User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Important Note

This is an important part of editing Wikipedia...

• According to statistics found at W3 Schools dot com, Internet Explorer users and Firefox users number 37.5% and 47.5%, respectively, of the total users who browse the Internet. If the Firefox browser is used to edit Wikipedia, please ensure that the edits will improve Wikipedia across popular browsers.

• Also, the skin used by general readers of Wikipedia is the "monobook" skin. So if another of the nine skins is used to edit, please be certain that the edit has improved Wikipedia in the monobook skin, too.

 —  Paine's Climax  09:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Template: National personifications

Just created a new template to replace one that was limited. The new template is Template:National personifications. If you check the history, you'll find that a standard Navbox template was being used. An editor had added a 21st nation, which, because they are alphabetized, pushed the US into the 21st position. Well, evidently the standard Navbox only has 20 positions, because the US (click on "Edit this page" when you check the history link above) was not visibly showing after the UK entry. So I created a template that can be expanded beyond 20 nations. I also turned it into a two-column list to decrease the length. In the process of building this template I improved several of the related articles with stub templates and by adding the [[Category:National personifications]] to the articles that lacked it, as well as several minor edits. This was great fun!
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And now there's an even better version that's much easier to edit and add new countries with their National personifications. Here's the workpage.
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to Template:Navboxes

I've made a significant change to this template's doc here. It is now possible to include the {{coord}} template inside Template groups, a.k.a. "Navboxes". E.g....

Pretty cool, eh? This works across all skins, by the way.
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

IP sandbox

Ref.: [1]
Just added my new IP sandbox I created as a test procedure for the {{Selectskin}} template. Wikipedia is SSSSSSSSSO cool!
173.169.209.73 (Paine Ellsworth) (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Contested template change

Please see this followup to your proposed chang to the collapsible list template —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, TheDJ!  —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Ref.: this Talk page entry— also this one

English

I just recently joined this project, and I've been reading the back 'n forth above with intense interest. It occurs to me that this is about article titles in the English Wikipedia. Is what editor Espoo espouses is that there are non-English letters used in the titles of English Wikipedia articles? If they are indeed non-English (and there are many forms of English) then, of course, they ought to be changed, but if they are English letters, then their usage on the English Wikipedia is then justified. And rather than writing ledes and articles that might make someone from, say, Alabama or Nebraska or anywhere in the United States or the entire globe feel uneducated and perhaps even impotent, it is imperative that they be written in a way that will lift the general reader to a higher level, a higher consciousness level of knowledge and wisdom.

Some readers might see it as "haughty" or "elitist" or even "patronizing". That's one eye of looking at it. However as long as the other eye makes the attempt to make readers feel an increased self-esteem, to educate them, so that they walk away with a feeling of, "You learn something new everyday!", then we've done our job, yes? Systemic bias will never be completely eliminated. That is an impossible task in a world of six-and-a-half billion people, each with their own choice of tinted glasses over their perceptions. However, when a consensus is reached, then progress has been made. And the next time an editor comes along with an idea that challenges the consensus, even more can be learned and more progress may ensue. If we focus upon the needs of the general English reader of the English Wikipedia, then we should be able to keep systemic bias to a bare minimum, yes?
 —  Paine's Climax  18:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Urdu Redirect

The Urdu Redirect appears to need some dabbling with.
 —  Paine's Climax  00:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Reduction of infobox presence (size)

Ref.: Template talk:Infobox Country#Drives on who the hell cares
Here's an option!  —  Paine's Climax  17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet template

Ref.: Template talk:Sockpuppet#That last sentence
This one either needs to refocus that one link or delete it.  —  Paine's Climax  23:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Added the Editprotected template to replace the live version with the sandbox version this date.
 —  Ellsworth's Climax  04:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, thank you very much, Martin! and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  20:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Indian jurisdiction

Ref.: Template talk:Infobox Indian jurisdiction#official languages
I did some language tweaking in this template.  —  Paine's Climax  23:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox islands template

Refs.: Template:Infobox islands and Malay Archipelago
Here's just what I need... another template that needs work. <grin> The other link shows why. A second infobox was added below the first one because the infobox only allows for up to six countries. And the talk page indicates there may be more work needed as well. Good future project!
 —  Paine's Climax  01:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Done  —  Ellsworth's Climax  09:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC). See also Talk:Malay Archipelago#Today.27s deletions - 11.2F9.2F09 for more info.

