User talk:David Tornheim/Archive 5

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Could you be a bit more cooperative?

Twice in as many weeks now, you have made a comment that I responded to, and my response to you was met with a string of bizarre, off-topic attacks from other users who apparently had nothing to do with you, and when I offered to withdraw my opposal of whatever you were saying, or suggested the whole thing could be closed if you and I both just dropped whatever we were arguing, or some such compromise, in exchange for you either (a) requesting in my stead that the other party stop attacking me or (b) just retract your original comment so the discussion could be closed, you have either dragged your feet on agreeing with my compromise proposal or actively undermined my compromise proposal by doing the opposite of what I requested.

It would be one thing if I had asked you to do something that required a significant amount of effort on your part, or had indicated that I did not intend to make good on my side of the deal, but in both cases I unilaterally disarmed in anticipation of your agreeing to the compromise. The first time it happened, I assumed good faith, and I won't seek any action even after the second, but it's increasingly looking like, whether or not you thought the comments by those two users were appropriate in and of themselves, you are not willing in tell someone off for attacking me, apparently because you and I had some disagreements on those ANI and ER threads.

I intend to continue cooperating you in the mentorship of Endercase, so I would really appreciate it if you would be more amenable to cooperation going forward.

(By the way: I have already requested that Endercase retract a recent, unprovoked attack he made against me on another user's talk page, and requested that he stop following my edits. I feel this request would have significantly more force, though, if I weren't the only one making it, so I would very much appreciate your backing me up. Full disclosure, I've also asked User:MjolnirPants to do the same.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I find you constantly disagreeing with me and causing drama [1] and making bizarre unfounded accusations, especially at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention, e.g. [2], [3]. Please stop: It's annoying. As for your "compromises", often they make no sense at all. I did strike my comments per your requested "compromise", but I did not tell the other user to "knock it off". Why should I? I'm not an admin. You can tell the other editor to knock it off or take it to WP:AN/I if you want.
You did the same thing above with this request, asking me to look into the history between you and another editor as a "compromise" for withdrawing your proposed sanction for Endercase. Your interaction with the other user, and my investigation of it, has nothing to do with whether Endercase should have been topic banned. This is a kind of logrolling or vote trading, which our article on vote trading mentions as problematic ethically: "The Limits of Public Choice: A Sociological Critique of the Economic Theory notes that vote trading is often considered immoral, since votes should be determined on the basis of the merits of the question. It is viewed as being less serious an offense than bribery, although in some countries it is still unlawful." That's how I viewed your request. I was on the fence about bringing that to your attention or to the WP:AN/I, but chose not to. Now I am. Please stop asking me to investigate or scold other editors. I do not understand why you feel that is my duty. If you do not like what they are doing, you scold them.
Please do not make me come up with more diffs. I do not want to go to WP:AN/I over your behavior.
I am posting this here as a reply to the above and at your talk page concurrently. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Taking this to your talk page, since I hate annoying other users with ongoing discussions between me and other users on the former other users' user talk page.
(1) I'm sorry about my Japonified communication style. My main, current request in the above comment was to talk to Endercase about, as I said above, "a recent, unprovoked attack he made against me on another user's talk page". Given that the last two times I had asked you to talk to other users about knocking it off for comments that they made that directly involved you you had tacitly ignored my requests, I had reason to suspect you would do the same again, which is why I titled it "Could you be a bit more cooperative?"
(2) It doesn't matter that [you] never said [you] would stop mentoring Endercase, since you had stated during the ANI case that you did not recognize the disruption he had caused, you were apparently refusing to recognize the disruption he is currently causing, and (most importantly) Endercase appears to believe that whether or not you and I decide we don't want to mentor him anymore, he is allowed decide for himself when the mentoring has "ended". He closed the "mentoring section" on his talk page (have you mentored before? are "mentoring sections" a thing?) and described it as "inactive" and having reached a "consensus". I am not as quick to scold him so frequently. Has he been hounding you? Or calling you a rampant POV-pusher and accusing you of edit-warring? If he has, I can talk to him. If not, then you should listen to me when I tell you he has been treating me that way. I am biased when it comes to his attacking me, so he would be right to question my telling him it is inappropriate, when his other mentor reacts like you did above.
Yeah, MPants was right in his response to you on his talk page. My accusation that you had shirked your mentor responsibilities was based on your above initial refusal to talk to Endercase about his attack on me. But the text I quoted here was more likely a misinterpretation of something I said about myself. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
(3) He did not say he was going to stop receiving advice. Immediately after the ANI thread closed, his rhetoric returned to pre-ANI levels, he stopped listening to my advice, and started attacking me, and he "closed" the "mentoring section" as having reached "consensus" and being "inactive". You can only take AGF so far, and everyone who has looked at that except you has interpreted it the other way. He said that mentoring was "optional". I think he is technically correct. NO. Mentoring is NOT optional in this case. Mentoring was proposed as an alternative to a block or limited TBAN, and every single user who opposed the block/TBAN did so based on the assumption that mentoring would solve the problem. If mentoring doesn't work, or is rejected, the alternate solutions need to be put back on the table. It is true that our advice to him is not formally binding (something I have repeatedly emphasized when he has ignored all of my advice regarding staying away from the problem topic areas and not attempting to amend WP: pages), but if he continues to ignore it and actively attack us (or even just me) that is a serious problem. Last time I was involved in an ANI thread where one proposal was a block and it was filibustered in favour of a less severe alternative, and the less severe alternative didn't work out, the result was the closer saying that he was not sure [he'd] ever seen a consensus so overwhelmingly in favor of blocking. So when an ANI thread is closed as "no consensus to block at this point; the less severe alternative for the time being", the less severe alternative must be taken seriously. That does not mean he won't listen. I hope not. But the results so far are not promising. We'll see if Bishonen's warning makes a difference. But I do think there is too much stick and not enough carrot. Please show me a diff where, between 3/20 when the ANI closed and 3/27 when he made a gross personal attack against me, I offered him "stick". It's been nothing but carrots.
(4) He did not close the mentoring section as you allege His editing style makes it extremely difficult to read. Technically, I didn't "allege" anything. I asked if he thought the mentoring was "over", and he dodged the question. Additionally, I don't know what this "mentoring section" bull is about. I stopped using it some time ago because it prevents me from using "New section". I have been assuming that he would treat advice from me as the advice of a mentor, regardless of where it is posted. Whether or not "mostly inactive-consensus achieved-Manual archive" means what it says or the super-AGF alternative you propose, his recent behaviour toward me makes it very assume he still thinks he is being mentored. Geez. Please assume good faith. All these false bad faith allegations are just making things worse. Please don't lecture me on AGF. You have been ... no, I don't even want to talk about that with you any more. Just drop it. If he retracts his attacks against me and apologizes, I will take the bits that can be taken in good faith in good faith. He is still refusing to do so. I won't deny that his amended version is better than before, but it still (with no evidence) accuses me of constantly and consistently fail[ing] to assume good faith and get[ting] upset when users claim you are wrong, and continues to request that I take seriously the possibility that I admitted somewhere on-wiki that I am focused on right-wing news media. I admit that he probably gets some/most of this from you, which is why I have repeatedly requested that you also stop with the false accusations regarding AGF.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I struck it as part of a section of text that was written in error (I was responding to something you had written in response to something I wrote, which you thought was referring to you but was actually about me), but I need to re-ask this. What is a "mentoring section"? Have you seen one before? It seems really counter-intuitive, since it means we can't use the "New section" button to give Ender mentoring advice. Perhaps Endercase should have a talk sub-page transcluded on his main talk page and collapsed?

