User talk:Nblund/Archives/2018/May

Because you thanked me

Nblund, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...  YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! Mattwheatley (talk)

00:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Campus rape page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Need your input for a dispute resolution on the Bill Cosby article

Hello, I noticed that you had some comments on the Bill Cosby talk page and was hoping you could help us resolve an issue. Please see the section titled "Discussion: Should the lead sentence mention the sexual assault accusations?". Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread is forum shopping and IDHT behavior. Hamster totally reordered talk page sections, placing them in opposite order and thus changing the meaning and progression. They also changed headings made by others, and also created an improperly formed RfC to hijack the discussion. All is now restored. We had a consensus until this disruption occurred. This is massive IDHT behavior, and this thread should be closed. Such behavior should not be rewarded. Hamster should be blocked for this. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 19:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I've opened up a discussion here regarding the AAU study findings. Please participate. Mattnad (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's bury the hatchet and make a sprawling article better

I'm up for it if you are. If you're interested, let's let the current article be for now, and work on an outline for a rewrite. We can work out the outline, and hash out the differences in a sandbox and them come back and make it better. We disagree on emphasis, but there are few editor who give more than a passing interest on this topic. I think an outline is good start to beging working together instead of against each other. Thoughts?Mattnad (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. Feel free to make edits to this if you think it works as a starting point. I'm okay with re-wording the mention of the criticism by the NRC, but I do think we should address why sexual violence researchers generally use other sources to measure rape and sexual assault. I also think it's a good idea to acknowledge that there is no consensus on a best measure, that the results from these surveys aren't necessarily generalizable or comparable to one another, and that there is a lot of uncertainty about the global rate. This article seems like a pretty good model. I think it shouldn't be too much longer than four paragraphs at a maximum, and if we feel the need to get more detailed, we should make those changes to the estimates of sexual violence page. I also think we should post -- if not an RfC -- then at least a discussion on the talk page before implementing major edits. I'm fine with bold changes, but I want to leave plenty of space for other editors to get involved. Nblund (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Before I start editing, I'll take a crack at an outline in a sandbox that I'll share with you once done. Sammy1339's points are good about rebalancing the article. We have way to much on stats, and not enough on the background (ie, Colleges being total shits to women who complained) and philosophical divide (current climate of victims vs. accuser rights, and some of politics related to that).Mattnad (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Columbia University rape controversy

Are you being neutral here? It seems your defending her by removing things she said. NPOV suggest we should always allow people to state their view plainly. This allows the reader to make their own judgment. You can added her defense, but why are you removing her own statements? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Occam's razor: I removed them because I actually am editing neutrally. It actually makes a lot of sense when you assume good faith and realize that I'm just trying to improve the entry. I edited it for space: there are multiple block quotes right in a row, and it's not clear why they're necessary. That particular portion contains a 3 sentence block quote followed by another 3 sentence response from a random columnist. Really, it's kind of odd that a quote from Sulkowicz would go in the "reception" section anyway. Nungesser, Cathy Young, and Naomi Schaeffer Riley are repeatedly quoted in the body text, but Sulkowicz's views are relegated to the bottom of the page? Nblund (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not done with the article yet, you AfD (six hours after creation) before I had a chance to added Sulkowicz's full defense. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 11:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you necessarily have to be the person who fixes problems with the entry. You wrote a big chunk of it in a very short amount of time, and it led to some issues with clarity and brevity. You need to be open to allowing other editors to do basic copy editing, and you certainly can't expect others to wait around for you to fix basic neutrality problems. Wikipedia is a collaborative process. Nblund (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I know you have been canvassing, I won't mention it as for now, but if you revert those clearly not blog sources I may take further action. This source is her defense if you wish you can add that to the article and include her annotations. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I contacted editors who were previously involved in the move discussion -- including editors who supported and opposed a move. That isn't canvassing, and you should be a little more careful with those sorts of accusations. Nblund (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to be blunt how is this a blog source? It has been subjected to editor review. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not a blog, it's an opinion piece. Reliable sources clearly cautions against using these as sources (see WP:NEWSORG). The NYPOST is questionable even for news content, but it's absolutely questionable to use an opinion piece for a claim of fact about a person.

I was mistakenly referring to mic.com as a blog. It isn't, but it also doesn't contain the quote you're referencing, and the source is clearly making an argument that is clearly opposed to Riley's -- so it's being misused there (same goes for the Jezebel cite).

I went ahead and posted at the RS noticeboard, but to reiterate: the onus is on you to take it to the talk page and build consensus before restoring the material. No one is obligated to let questionable material stay on the main page -- because it actually hurts living people if we get this stuff wrong. Nblund (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF, I am gonna give you a chance to explain why you removed that paragraph. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see, I'll fix that simple editing can fix it. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

GamerGate Sanctions Notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Everyone gets this. Cheers. --Jorm (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note

Hi, just wanted to let you know I did a minor refactoring of your comment. Looks like you accidently put your reply in the middle of another users comment. I've just moved it to be directly below the other users signature. Cheers — Strongjam (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

My bad! And thanks for the heads up. Nblund (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Petition

Given the extremity of the petition and the momentum that it is gaining, I feel that it is noteworthy to add to the criticism category. Isaiah Rawluk (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Isaiah Rawluk, I disagree that it should be covered at the moment. It currently doesn't appear to be something that is getting significant coverage right now, even if it is gaining momentum. There's a discussion on the article talk page. We should talk about it there. Nblund ^talk 01:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nblund. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverted your bad faith attack

I've reverted your bad faith attack and accusation of being "counter-productive" in my attempt to be neutral when discussing this topic. First to highlight some of your claims:

More importantly, it looks like you didn't make any effort to preserve useful information while reverting the edits: for instance, you deleted the sentence mentioning that Nungesser had filed an amended complaint in April, and you restored an un-sourced claim that Gregory Woods was recommended by Chuck Schumer. You even reverted your own efforts to fixed the plagiarized material that I previously pointed out to you on the talk page. This is a really counter-productive approach. Please be more careful

Here is the source you have been looking for, general unwise to accuse someone to making things up without research. Because neither Gregory Woods nor Chuck Schumer is the focus of the article, the source was accidentally not added. There is no way anyone acting in good faith would accuse me as you did.