Infobox German location 2

Ref.: Template:Infobox German location
Hi, wouldn't it be better to include the title coords in the infobox? That is, change "display=inline" to "display=inline,title"? Much better than adding the separate coord template to all articles manually, like you did at Essen. Thanks for the happy holidays BTW, but we don't celebrate Thanksgiving (I guess you meant that) here. We do have Sinterklaas in a few days. Markussep ^Talk 19:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Markussep! Yes, yes yes, it would be so much easier, however the Coord template is still being worked on, and all the bugs are not out of it, yet. It's a major project, and it's taking time to get it so that it looks good in all browsers and across all nine skins. I made the change in the Essen article just to show you that this is an option. The other option is to patiently wait for the Coord template to work properly. Then, any usages like the one I added to the Essen article can be removed, and the "title" value added to the infobox. Yes, Thanksgiving is pretty much just a US holiday from the "Pilgrim" era. Your "Sinterklaas" is the origin of our Christmas that we celebrate on December 25th each year. I see that it's celebrated in the first week of December, so a hearty HAPPY SINTERKLAAS to you!

 —  Ellsworth's Climax  09:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Prue7.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Prue7.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the headsup, Skier Dude! Prue7.jpg has been de-orphaned, and I'll keep an eye on it.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I reinstalled all of the following into appropriate articles, and then removed the orphan/delete tags... File:Prue7.jpg · File:Paige Sense and Sense Ability.jpg · File:Piper Just Harried.jpg · File:Prue The Painted World.jpg · File:PiperHalliwell.jpg

Update on ol' Ben's flip-flopped image

Ref.: File:Benjamin Franklin by Joseph Siffred Duplessis left.jpg · the decision was to "keep"
Help desk discussion still showing ticklish situation as "unresolved"
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher infobox

Ref.: Zeno of Elea
Template:Infobox philosopher needs an alt command added for the image.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris Sarandon

Hi Paine; per WP:NFCC#1, we cannot use copyrighted images in infoboxes for living persons, as they are replaceable by free images. In any event, the Humperdinck image doesn't have a Fair Use Rationale for that article. You might wish to seek out a copyright-free image to replace it. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Rodhullandemu, I have rm'd the image using comment tags to see if I can find a better pic or find a way to use this one. And I added a FUR to the image page. I appreciate the heads up!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  09:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ref.: File:Humperdinck.jpg— add FURs for both articles where used.23:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref.: File:ChrisSarandon Skellington.jpg— I just uploaded this image to Commons and installed it in the The Nightmare Before Christmas article. I'm considering using it as the infobox image in the Chris Sarandon article.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly looks usable according to the Flickr licence. Shame about the mic in front of his face, but if it's free, we can go with it. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done— Chris Sarandon's a fellow West (BY GOD) Virginian. 'Twas the least I could do. <g>

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

'Tis ALWAYS the season to love Holly!

See what happens with the image presently in the infobox at Holly Marie Combs – ( File:Hollissy.jpg ). I tried to find copyright info on it and was unable to. It comes from the Charmed wikia, a wiki devoted to the Charmed series. Apparently the uploader thinks this wiki is a Wikipedia project. So if no one else can find cr info on that absolutely gorgeous pic (I wish we could save it) and it has to be deleted, then I'll upload the following from Flikr...

Ref.: Yet ANOTHER Gorgeous pic of Exquisite Holly! · and on Google! ** W * O * W **
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  16:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ref.: Commons Watchlist · HollyMarieCombs02.jpg
Well this might be interesting... I uploaded that Flikr image of Holly just a few mins ago and it was almost immediately deleted for copyright violation. And this even though I had clearly added the Creative Commons attribution 2.0 licensing information. The discussion with the deleter is found at editor Tabercil's talk page.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ref.: FLICKRWASHING
• Ref.: Tineye search

It looks like Tabercil is right. Next time I shall go deeper to be sure there is no copyright infringement.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  05:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Holly Marie Combs

In reference to this edit. The explanation is at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and it's #1 under the policy heading. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, CBW!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Angel of Death

Ref.: List of Charmed characters (added 18 Jan 10)
Weakness in the Charmed articles as well as one or two dabs.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Found him: Role was played by Simon Templeman.  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  10:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User box

This user avers that the new year, the new century and the new millennium all began on
January 1, 2001. (not 2000)

Working on this one.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done:

     -----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----
         -1     0     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9     10    11 

There is no "year zero". How can there be? Which year would it be? Would it be the year between -1 and 0? or the year between 0 and 1? No, neither. The year between -1 and 0 would be -0001, and the year between 0 and 1 would the very first year A.D. and would be 0001.

Moving to the right on this number line, we see that the tenth year, 0010, ends at the number 10, and this is the end of the first decade. So December 31, 0010, marks the end of the first decade, and January 1, 0011, marks the beginning of the 2nd ten-year period, the 2nd decade.

The argument is that the year 1999 was the final year of the 2nd millennium, so that December 31, 1999 was the final day of the 2nd millennium and that January 1, 2000 was therefore the first day of the new 3rd millennium. If, like most people, we do not take into account any adjustments due to changing calendars, etc., and we just use the straight number-line to find out the truth and reality, then we must conclude that the years ending in zero were the final years of all the decades, centuries and millennia.