Thank you for your ping, but...

I don't think I'm allowed comment on AFDs related to things Japanese, even if requested by another user. See this. I took a look anyway, and my Google-fu failed me. Normally I'd be inclined to think that sixteenth-century Japanese figures about whom someone wrote a Wikipedia article must be inherently notable (why else would someone have heard of them?), but almost no books mention her, nor Japanese university websites. Even coverage of her husband is pretty bare.[4] None of the sources listed in the "recommended reading" on ja.wiki mention her name in their titles, except for "浜松凧・屋台:凧の生みの親椿姫観音", which includes her name (椿姫, which is not the title of either the Japanese or English article) as part of the name of a shrine supposedly honouring her. I can say with near certainty that the shrine itself exists.[5][6]

All this said, I really don't know much about the period in which she lived, and the books I have immediate access to are unlikely to cover her either way. I made a much-too-long walk to a library (my commuter pass used to get me there for free, but I'm on spring break now so my company doesn't pay for the pass anymore) to get this book, got a nasty blister, and have barely left the house since.

The statement by the OP that she is a fictional character is flawed, though; the source he/she gave (another wiki, mind) says that she existed, but that the name "Tazu" was an invention of the early modern period. The fact that she, like virtually everyone else in her time and place, has featured in video games, comics or cartoons is irrelevant. I am highly reluctant to trust the Koei wiki, but the information KoCo got from it is not what it actually says so I am even more loath to trust them. The simple fact is we have two wikis, one almost certainly unreliable and the other generally trustworthy but not for GNG or AFD purposes, the former kinda-sorta implying she is fictional (but not really) and the latter stating with certainty that she was real and citing an abundance of sources that may or may not provide enough coverage to meet GNG.