Now for your second accusation which I believe involves this edit which actually a copy paste of this original version (keep in mind I did not add this it was in the original version). I was not aware the paragraph was copied from this source at the time I was reading this Washington Times source. People make mistakes you made a good catch and not only did I revert, but I praised you. It appears you are ducking here, there is also support for the updated version by editors such as Arkon (talk · contribs). What's going on here is obvious, instead of making a polite request you attacked me which I'm guessing is an attempt to discredit the changes. I see you have a strong pro-feminist editing history, which doesn't surprise me as you were the one removing any sources which questioned Sulkowicz's veracity, and even went as far to try to delete this notable article. All these actions can be viewed as both "counter-productive" and "disruptive", but since I am acting in good faith, I declined to criticize your actions, Please be more careful. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 09:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Valoem This source was cited, but it does not mention Chuck Schumer, read it. Yes, I know that you acknowledged that the material was plagiarized, but then you restored it again with the edit I linked to. I think it was an accident, but it's really unhelpful. I understand that you didn't write this material, but that's sort of the problem: you're restoring stuff without so much as making attempt to copy-edit it. Nblund ^talk 14:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does read highbeam, Judicual Nominations and Black Star News. Just in case you missed it by not reading sources I provide

Today, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer introduced Gregory Howard Woods III to the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing to serve as a judge in the Southern District federal court. In opening remarks before the Committee, Schumer made the case for Woods, and presented the many reasons that he would be an excellent fit for the job. Schumer pointed to Woods' passion for public service and stellar legal background. Schumer said that Woods is a brilliant legal mind who exemplifies the spirit of public service we seek in our district courts. Now, Woods' nomination will go before the Judiciary Committee for approval before the Senate for a full Senate vote.

Amazing you attempted to rebut by claiming I am adding false information, instead of admitting wrong doing. Since you have not denied your attack on my page, I am going to assume your bias has been exposed. Wikipedia writing from NPOV, not pro-feminism. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Valoem: take some deep breaths. I didn't accuse you of adding "false information". I said it was not in the source. The sources you are citing here were not cited in the entry. The source that was cited does not mention Chuck Schumer. I previously removed it for exactly that reason, you re-added it without bothering to fix the problem. Based on your statements on the talk page, it appears that you weren't even fully aware of the contents of the edit that you were making - you blindly reverted several months worth of edits, including several edits that you yourself had made. This is counter-productive. Again, please be more careful. Nblund ^talk 19:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

NPOV discussion

Thanks for your comment here

No problem, it's worrisome to see that proposal getting any "yes" votes at all really. It's yet another variation on the theme of "all sources say this is a very silly idea, ergo, we should ditch all sources and start playing Calvinball", that's been rejected a million times before. Nblund ^talk 17:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...

...that while we may disagree on some things, I wanted to thank you for your level-headedness and willingness to explain your position. We need more editors like you...^{Atsme📞📧} 04:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that Atsme! I think it kind of got lost amidst all the acrimony, but I really do think the policy question regarding labels is challenging one, and you were right to raise it, even if you may have pushed a bit too hard at times. Hopefully things stay cooler next time around. Nblund ^talk 17:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

😊 I was called pushy by team members long time ago...right before we won the championship. I hear you, but from my perspective, when editors start accusing another editor of "knowing" the BLP instead of seeing PAGs, it tends to make one a bit more assertive. I've had undeserving labels hung on me in the past, and in the past, I've had a GA torn apart because editors thought I knew the guy - lots of water has passed under that bridge. Add to that, the edit disruption caused when some of the Taylor editors migrated over to a 2 day old article I created, and it made me think they weren't quite understanding the point I was trying to make - an edit summary on one of the disruptive edits was my first clue. It's all good...so be happy, and happy editing! ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You got replies

If you haven't seen, I'm just letting you know that you have recent replies at Talk:Rape of males. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, that's a long-delay in responses! Nblund ^talk 17:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nblund. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi! I just wanted to tell you that you have made two removals of another's contributions without waiting for discussion on the talk page. Please refrain from further such actions, unless you should contribute to edit warring. Gammalflamma (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Campaigning

Wikipedia rules against canvassing are quite clear, notifications to draw attention to an issue must be neutrally worded. Explicitly, it says that Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. In the message you left for OwenX you wrote "I think the edit in question is pretty clear-cut OR" which is an obvious violation of this rule. It is very unfortunate that you have tainted the process in this way. Idunius (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You may need to meditate on the meaning of the phrase "specific individual discussion" . Nblund ^talk 19:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You may need to meditate on the meaning of discussion vs message. To even come close to campaigning in this situation is ill advised, to leave campaigning messages is a violation of a basic rule. You have now left "un-involved" far behind, and I would appreciate if any further messages could be in keeping with Wp guidelines. Idunius (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)