The year 0010 marks the end of the first decade, the year 0020 marks the end of the second decade, the year 0100 marks the end of the first century, the year 1000 marks the end of the first millennium, and the year 2000 marks the end of the second millennium. So December 31, 2000 marks the very last day of the first two-thousand-year period and was the final day of the second millennium, while January 1, 2001 marks the first day of the third millennium.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not helping

Ref.: Talk:Israel
This. It was an obvious reference to the section preceding it, which does not seem to violate the "What goes on an article talk page?" conventions. I'm not sure who you're obliquely chiding, but although there are disagreements about characterizations / accusations in that section, they, and the responses to them, are still within the realm of the article and thread's relevance. -- tariqabjotu 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here to my Talk page, Tariqabjotu, where this discussion belongs. I tend to disagree with you, because there was a lot of discussion by several people that was an obvious offense against the AGF behavioral guideline. Thank you for disagreeing with me, but let me be clear: I was not "chiding" anyone, not obliquely nor otherwise. It is the "behavior" that I'm gently reminding people of, and I'm not putting ANY individual person in a bad light. Such behavior has absolutely nothing to do with improving the article and merely takes up space on the Talk page, making it more difficult to follow the appropriate types of discussion.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you a lot for the time you spent answering my question on Template talk:Infobox country. It will certainly help us to come to a decision that agrees everyone. Cheers. — Xavier, 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a pleasure, Xavier. Did you see my outdent on the France discussion page? I would make further changes myself, but I thought I would leave it to the involved editors such as yourself to decide how they would like it to appear.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Paine, merci beaucoup! Hoping this settles the issue for a while. --Frania W. (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Frania, un grand plaisir !

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you too. Apparently, your solution put a definite end to our disagreement. — Xavier, 13:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, Xavier! I'm glad that I was able to be of help.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

2000s (decade)

You just signed on for major revisions; could you possibly either delete ClimateGate and the malformed reference, or tag it with a proper reference? I was going to do that, but don't want to interfere with your revisions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Arthur. Yes, there was that and a few other things I want to try to improve in this article. Shouldn't take too long.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Done16:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Response from DMSBel

Ref.: To DMSBel from Paine

Hi Paine, I am fine with you sending me a message on my User talk page. I felt rather bad about the exchange too, and was sorry to have driven you away, as upon reflection you were initially just calling for people to step back for a few days, and have generally been civil. I must admit that's something I would like to do, but if other comments start flowing in then I tend to re-engage. You are welcome to continue to comment on the page in question. I apologise for accusing you of ganging up – no doubt you were not deliberately doing that. It’s just that those who argue for keeping the disputed content have a POV too in this matter, and its rather frustrating to read comments that try to pin a POV on me from other editors with their own POV.

If I may explain something about the dispute. There are at least two issues involved in the discussion, and sometimes they become entangled.

Firstly there is the video. Now I find it easier to assume good-faith in regards to the uploader of it, even though I do not think it is suitable for inclusion. It is quite possible that he thought it would be helpful and I don't want to start calling names. I think he was mistaken thought if he thought the article needs a video.

The second issue is the photographs. Which I will come to in a moment. When I looked at this article a few weeks ago, I simply commented that the disputed content should be moved further down in the article. I really did not want to get involved in this debate. I looked in a couple of times and the last time I did, before the current dispute, I noticed neither video or photos were in. At that time I commented on the talk page that the article looked better without them. Within a day the video was back - the reason -Wikipedia is not censored. No rationale for including it given. Well "Wikipedia is not censored" is not a reason for putting stuff in, so I deleted it. Immediately I get grilled. Then the page is protected by a jumpy neutral editor. There had been no edit-war. My initial deletion resulted in page semi-protection (because I had not signed in). So one deletion and some discussion resulted in full-page protection.

To return to the photos. Editor Infofreak did some research which is in the archive. He found out that the photos are still frames from a video on a channel on X-tube. The guy who uploaded there is an exhibitionist. The video these stills came from is still there on his channel. I think the actual video may still be in commons, perhaps as an animated GIF file. Now I had less of a problem with the pics before knowing this, although I still question that there is any need for them in the article. Basically when this was made known some editors continued (in spite of evidence to the contrary) to question that they were porn - their rationale was that they are now on wikipedia illustrating an article on a physiological process therefore the original context is unimportant. They are porn when on a porn channel but on wikipedia they somehow shed that association, and that makes it ok. I have a problem with this, besides the fact that I suspect an agenda behind all this. I think material should be judged not on the context it is in but on the context it came from. So material that originated on a porn site made with the intention of exciting sexual lust, does not gain respectibility by insertion into a wikipedia article. I am almost certain that no other encyclopedia either paper or online would just use this "because it illustrates".