If I were allowed !vote in the AFD I would say speedy keep it as it is based on a false premise (that a source, itself unreliable, says she is a fictional character) and find a Japanese-proficient editor with more knowledge of the Sengoku Period than I (User:Curly Turkey perhaps) to look around for sources and see if the numerous sources listed on ja.wiki cover her in enough depth. That said, I am sympathetic to Lemongirl's TNT argument that the current article is crap and nothing would be lost if we deleted it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way: In case any wikilawyering wikistalkers are watching this and ready to pounce -- I only posted the above because David Tornheim requested my input, and I carefully avoided posting to the AFD itself because I think that would be a violation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: I'm so sorry. I had no idea you had the tb. I would never have invited you otherwise. I thought it might ease the past tensions and you would enjoy the subject. Do you know of any other way to do outreach to Japanese-fluent editors? You're the only one I know of. (So far I have only read the first sentence of your response and wanted to address that first.) --David Tornheim (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: I see you mentioned an editor above. I will ping him/her at the article if that editor is not there. Have you ever used the Wiki-translation service (by humans rather than machines?) I have been in long discussions related to linking machine translations and it is clear that they are frowned upon. Just curious if you have any experience with that or if you have participated with that. I am assuming answering this question would not be within your TB, but if it is, then I understand if you choose not to respond. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Try WT:JAPAN. They're usually pretty responsive. But most of them likely know even less about the time period in question than I do. They'd be good if all you wanted was a clear statement on whether Japanese Wikipedia presents her as a fictional character or not, but I already did that. This is enough to discredit the OP's argument that, since an external wiki kinda-sorta presents her as a fictional character, the page should be deleted as a hoax. The problem is that several other users showed up since the OP and made a GNG case for deletion, which is somewhat more convincing, and not something I can defeat by reading the Japanese Wikipedia article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Thanks for the recommendation to WT:JAPAN. Right about the other !votes. To be honest, I hadn't even seen the comment about the hoax part. Generally when I see an AfD, I look at the article and the sourcing independently before looking at what anyone else said. I tentatively formulate in my head a response, then I skim the responses already made to see whether they agree or not and check to see how thoroughly the others looked at the sources and whether their arguments have substance that I should change my mind. So, in this case, I just couldn't tell based on Japanese Wikipedia if they gave real sources or not, because I don't understand how to properly translate the names. And I'm not planning on going to the library to try and dig up that book that is referenced.  :)
I actually think for articles on subjects that are foreign people, places, etc., that the AfD should be coordinated across languages, so that those who worked on the non-English article can chime in, and then if one is going to go down in flames, so will the other. And if one stays, so does the other, and some effort is made so that the best sources for each are used in each language, even though of course, there would be preference for English articles on English Wikipedia and vice-vera. I have been taking a greater and greater interest in the non-English wikipedias. It's also interesting to see the differences. The Chinese article on the U.S. is a hoot to read, especially with regard to food and transportation.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
A problem with that idea is that different wikis have different standards, for sourcing and for everything else. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri has a comically exaggerated notion of my expertise on matters historical. I've commented there, but I'll probably put only the minimum required work into the article to save it from deletion. I'm probably in a position (geographically, at least) to do a better job on it than that, but the sources would be challenging for me to work with—probably even modern ones. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you handy with scripts?

It's a script, David. You would paste:

importScript('User:David Tornheim/closeAFD2.js'); // Linkback: User:David Tornheim/closeAFD2.js

  • into:

User:David Tornheim/monobook.js

  • that should work. It did for me. I'm not terribly handy with this stuff, so I can't tell you more than that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Shawn in Montreal: I'm pretty good with scripts and programming off-Wikipedia, but haven't much messed with the scripts here. I'll try what you suggested next time. Thanks for the suggestion. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm

[7]... Is it just my computer or that template didn't work so well?. Lil Johnny (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope, it was my computer, i cleared the cache and it works now. Lil Johnny (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for your contributions Articles for Deletion!, Although we don't always agree, your contributions at AFD's is appreciated. AFD's are important not only to weed out the garbage but more importantly a great way to bring attention to an article to improve the sources. Keep up the good work! CBS527Talk 21:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hi David, I noticed that you withdrew your AFD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith & Wesson M&P15. I came across the M&P15 link in the 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting article and did not have time to comment at the AFD. For what it's worth, IMHO I agree with you that the article lacked sufficient references for a stand alone article. All though this article currently has 24 references, the sources are are primary and press release (Not "Independent" per WP:GNG and WP:QS) trivial mentions, unreliable sources such as blogs (seeWP:BLOGS) or Breitbart News (see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Breitbart.com and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 182#Breitbart again. There plenty more discussion with the same result) or don't even mention the product. A number of the sources may be useful to cite statistics or tech specs, they don't appear to be useful to establish notability. User: VQuakr did provide a couple of sources, The OutdoorHub article [8] and [9] that seems to meet the requirements for notability. These may be enough to establish notability because, with firearms, it is often difficult to find appropriate sources that meet all three requirements which are necessary to establish notability primarily because it is a "hot-button topic" that generates a lot of publicity that are neither independent or reliable and are usually very slanted towards a certain point of view. Other editors may think the article needs more than two good references. Don't be discouraged with the some of the contentious comments by some of the participants in the AFD. Regards, CBS527Talk 21:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cbs527: Thank you and for the barnstar below--my first!  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies

You were right, upon reflection I am going to have to agree with you. I am not a deletionist and am probably more vested in the Firearms Project than most. That article is crap and an embarrassment.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Searson: Thank you. I appreciate your openness to changing your mind and striking your comments. I will do the same with my response. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Searson: I have to say the level of denial about the terrible sourcing at the article is so shocking and disappointing, I am unwatch-listing it. I watched your attempts to fix it reverted. I hope you are able to improve the article's sourcing and make it more WP:NPOV. The article really needs a {{refimprove}} tag and all the poor sources removed, but after the way I was treated, I am not going to dare take a chance putting that tag up with the vigorous objections of the protectors of bad sourcing. If you continue editing there and feel it is not a complete waste of time to try to improve the sourcing there (or anywhere else), please let me know. At this point, I feel it is a lost cause and any attempt to fix the bad sourcing will be met with more of the same level of denial and unjustified animosity, false accusations, and other b.s. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Nolo

