials readers can read "Political leaders from the United States, Australia, and other governments commented on the case, damaging Malaysia's reputation as a progressive, Islamic democracy" and thereby conclude that whatever this pilot's role in the aircraft's disappearance, perhaps he has good reason to take issue with the Malaysian government (nothing would excuse deliberately crashing the plane, of course, but perhaps something went wrong with some sort of protest plan, a plan we might agree is criminal but in the Captain's POV necessary). I think readers should be put on notice that the Malaysian authorities may attempt to engage in "character assassination" here. I also think that you want Wikipedia to play more of a gatekeeping role than is consistent with the neutral point of view: we are largely passive, meaning we follow what the sources say, with our job primarily concerned with assessing the reliability of the reports, not perception management. I think the source for this material is sufficiently reliable; it's consistent with what else I've seen, and thus we should include that (in the appropriate place with the appropriate weight) instead of trying to keep it out because we've been appointed to be the either the Captain's public relations team or the Prime Minister's PR team. Like I say, I think the Captain would actually want it in, with attention called to the government's levelling of trumped up sodomy charges against political opponents, as opposed to simply declaring that Malaysian authorities are investigating him!--Brian Dell (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have with citing it as an instance of "missing white woman syndrome" is that MWWS has a specific definition that does not fit this case i.e. no-one actually disappeared. However, I do agree that there are some fascinating parallels so would you be open to a compromise? I was thinking of creating a section for Greece and moving the case from the cited examples to the main prose where the parallels between this particular case and the phenomenon can be contextualised. Would that be acceptable to you? Betty Logan (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would me more than acceptable since I agree with your reasoning here. I added this more than once today simply because 1) I felt readers or potential researchers could do this contextualization themselves and 2) I think a new section on the Talk page should have been opened if you disagreed with (1).--Brian Dell (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the reverts: you reverted a couple of times and I did also, and it's enabled us to see where each other is coming from. I will get on to the proposed changes tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC) EDIT: I see you've already addressed it; the alterations are ok by me. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They won't be changed. Thanks anyway, though. Geogene (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]