Another thing, which I would be interested to hear your thoughts on is this. A dispute is ongoing in this article over a particular piece of content (the video). There are four editors currently (that is within about the last week): Postoak, CIS, Dava4444 and myself who see it as unnecessary. They don't comment a lot but have not changed their view on the material. I don't know why they don't comment more often, maybe they are busy editing other stuff, maybe they are not on the internet all that much, I don't know. Now in your opinion is it disruptive to insert extra material, that is even more contentious, and that even if it is not, is basically redundant, while a dispute is already ongoing? That is what has happened here. That’s probably why I have been a bit bullish in my comments. That and the fact that another editor is frustrating me no end on the page. So I apologise for letting off steam at you. DMSBel (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Paige in Sense and Sense Ability.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Paige in Sense and Sense Ability.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure this applies to fair use? The later tag allows for the fair use of copyrighted material and shows who created the image and who probably owns the copyright. Why would the source matter in the case of Fair Use Rationale?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The original source was a DVD of the Charmed TV series. I have entered this info in the FUR.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

FIDC

Must be something up with their servers... the .co.uk link was working (even though the other one wasn't) when I posted it earlier today. Oh well... --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, Mr. C.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The link appears to be working now, so I uncommented it. Best to you and yours, Mr. C!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing edits with reliable sources

Be careful when you remove edits with several reliable and official sources, leading to vandalism. For personal opinions and feelings, you have the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thome66 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Thome66, but since you continued to add a SPAM link to the France article over and over, you have lost all credibility with me. All of your edits are presently under scrutiny by WP adminsistration, and you have been reported for edit warring here. I have concluded that you are either a brand new user who does not understand WP policies and guidelines, or you are an old-time user under a different name. Which is it? The fact that you have the ability to upload a SPAM link into article namespace is suspicious, but it could be just a bug. I tried putting the International Living link on the Talk:France page and the SPAM warning went off. It should do the same for you when you try to add the link to the main article. So I have WP admistration looking into that as well. I have reverted your edit again. Please discuss any future edits on the Talk page. Until you are willing to do this, your edits might be reverted on sight. I am adding the following warning to your Talk page:

• • Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at France, you will be blocked from editing.
    

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing links in Charmed articles

What do you mean by focus? I don't speak english very well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Cvhdsee Brazil (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a look in the Leo Wyatt article. I didn't actually revert your edits, but instead I focused the Wikilinks that you had removed. By the way, let me thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Got it! By the way, thank you helping me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Cvhdsee Brazil (talk • contribs) 23:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, Andrei! By the way, please remember to sign your comments on Talk pages with the 4 "tildes", like this: ~~~~

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by user Steaphen

Ref.: Zeno's paradoxes
FYI: Disruptive behavior by user Steaphen Ansgarf (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Ansgarf! From my limited perspective this seems rather strong. But then, I haven't been involved very deeply in the article for very long. Steaphen seems to like to argue more the paradoxes than the content of the article, and he also doesn't seem to comprehend what other people write OR he refuses to acknowledge the realities for the sake of his own repetitive beliefs. He's certainly an interesting study, though.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy 1st WikiAnniversary

Hi Paine, I coincidentally noticed that your first edit here is just over a year ago now. Since I like to occasionally vandalize other people's userpages, I thought a nice registerday cake would be appropriate:

Bon appetit! :) Paradoctor (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Paradoc! I'm diggin' right in! U-da-best!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT (archived from Wikipedia talk:Verifiability - March 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a misnomer that misleads some editors. It is sometimes applied as a need for truth, rather than a need for verifiability. That is why I inserted an explanatory reminder, and that is why I have tagged the Redirect for speedy deletion. So please consider discussion as "open".
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not open. That is a long-standing redirect, and you tagged it for speedy deletion with an inappropriate criteria and without providing any justification or rationale for the encyclopedia-improving that would come from such a removal. You've been reverted and speedy has been declined on the redirect. If you'd like to actually start the discussion, please give some details about why you think the redirect is such a problem. Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not open? hmm. Okay, what would you like to hear that I have not already noted? Isn't it enough that some editors persist to use WP:PROVEIT (NOT the other shortcuts, just PROVEIT) to indicate that Wikipedia endorses only claims that can be proved to be true? Explain it to them and they argue, because the section lacks clarity (the shortcut takes editors directly to the section, bypassing the lede of the policy), hence the NOTE that I included. The whole idea of WP:PROVEIT is a misnomer el grande. Wikipedia is concerned with the reliable verification of claims, NOT with "proving" those claims to be true.