I suggest posting a proposed removal over at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. It's highly likely that the sysop you contacted about this issue will end up disagreeing with you and then archiving the thread you started, and it will be forgotten. We need centralized discussion to make any progress on this. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@N I H I L I S T I C: Has Nolo.com been blacklisted? If so, can you point to me where that was determined? I don't think it has as if it were, I think it would come up my screen when I post its name here. I think in that particular case JzG was removing refs made by particular editors that had been identified by him and/or others as problematic, and Nolo.com got caught up in the cross-fire so to speak. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was added to the blacklist at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2017#Immigration_law_refspam_round_3. From what I've been able to gather, the story is, Vipul paid a bunch of people to add links to various articles (which he claims was not at those sites' behest), and then to deter that kind of "refspamming," JzG added those links to the spam blacklist and started removing those links from articles. Then a bunch of people complained to JzG about this (both on his user talk page and on article talk pages and in other places), but he kept insisting it was necessary to deter refspam, and other sysops have mostly been backing him up, most recently at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JzG.27s_questionable_spam_blacklist_additions.2C_removals_of_citations_to_reliable_sources.2C_failures_to_usefully_engage.2C_etc.. The only place we've been able to make any headway at all has been at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#econlib.org. So maybe a similar approach would work for Nolo. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I see the list. Most of those are indeed junk sites, but definitely not nolo.com. I don't know much about econlib.org. I must be honest with you than most of the other sites you complained in the AN/I, I would not likely find to be WP:RS, but nolo.com is not at all like those other sites as far as I can tell. I will post at WikiProject Law. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Notifications of deletion discussions

I noticed that you recently asked on WT:LAW if others found posts about deletion discussions useful. I, for one, certainly find such posts helpful. I don't always check all the relevant noticeboards, so I always find it helpful to have more people spreading the word about AFD discussions, etc. In any event, thanks for all the work you've been doing on law articles. I hope all is well. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: Thanks for the kind note. I'm glad that is helpful and I will keep posting. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Help with Environmental Justice Class

Hi! just a bit earlier today, Ian of WikiEdu forwarded your talk page note to him to me. I'm sorry we weren't able to connect sooner and I combed my user page etc... but didn't find your outreach to me. Perhaps it went to the WikiEdu staff or one of my TAs?

In any case, would welcome your help and advice even though we are starting to wrap the semester up. Students will be working on articles for another 10 days or so. What's a good way to engage your help?

Thanks!

--EJustice (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@EJustice: Thanks for the note. The best way to engage me is to leave a note here, or ping me at the talk page of the student, or ping me at the article talk page or another appropriate talk page where discussion or questions are taking place. The template for ping is {{ping}} or {{u}}. Click on either of those for their best use.
I'm not sure about the original outreach--it might have been for a different class. I might look into it, but water under the bridge now. Glad we are talking now.
I take it you are the instructor? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I am...thanks! --EJustice (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@EJustice: I have been trying to watchlist all the articles where there is trouble. Make sure that the students are reading the guide. You might want to have a quiz on that guide and some of our policies mentioned on your talk page, such as WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Careful following of these policies will hopefully address some of the problems the students are running into. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@EJustice: Hi again, I made this comment but then decided to self-revert given that your explanation is probably more on point than my guesses about how WikiEd works. I don't know if WikiED is understaffed our not. I would like to learn more about what materials instructors are given before starting a course and how available experienced editors are for helping you and the students when there are problems. Since you said WikiEd has been very helpful, that is a good sign.

Also, I am not surprised at all by your commentacknowledging issues of race and class challenges many of the known systemic biases within Wikipedia. It's the kind of thing that is difficult to say on Wiki by editors who are aware of the problem because of backlash from those in denial--the Wiki system of "justice" is very strange. One only has to look at this to see how bad it is. I'm glad you anticipated that aspect and can see it more from an outsider's perspective. I have no doubt the students are getting some good lessons from this course that go beyond what WikiEd probably had in mind. My hope is that your expertise and that of your students could ultimately help Wikipedia improve and mature rather than have Wikipedia be a case study of the kind of problems described in the literature. That remains to be seen. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

PARITY

About your comment here. No - parity does not say "cite FRINGE to FRINGE sources and then knock it down". It says that we can use lower-than-usual-quality sources that are independent and secondary to discuss FRINGE stuff, because the mainstream literature won't. This is why we use sites like Science-Based Medicine to describe and debunk FRINGE theories about medicine. We would not use SBM for mainstream medicine, but it is MEDRS for FRINGEy stuff under PARITY. So something like a well-respected blog from a lawyer would be a reliable-enough independent, secondary source for describing FRINGE law like misinterpretations of Plummer and Black Elk and debunking them. Don't need a usual law journal article and probably couldn't find one. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Pings don't work unless there is only the addition of new content (not modification) and there is a new original signature. Modifying a pre-existing comment doesn't work because computer magic. TimothyJosephWood 16:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Yes, I'm well aware, and having many years of program C and designing microprocessors using Verilog, I don't find coding or how computer work all that magic. In fact, it's kind of boring now. LOL. But I still like programming--sometimes. I'm guessing you think I did it wrong here. Take a closer look, the date changed. thanks for the advice though. cheers. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I also enabled some feature that tells me every time I ping someone. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: Wait. You are right, the ping didn't seem to go through. Hmmm... I thought the rule was:
{{ping|editor}} ............... ~~~~ and then it will ping them. But now are you saying that something in the ... must be different changed? I guess that makes sense; otherwise everyone on the page would be pinged. I need to think about that. It does explain why some of my pings in the past didn't go through... --David Tornheim (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
My background is in social science, not programming, but I do know that the software differentiates between modification of text, and pure addition without modification. Probably to avoid exactly what you mention, pinging everyone previously in the thread every time new content is added, the ping only goes through if there is pure addition and no modification of preexisting text accompanied by a new signature. If it's obvious I messed up a ping, I often just remove my own comment, and then repost it with the ping fixed so that it will be accepted. TimothyJosephWood 16:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: Thanks. I guess I might try that if it doesn't go through. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I think I figured it out, and now it sort of makes sense. The key seems to be that for {{ping|editor}} ............... ~~~~ , All the .... stuff must be new. I had thought that if the ping template or anything in the ... changed, then the ping would work, but I tried a few variations and it only works if all of the ... works. I can see why self-revert followed by a brand new version would fix the problem. Another way to force a ping is to just add {{ping|editor}}ping ~~~~ to what was already there, and then immediately delete that. I plan to start doing that, unless you think that deleting it would some how undo the ping or confuse the editor who went to the text that you just added and then deleted. There's something that makes me uncomfortable about deleting an entire comment and then putting it back, but I do see why that would definitely work. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If this is still interesting, there´s a page on that. Help:Fixing failed pings Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