And not for anything, editors Jclemens and Blueboar, but since when is "longstanding" a character of merit as regards this encyclopedia? It's that kind of thinking that may continue to cause beautiful women to be dragged from their caves after being clubbed over the head. (in my humble opinion)

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Paine, I suspect that when an editor misconstrues "PROVEIT" as you suggest, he/she has not bothered to actually read what WP:BURDEN or the rest of the WP:V Policy says. The section makes it quite clear that what must be "proved" is verifiability... through citation to a reliable source. It isn't a misnomer once you understand what must be "proved". Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the possible misuse of a shortcut by editors isn't a reason per WP:R#DELETE. Note specifically the example "confusion" regards the confusion of one topic with another topic. The solution to the problem seems to be to politely challenge misuse of the redirect. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if everybody here agrees that WP:PROVEIT can be confusing, then I must ask why we should leave it to editors to have to deal with other editors, mostly new editors, who misunderstand it? PROVEIT is an obvious misnomer that, when taken literally, completetly goes against what WP is all about. It seems to me that it would be so much better to perhaps move it, change its name. Perhaps WP:CHECKIT or WP:AFFIRMIT, WP:CONFIRMIT, WP:SUPPORTIT, anything but WP:PROVEIT. This is a longstanding shortcut that has been confusing for too long.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, all of our policies can be confusing to new editors, and it is up to those of us who are more familiar with them to clear up the confusions. As a shorcut, "WP:PROVEIT" makes the point of WP:BURDEN very well (ie "It is up to those who want to say something in Wikipedia to prove that what they want to say is verifiable"). Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, Blueboar. What I'm attempting to persuade is that if there are ways to make our policies less confusing, if we as editors and administrators can find ways to simplify without oversimplifying so that, over time, policies become less and less confounding, then it seems excellent to do so. I agree that "PROVEIT" gets the point across, however, the word "prove" is too general. And because it is too general, it is sometimes taken literally by editors. Editors who are aware of what PROVEIT actually means take it the way you described. Editors who take PROVEIT to mean that the claim itself actually must be "proved", are confused by the term and sometimes argue vehemently for this misconstrued cause.

All I'm saying is that we have an opportunity right now to see that, from this point on, there will be no (or less) confusion if we take the general word "prove" out of the picture.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You said it yourself— ". . . all of our policies can be confusing to new editors, . . ." The need is to make policies less confusing whenever we can. The need is to make it so editors who understand don't have to try to explain it to someone who sometimes doesn't seem to listen. Nip it in the bud. Make it understandable even to new editors, so a lot of time won't be wasted edit warring and filling talk pages with sometimes incivil disagreement. It's broken and needs fixing. Fix it right here, that's the need. On the talk page I linked to above, an editor was blocked due to an argument that escalated largely due to his misunderstanding of WP:PROVEIT. Had we as editors made WP:BURDEN more clear to him, right here where he originally read it, then maybe it would have turned out differently. If you don't want to change WP:PROVEIT to something else, we still have an obligation to find a way to keep these things from happening by making WP:BURDEN crystal clear to new editors.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think PROVEIT is fine. That section is reasonably clear, and any editor with reasonable intelligence can understand it. IMO a lot of the problems stem not from lack of understanding of what the policies say, but from people trying to wikilawyer and twist the words to suit their POV purposes. We can tweak the verbiage until the cows come home, and it will have no effect on those determined to get their way. So it's better to have reasonable language for reasonable people, and deal with the trouble makers as needed. Crum375 (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see two problems with PROVEIT. As Paine notes, the name of the shortcut is unnecessarily confrontational and SHOUTED. WP:CitePlease might have been a better choice, but there are already several quite acceptable shortcuts in place. Why should we encourage good-faith editors to seem rude to each other? The text of the section has been pretty thoroughly debugged, but it could be improved by clarifying what constitutes "reasonable" behaviour, particularly giving some guidance on how long to leave a {{cn}} tag in place before assuming it will not be actioned.User:LeadSongDog come howl 05:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A request to WP:PROVEIT is not rude. If an editor is concerned appearing so, one can always pipe, as in "Dear fellow editor, I would greatly appreciate it if you would take it up on it you to provide an explicit citation, which, as I would like to bring to your attention, is required of everyone making a definite claim in an article.". Besides, WP:PROVEIT is not rude, it is confrontational. "WP:PROVEIT aZZh0le!!!", that is rude. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