New RfC at Plummer v. State

There is a new RfC at Plummer v. State RfC, dealing with the Internet meme section. Please visit and comment on the proposed language for the section. This is revised from the first proposal, and you are receiving this notice due to your participation in the first RfC. GregJackP Boomer! 20:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability standards

Like everything else here, they are developed via consensus and can be changed. Doing so is not complicated, more a matter of marshaling good reasons. I can think of some that arguably should be changed, although the high bar for theater professionals is not among these, imho. Just fyi. cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory Thanks for the comments. I might look into it, but first I will try to understand them as best I can through participation at AfD. It will be interesting to see what happens to the first two articles I nominated for AfD. I finally figured out how to do it via Twinkle. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wise. You really do have to hang out in a sector to understand why the people there do as they do. I'm much more of a deletionist now than I was for my first year or so of occassional editing at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
E.M.GregoryMe too. Before I started there, my idea of what constituted an article meeting the notability requirements was based more on articles I had come across, often that did not meet those requirements. I think the standards may have been lower in 2008, or maybe the enforcement is higher now. Somewhere way back in my memory was the idea that there had to be two legit. secondary sources about the subject to warrant an article (I still consider that an absolute min. bar and rough guideline, but it is obviously too low for directors, WP:NACTOR and WP:NSPORT, so I have had to revise my idea there.) However, I honestly believe >50% of Wikipedia articles do not meet GNG requirements. Do you agree? It wouldn't be hard to figure out--one only needs to do a random sample. When I came across pick a random article a few years ago, what came up often did not seem very notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be. Screening of new articles isn't perfect, but mostly the problem is with all the old article off in dusty corners. Someone has to take the time to read and nominate them for AfD. And we really don't have enough editors, for many reasons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Well, I will try to do my part, and I will try to nominate more now that I know how to use Twinkle.--David Tornheim (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
It may, however, be that an even larger problem is the large number of article that someone started, but that have just sat there, not updated, not comprehensive looks at the topic - although topic is notable. A subset of these is articles on things that were a big deal years ago, but that get brought up for deletion because they are poorly-sourced stubs. I have in mind this recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daily Howler, but it is quite a common problem. In general, I think out most desperate need is for editors who spend time updating, improving and sourcing articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


NOPYMPICS

@E.M.Gregory: I mostly agree, but I want I want to ask you about this:
My experience at nominating articles to AfD has been less than stellar, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yemen_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics. With no secondary WP:RS about the participation of one small country in the Olympics covering ONE YEAR only, and data that appeared to be entirely WP:OR, I was sure it would be summarily deleted, not "snowy" and speedily saved. What a shock.
The standard WP:NOLY makes no sense to me. Having one article per country (206 countries) per year for any country that participated? I can't see there being much high quality independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:SECONDARY for every obscure country's participation.
But even more shocking is that ALL of the 11,000 [10] athletes that participate for even one year are immediately notable too. It seems like we have become an advertisement for the Olympics with that many articles, articles that require no independent sources to prove notability. Compare that with the requirement for WP:CREATIVE we discussed. Is there a bulletin board dedicated to notability where I can raise this issue? Discussing it at the talk page of WP:NSPORT I doubt will accomplish anything, since the editors there made the standard and it seems quite a few editors are aware of it and immediately cited it to defend keeping the terribly sourced article. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you have to blame the conference that set up the U.N, or perhaps the one that created the League of Nations, maybe even the Treaty of Westphalia for the conventional pretense that all sovereign nations are equal. We give Liechtenstein and Fiji a sear at the U.N. It is absurd. Perhaps there can be a modivication, but do remember that we give every member of a provincial legislature a page. That includes everyone who ever served even a single term in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, despite the fact the N.H. House is notorious for having ~ a million members, for paying its members virtually nothing, and for candidacies that include undergrads on a lark - who get elected because nobody else runs. (I exaggerate only slightly) We have these rules so that we do not find ourselves in the invidious position of deciding which legislatures (or sovereign states) are notable. that said, I can see a strong argument for changing the rules on Olympic athletes.

@E.M.Gregory: I am glad you recognize the issue. I am still shocked by that AfD. With regard to the other political standard, I probably share your concern on that, but I haven't noticed marginal articles about politicians I think don't deserve them--yet. I was familiar with many politicos in San Francisco and only the ones that seemed notable to me (based on coverage in the news) got articles, not the small timers without WP:RS. On the other hand, I have seen countless articles on athletes on some obscure team I thought did not deserve an article.