By rude, I refer primarily to the use of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, which is widely interpretted on the internet as shouting. When combined with the confrontational nature of the demand "prove it", the initial message to a novice editor is "I don't believe you, and I'm angry that you would say what you said.", irrespective of what the linked guidance says. That emotional impact hits the novice before they've even clicked on the link, and that is a problem that should be resolved. User:LeadSongDog come howl 15:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the "shouting" aspect is a matter of context. If you read an old telegram, where all letters are caps, you don't consider it shouting. Similarly, virtually all WP shortcuts are caps, e.g. WP:SOURCES, or WP:BURDEN, so in that environment, caps are the norm, not "shouting". Crum375 (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Who says you have to use WP:PROVEIT? wp:proveit works just as well. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Have we forgotten that we want to offer a welcoming environment to new editors? I'll clarify. The subjective effect of the shouted imperative is before the novices follow the link to that policy environment. They don't yet know that it is a common format for a policy shortcut name, they just know someone is shouting a command at them on a talkpage. Either the shout or the command by itself would not be taken as overly rude, but the combination is. Most such shortcuts are nouns or adjectives, not imperative verbs, and this takes much of the sting out of the shout. In fact, I'd prefer to see the whole cluster of shortcuts (PROVEIT, BOP, BURDEN, and UNSOURCED) replaced over time by WP:Proof or WP:CitationNeeded, which are presently unassigned and far less likely to cause offence, but WP:UNSOURCED is a reasonably innocuous shortcut to the policy. User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick check of whatlinkshere shows that none of these shortcuts is used more than 2000 times, so a replacement task would be a fairly quick bot (or AWB) task.User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether a bot does 2 edits or 2 million need not concern us. But what will the bot do with talk page comments like "I want you to WP:PROVEIT."? Let's try it the other way around: How often has this shortcut caused problems? Personally, I find it useful, and want to keep it. Paradoctor (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a clear case for a supervised tool, like AWB, instead of an autonomous bot, though I doubt even a bot could create problems by changing it to "I want you to WP:Proveit." I'm not sure just how to conduct such a search, but I'll give it some consideration. How often is too often? User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about WP:TPG. Editing thousands of comments is liable to raise quite a few hackles, even if they don't produce gems like "You need to WP:UNSOURCED".

"too often": Hm. Pro: Removing an as yet unspecified risk of keeping fresh meat out. Con: The effort required to do the change. The risk that you will have to fight to keep the shortcut dead. Potential of conflict with an unknown fraction of ~1000 editors.

I'd say if it's a significant problem, it should be addressed. Probabilitites of less than 5% are customarily considered insignificant. That means 100 instances where the shortcut has done more harm than good. Show me 42, and I'll support the slaughter. Failing that, I have no problem designating the shortcut as deprecated. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see a need to depreciate the shortcut. Paine says it is confusing editors... but is it really? I'd like to see a few examples of situations where someone actually was confused by it. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see the TPG issues. Even though simply changing the one shortcut from UPPERCASE to Titlecase shouldn't be too bad, it wouldn't serve much point and might be seen as revising history. We can't prevent past disputes, so why worry about old arguments that did or did not occur. Looking forward is another matter. Simply removing the uppercase from the shown list of shortcuts while maintaining the redirect would address the concern without, so far as I can tell, creating any problems. Would that be a reasonable saw-off? User:LeadSongDog come howl 20:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't stand in your way. I see a roadhog up ahead, though. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see a need... but I don't object to simply changing the case. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing the case will not get rid of the problem, Blueboar, all it will do is de-standardize shortcuts, which are all in capital case. You say you don't see the need. I have provided several reasons why there is a definite need to change PROVEIT. I have provided an example of a relatively new editor who misused PROVEIT. If there is one example then you have to know that there are more examples. If you cannot see the need, then please address the needs that I have shown previously:

• to make policies less confusing whenever we can
• to make it so editors who understand don't have to try to explain it to someone who sometimes doesn't seem to listen. Nip it in the bud. Make it understandable even to new editors, so a lot of time won't be wasted edit warring and filling talk pages with sometimes incivil disagreement.
• On the talk page I linked to above, an editor was blocked due to an argument that escalated largely due to his misunderstanding (or misuse) of WP:PROVEIT. Had we as editors made WP:BURDEN more clear to him, right here where he originally read it, then maybe it would have turned out differently. If you don't want to change WP:PROVEIT to something else, we still have an obligation to find a way to keep these things from happening by making WP:BURDEN crystal clear to new editors.

Then there is the argument addressed by editor LeadSongDog that PROVEIT is inherently confrontational. So rather than say that you don't see the need, please address these needs and say what you don't see as important about them or why you think they don't apply.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To respond point by point:

• I don't think the policy (or the shortcut) is confusing (yes, one editor, who seems not to have actually read the policy was confused... I see no evidence that there actually are more editors who are confused by this)
• If someone is not going to read the policy (ie listen), then we are going to have to explain the policy to them in any case... removing the short cut will not solve this problem.
• I think the case you are pointing to is an isolated incident. At most it is a rare incident. To put it bluntly, I don't actually believe that we have that many editors who are misusing the phrase: "Prove it" in this way. But even if we did, I think the benefits of having the phrase as a link outweigh the occasional misuse. Furthermore, I think WP:BURDEN is "crystal clear" to new editors... if they bother to read it.
• Yes, WP:PROVEIT is inherently confrontational... in fact, I would go further and say that it is intentionally so. The act of challenging an unsourced statement by asking others to provide a reliable source is itself inherantly confrontational. We have several ways to link to WP:BURDEN, to fit the circumstances. If we want to be less confrontational we can choose to use one of the other links. But when we need to be confrontational, we have the option to be so. We even have a middle ground... we can tone down the confrontationality by typing the link in lower case (typing: "WP:proveit says you have the burden of providing a source for this" works just as well as "WP:PROVEIT says YOU have the burden of providing a source for this".) This flexibility is needed. It makes our policy "crystal clear" to those who are reluctant to add unsorced material to our articles. Pointing someone to WP:BURDEN by saying "proveit" tells them clearly that they need to find a reliable source if they want their material to remain in the article.