That said, where do you think I should raise my concern about WP:NOLYMPICS? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  • and just fyi, every minor candidate in America starts a page, or their boosters do, but diligent heroic editors bring them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics. Garage bands, wannabe actors, wannabe singers, wannabe filmmakers, and self-published authors start pages constantly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory: Oh, yeah. I'm well aware of the junk pages from garage bands. However, when I was in SF I didn't get the feeling politicians, except say the Mayor, felt their Wikipedia article counted for any great significance in their election. Even the Mayor John Cranley here in Cincinnati (population ~300,000; half the population of Wyoming and 1/4 population of New Hampshire) had a very weak page before being elected and still is pretty minimal. There was very little activity on Carnley's page during the 2013 election [11]. (Compare that with the Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose in Cincinnati with 57 references and 924 talk page edits) Cranley's page has only 13 poorly formatted refs, some of which do not meet WP:RS standards. His talk page only has 18 edits! [12], even though his page gets more views than the Sam DuBose article. And he is running for reelection next year Cincinnati mayoral election, 2017 (Do we really need a wiki page for every Mayoral election?) His biggest challenger, Yvette Simpson, currently on the City Council, doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry. Even though RS like this means she is easily notable. In fact, I think I will make a page for her. LOL.
I think one might safely conclude that politicians have much less interest in their Wikipedia page than one my expect, especially during their campaign to get elected. Like SF, I haven't found other that many politicos here trying to create glowing pages either--I googled them during elections and didn't find much. My conclusion is that if a candidate thinks a good Wikipedia entry will be important to getting elected, they won't stand much a chance. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@E.M.Gregory: Seems like the above ping never went trough. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cbs527: Any thoughts on this re: NOLYPMIC standard? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I do share your concerns that it does seem a bit of an overkill to have an article on every country and athlete who participate at every Olympic Games that is held but as User:E.M.Gregory correctly points out "conventional pretense that all sovereign nations are equal" started long before Wikipedia existed.
Technically the article pass WP:NOLY because the catagory requirements are met therefore it is exempt for having to have secondary sources and can use primary sources. All articles must have sourcing - In the case of "Subject-specific guidelines" articles, the sourcing may be different than the sourcing needed in WP:GNG.
Some very notable topics need a separate "Subject-specific guidelines" simply because they rarely receive coverage in secondary sources such as WP:ACADEMIC. Just about every well respective "expert" in academics gets very little significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject so we use a different set of criteria to establish WP:Verifiability such as citation metrics, reviews and library holdings. For instance, citation metrics and library holdings are almost always based on primary sources.
As Wikipedia guidelines are ever evolving you could start a discussion on the talk page as as User:E.M.Gregory suggested. Since WP:NOYLMPICS was merged into WP:NSPORTS it no longer has it's on talk page so Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) would be the place to do that. There have been numerous discussion already about involving the Olympic Games notability which you should review before starting the discussion (see [13]). If you want my opinion, it probably will be a waste of your time and won't accomplish a stricter criteria for two main reasons - 1. "conventional pretense that all sovereign nations are equal" extends way beyond sports and this principle has been around long before most Wikipedians were born and, 2. there have been so many previous discussions advocating for the current "all-inclusive" standard for countries and their athletes. Although I agree that there should be a stricter standard, I try to remember, although we, in the U.S. send hundreds of athletes to the Olympics every session, in some of the smaller countries it is a big deal to have an athlete even qualify for an Olympic event and the athlete receives a tremendous amount of coverage there. As unlikely as it seems, someone in that country will read en.wiki and probably will be offended that their athlete isn't included. Heck, some of these countries start civil wars over less. :) Happy Editing! CBS527Talk 02:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cbs527: I have no knowledge of all countries being "equal". I have always considered power, population, economic influence, academic work, art works/artists, innovation, war resources, world hegemony, etc. as being more significant in considering the importance of any individual country, region or city. Even an individual City like San Francisco in my mind has as much significance as many states in the U.S., and certainly more that Lichtenstein! Similar to cities like Paris (or even the Left Bank of Paris), Rome, St. Petersberg. Many of the towns here in Ohio would feel offended if someone only considered important here were denied a Wikipedia article. Not having one to begin with would be fine, but being told they were not notable, would be a huge unacceptable insult if an article was created by Ohioan and deleted by an non-Ohioan. But of course, why would Ohioans care about Wikipedia when anyone outside of Ohio can edit it and these aliens can put in things that do not strictly apply Ohio values as being universally held? How could that be fair and balanced to an Ohioan?  :) That's basically my attitude to parochial beliefs: they need to get over their bent-out of shape pride and accept maybe their small town is not the center-of-the-universe. And hence, Wikipedia is not here to boost their fragile egos, but provide useful information.
Thanks for pointing out past discussions on WP:NOLYMPICS. I was actually guessing it would be a waste of time. At the same time, I do feel there is a double-standard, given how extremely high the bar is for WP:CREATIVE in comparison, where artists who may have a significant influence in a high population region, might be denied an article, compared to some teen who was in the Olympics one year and did nothing of any great significance except train harder and become more proficient at the exact same skills his/her peers of that same country were also proficient at. If they were exceptional in some unique way like WP:CREATIVE and got substantive secondary coverage that would make them notable, but if they were just top of their field in the country in a fairly ordinary way, I don't see why they would need a their own article, especially if there was no secondary coverage. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
As a side note. My last part of my above comment was intended to be a weak attempt at late night humor. In the context of "what to include in the encyclopedia" it is not something I consideration when deciding if an article should stay, go or try to improve.
Putting aside the legal significance of "sovereign equality" for a moment. you are correct, in reality, all countries, and, in the United States, all States, are not equal per se. Those with the largest population, economic influence, innovation, natural resources, etc. are infinitely more "powerful" and "influential". Although our country's initial existence was base on a document that states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...", reality is, that in the areas of "power" and "influence", all men/women are not equal. Power and significance can be different and is somewhat subjective depending on what is addressed. In Wiki-land, as in life, "fairness" isn't always achieved.
Dealing strictly with the WP:NOYLMPIC notability issue-
What we are dealing with in the instance of the Olympic games has more to do with international law and Article 2, Section 1 of the UN charter "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." This is the argument put forth that the encyclopedia should include every country/every year/every athlete who ever participate in the Olympic games.
As I mentioned previously, I am in favor of a more stringent requirement such as at a minimum an athlete should advance pass the first round of an event. My preferred requirement would be that an athlete would be significant if he/she "medaled" in an event. (Of course we would have a better chance of winning "Powerball' than getting that through.) Current discussions (not only in this subject area but others as well) lead me to believe even minor changes would be difficult to achieve consensus, hence not worth the effort. With that being said, if you do want try, I have added " Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)" to my watch list and I will weigh in at the discussion. No need to contact me - I check my watch list most mornings. Happy Editing! CBS527Talk 15:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Page Views

@Cbs527: and @E.M.Gregory: I came up with another idea on the unbelievable NOLYMPIC standard. What about page views? How many views per day do you think Yemen in the 2012 Summer Olympics gets [14]? If a page gets below a threshold number of hits, is that justification for getting rid of it? --David Tornheim (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi David, Unfortunately page views are not useful for deletion of an article nor for establishing notability or lack of notability. The tool shows the number of times a page has been accessed but doesn't address how many different users accessing article, misdirects, or why an article is being accessed. (For instance an article will have significant more hits when the article is created or when the article is up for AFD). Recently I saw an article that had less than 1 hit a month for years but actually had met the requirements for inclusion. Hard to figure that one. CBS527Talk 16:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
cbs527 Thanks for the info. Did you raise the issue of how infrequently it was viewed? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Not that I can recall. Probably not. I have, in the past, on some obscure music albums whose only sourcing available was primary sources. Although page views is not a reason for inclusion/deletion, it may help an editor who is "on the fence" about an article. CBS527Talk 12:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record

There was no ad hominem remark. I was only talking about how Herostratus is not allowed move the page back into the Wikipedia namespace just because he was the one who formally userfied it. I know you were speaking generally and not specifically insinuating that I had made an ad hominem remark, but you should make that distinction clear from now on.

For that matter, I would appreciate it if you didn't mention me in conversation with that user at all. I don't want him to have any reason to discuss me, and your talking about me as "you-know-who" on his talk page counts.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

So talking about me as "that user" also counts too right? Maybe you should just avoid talking about me. Endercase (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, there's also the fact that I'm NOT talking about you. I just don't want David to talk about me to you. Just leave me alone already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Endercase

Can you please have a look at User talk:N I H I L I S T I C, especially this, and have a word with Endercase about how the community feels about editing on behalf of sockmasters before they get themselves into more trouble? --NeilN talk to me 19:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

NeilN The diff you gave, he just suggested N I H I L I S T I C post something. I don't think he said he would do it for N I H I L I S T I C. Endercase seems to believe it is okay to have a conversation with a sock. No one seems to agree with him on that, but I don't know of any policy that prevents him, even though I agree it looks bad. Do you see any evidence he is going to try to advocate based on what N I H I L I S T I C is saying. To be honest, I think N I H I L I S T I C might be someone he knows in real life, so his wanting to have a conversation with a real life friend on Wiki makes sense, even if the friends is in the penalty box. I will post something. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It can be read as two ways. 1) I will post this for you or 2) You should post it (and evade your block). Either way doesn't look good. What would be good is if they focused on content. Thanks for your involvement. --NeilN talk to me 19:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: Or "Oh wow, socks can think too. These points you make are valid and should be brought up at some point (after being unblocked)." AGF. I am not in danger of becoming a wp:meatpuppet. Endercase (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase: The problem is that no one seems to understand why you are communicating with socks. That's why it is hard to WP:AGF. I agree with NeilN that it is better to focus on content, something many editors have told you. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase: I can pretty much guarantee they're not going to be unblocked without them revealing all their past accounts and a community discussion. --NeilN talk to me 19:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: I might be able to get them to do that; just not yet. Endercase (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase: I would also take the above as a warning that if you keep talking to socks in this way, and in this case suggesting it do something that would evade a block (a bit like aiding and abetting a criminal), you might find yourself the subject of another AN/I. I did not notice that potential angle. Probably it is in your best interest to stop communicating with the socks, and even delete or strike that comment. Please don't say you weren't warned to not talk to socks. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe those editors should follow their own advise and go work on articles, allowing me see if I can come up with a better solution to a major socking problem. Or they can start citing policy. I am not currently in violation nor am I hurting the encyclopedia as far as I am aware. If you Bish or M.Pants strongly think I should stop, I will. Though, it would be funny to see the boomerang at the AN/I where they try to punish me for talking to another user about policy. Endercase (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase: N I H I L I S T I C is not a "major socking problem", believe me - they're just run of the mill. And their talk page access has now been removed. If you want to propose changes on how we handle socks then Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry or a Village Pump is a place to start. Be aware that any proposal not carefully thought out will be quickly dismissed. --NeilN talk to me 20:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Endercase and NeilN If you wish to continue discussing, can you move this over to Endercase's "mentor-garden"? I think I have said all I have to here, and I am not all that interested in socks. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You are a master of the Socratic method