So again, I don't see that there is a need to change anything. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BlueBoar. Wikipedia is all about finding reliable sources to support anything we say. If you believe something is correct, you need to WP:PROVEIT by supplying reliable sources for it, and it is your WP:BURDEN to do so. If you don't get this crucial point, or some new editor doesn't, they have to read and re-read that linked section and policy, over and over, until they do get it. Removing a useful and informative shortcut because someone may not understand its meaning will move us backward. Crum375 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar certainly makes very good points, and at first I was inclined to agree. But now, editor Crum375, you just made another valid point for getting rid of PROVEIT. "If you believe something is correct . . ." This is precisely why PROVEIT is confusing. Wikipedia DOES NOT CARE IF A CLAIM IS CORRECT/TRUE! Wikipedia only cares if a claim can be supported/verified by reliable sources. So even you seem to confound, or be confounded by, the policy AND the shortcut!

Making things clearer so that new editors won't be confused, and so that experienced editors cannot MISUSE a shortcut is a step forward in my book.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Crum can correct me if I am puting words into his mouth... but from my experience with him, I am sure he knows the difference between "correct/verifiable" and "correct/true". I suspect he was referring to the former. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Correct" in Wikipedia means attributable to a reliable source. If you believe what you say is attributable, and it is being challenged or is likely to be challenged, you must WP:PROVEIT by providing the reliable source(s) to support your claim. The WP:BURDEN of proof is on you. This is the essence of the verifiability policy. Crum375 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, please forgive me if I, a semi-experienced editor, was confounded by your wording and misconstrued your meaning, Crum. And believe me, I, too, completely understand the essence of WP:BURDEN, as well as its ageold and epic struggle with WP:PRESERVE. Yet if this present conversation does not clearly show both of you the dire need to clarify this section, then I suppose nothing will.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, everything we write (in article space) on WP must be attributable to a reliable source. This means that if you want to add something to an article, and you are challenged, you must prove that it is attributable by providing the source. The burden of proof is on you, as the editor adding the material. That is, in a nutshell, the essence of WP:V. Is it really that difficult to understand? Crum375 (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, the difficulty in understanding lies in the double-meaning of the PROVEIT shortcut, which makes it a misnomer. It can mean "prove that the claim has a reliable source", or it can mean "prove that the claim is true". So yes, it can be very difficult to get it right for new editors, and the shortcut can be abused by more experienced editors. If you want, Crum, we should probably continue this conversation in the RfC section.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a heated discussion at ANI about how WP:PROVEIT and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies in a particular scenario. The situation is that editors keep citing to a source that they did not bother verifying themselves. Instead they viewed the information on a vendor website that claims to source from Wikipedia and the Adam Gay Video Directory. The problem is they go and cite to the directory where there is evidence that the information is not even in there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC termination

This is in no means meant to "kick a dead horse". It is obvious to me that many are blinded by this shortcut's longevity. My brief experience at MedCab says to me that it would be "quixotic" to pursue formal arbitration. So this issue dies here. But I hope that one thing will continue to exist in the back of every editor's mind: A 15% to 25% potential for incorrect usage of a shortcut can add up to a lot of edit wars, incivility and confusion over time. So maybe outright canning of the shortcut isn't called for. Maybe the shortcut is only the tip of the iceberg, I don't know. I sincerely hope that somebody will eventually arise with a solution that will be amenable to everybody. Best of everything to you and yours!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should shortcut WP:PROVEIT be changed/deleted

Archived from Wikipedia talk:Verifiability - March 2010

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No change is necessary.  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  07:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Should the shortcut, WP:PROVEIT, be moved to a different shortcut name or deleted altogether?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Move or Delete. (as nominator of this Rfc) Please reference a previous discussion on this Talk page here. A consensus apparently cannot be reached on this issue. This is a longstanding shortcut that may have been causing confusion and incivil confrontations among Wikipedia editors for a long, long time. A most recent example of either misunderstanding or misuse by a relatively new editor can be found on the Talk page of a sometimes very controversial article. It is my contention that this shortcut should be deleted/moved in order to eliminate future confusion and/or misuse.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• oppose I can see a clear consensus already against any change, i.e. only one editor for it. FWIW I also cannot see a reason to change anything.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Consensus most clearly has been reached. While I don't mind you seeking more input in such an approved manner, there's a clear feeling that the misuse you allege is simply not enough reason to delete a long-standing redirect. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, then I must be totally misunderstanding WP:CONSENSUS!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe Jclemens means to say that there is a general feeling that you have not adequately addressed the concerns raised. Consensus does not necessarily mean that everyone is happy with the result, but it does mean that all rational arguments have been duly considered. Paradoctor (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Consensus is not unanimity. It allows for good faith (yet hopelessly minority) objections. We're not the UN here--there's no particular holdout veto power. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