The Socratic Barnstar
You are a philosopher! I am One of Many (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


@I am One of Many: Thank you! --David Tornheim (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, David Tornheim. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

, thanks, Scott P. (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

er== Email dispute resolution in the Putin article == Hi Dave,

Please checkmout what appears to me to be the ressult ofmthe "Email dispute resolution process" I am proposing in the current final lead paragraph of the Putin article. Check out the talk page there too. Personally I feel that the article now has what I believe should be True WP:NPOV in it. In a sense, it embraces both sides of the dialogue, without in any way forsaking the Truth. This type of neutrality was enabled by my resolving my dispute via email with the [Saint Aviator] editor, using this process. Hoping to be able to go forward in some of this stuff.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Scottperry: I'm not ready to take any position on the work you are doing. I do commend you for working on such an important article. I can see arguments for and against, and those really have to be fleshed out more, especially on such a highly charged subject. I will put the article on my watchlist, and see if I can get a feeling for it before I post anything there. I will point out that following WP:LEDE and making sure the content you put in the LEDE summarizes what is in the article is important. So maybe start add the WP:RS to the WP:BODY? Maybe if you get mixed support, but you feel any non-involved editor would likely support you, you can run an RfC? I would be more likely to take a position on an well-definied RfC that just jump in there at this point on a subject I don't know that much about. Also, your email did not come through. This seems to have happened with another person who claimed to have sent me and email. I checked spam and it wasn't there either. I'm going to take a Wiki-break now. Nice chatting. Keep up the good work! --David Tornheim (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, David Tornheim. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

You now have email here. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Typo?

Hi. In this diff you added some content to Mistake (contract law). It looks like exception 2 contains a typo and should perhaps read "clerical error that did not result in gross negligence". I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask if you still had access to the source and could check rather than just changing it. Thanks. 786b6364 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the chat earlier

It was nice to talk by phone. Thanks for doing that with me. Message me again if you think it would be useful to talk in the future.

You asked if I had reading suggestions to follow any of the threads which came up in our conversation. Here are some ideas -

  • Check out an instance of the meta:Programs & Events Dashboard. An arbitrary example is this class where I recently presented. The thing to see here is that if there is a group of people editing wiki together, then an overseer (like a professional or wiki volunteer supporter) can use this sort of dashboard system to watch them. Previously, in the ~2012 imagining of the education ambassador program, access to this kind of tool was prohibited. Now, anyone can set up a dashboard for any sort of group of editors, and anyone can view the group activity. Instructors like having this kind of report available to watch students and also to summarize outcomes.
  • Various wiki groups including the Wikimedia Foundation choose a problem then try to build infrastructure to resolve it. I do not think there is broad awareness of just how many problems people have identified which can be solved by a one-time build out to make a tool, or documentation, or some other kind of up-front investment. There is no central collection of all problems addressed by all groups, but for the past two years the WMF has presented an annual wishlist as at meta:2016 Community Wishlist Survey. If you have not seen this, check it out. People propose technical problems and the WMF commits to fix the top 10. I think the entire wishlist process surfaces what kinds of problems exist and who cares about them. This is biased to address problems which can be solved with software, but I still find it interesting to read what is proposed.
  • In NYC we organize about 100 public Wikipedia events a year. Some of those are listed at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Event_archive. We want to document all public and all private events, but since volunteers are the biggest part of this, we cannot manage it all. I wanted to share this with you to show something about the size of the problem. NYC is one place, but actually, wiki events happen every year in 100+ cities. Events bring all kinds of trouble, including press expecting statements, people bringing complaints, harassment, or anything else that happens when the public comes together. Most events go perfectly, but from the perspective of a volunteer, any problem is more than they signed up to experience. It is easier to talk about problems with events not at schools than events at schools, so as you think about supporting an education program, consider thinking about what it means to have anything wiki related extend itself into the off-wiki world. It usually goes right, and when it does that is awesome, but if there is a problem there is no safety net for the volunteer who put themselves out there. For many Wikipedia editors, their relationship with Wikipedia is the most risky thing they do in their lives because of the unlikely but present chance of attracting negative attention from someone who feels either really strongly about Wikipedia or really strongly about any topic covered in Wikipedia. I would not recommend that anyone take on too much responsibility in off-wiki events without having a social support network first.

I hope to talk again sometime. See you at the education pages. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at

this and see if there's anything you want to add. Also, I would appreciate it if you could type up a summary of the situation, as every time I try, I end up with a giant wall of text. A more removed pair of eyes than mine might be appropriate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: FYi. [15]. Even the edit notes are worth reviewing. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
You may be interested to see this SPI. I think the page disruption is over, now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tele-evidence

I don't oppose your argument in the deletion discussion, but I want to draw your attention to WP:IDONTKNOWIT, in which the essay has stated that subjective importance is considered (at least by some) to be an argument that is unsound and unconvincing. Happy editing! Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 04:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Tornheim/Archive_5"