JC, don't you think the UN thing is a little strong? <g> Consensus, by definition, actually does infer a unanimity of sorts. This unanimity automatically requires giving a little here, taking a little there, until all parties either agree to what usually turns out to be a compromise, or they just get tired and hang up. At any rate, even if you end up with a small minority that still feels strongly about their position, then instead of a consensus, there is the potential for "majority rule - stomp all over the minority". And on Wikipedia, I've found that this is often mistaken for a "consensus". Let's not let that be the case here, okay?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're missing my point: Your argument (the proposal doesn't give a reason, BTW) is that WP:PROVEIT is harmful. Several opposers have stated their belief that the problem is not big enough to warrant removing the shortcut. So far, you can point to only one example, and that one has been challenged. This means you haven't addressed a reasonable objection to your proposal. Paradoctor (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My argument (the proposal itself has to be neutral with no reason; the reason can be given in a later comment) is that WP:PROVEIT is two-faced. It has two possible meanings in the context of this argument. It can mean what it is supposed to mean, i.e., "prove the verifiability of the claim", or it can confusingly and/or misusingly mean what it is not supposed to mean, i.e., "prove that the claim is true". The one example I used in the above conversation cannot be seriously challenged because, as you know from first hand experience with editor Steaphen, he was misusing the shortcut. Either he was confused about its meaning or he knowingly misused it. Either way, the shortcut was being misused. I've provided three more examples below. Reasonable objections? Let's see, there are four "opposes" so far: One and two speak of a "clear consensus" that just does not exist yet, not if I read WP:CONSENSUS correctly. And one just says he sees no reason to change it, while the other cites that it is a longstanding shortcut. I don't see a valid objection from either editor. The third "oppose" just brings out that an editor must prove that a claim is verified, and that removing the shortcut would mean that the editor no longer has to do so, which is clearly wrong, because the removal of this Janus-faced shortcut would in no way alter the WP:V policy itself. The fourth "oppose" is, essentially, just a determined "NO", which is not an objection. So far there is no specific challenge that I haven't already adequately covered that I can see. If you see an objection that I haven't covered, then please point it out to me. And how about you, Paradoc? I don't see precisely what your stand on this issue is yet. You appear to be leaning toward the "oppose" side and arguing against my proposition, but you have not "officially" stated your position.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• comment looking at that link the user asked to PROVIT has been blocked for his behaviour, including refusing to provide sources [4], so I doubt it's a problem of simply misunderstanding.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case you're probably correct, Mr. B. However either way, whether the editor misunderstood WP:PROVEIT or misused it, this calls for, at the very least, more clarification in the section of this policy to which the SHORTCUT points, and at most the moving of the SHORTCUT to a better name that cannot be confounding nor abused.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"a better name that cannot be confounding nor abused": A challenge! Provide one, give it your very best shot. I'll show to you that it is totally confounding, and then I'll abuse it. A shiny new € coin in my pocket says I can. Paradoctor (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already suggested some, but just for you, Paradoc, I'll repeat 'em: WP:CHECKIT— WP:AFFIRMIT— WP:CONFIRMIT— WP:SUPPORTIT, and one more... WP:VERIFYIT. I suppose with a little effort, you would be able to do as you say, however I don't see how anybody would be able to challenge the fact that all of these are SO much LESS confusing and have SO little possible abuse potential than the two-faced misnomer, PROVEIT.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"you would be able to do as you say": That means my money is safe with you, I take it? ... Ah, what the hell: "WP:CONFIRMIT? But I can't, I can only provide sources!" and "You can easily WP:CONFIRMIT, just try it for yourself, and you'll see that it is better than the real thing.".

"abuse potential": Erm, kitchen knives? Earbuds? Love letters? Paradoctor (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Clear consensus over time is to use this very informative shortcut. Removing it would imply that the editor adding material to an article does not need to prove that it's properly sourced, which is clearly wrong. Crum375 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted in the other section above, the difficulty in understanding lies in the double-meaning of the PROVEIT shortcut, which makes it a misnomer. It can mean "prove that the claim has a reliable source", or it can mean "prove that the claim is true". So yes, it can be very difficult to get it right for new editors, and the shortcut can be abused by more experienced editors.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Anything and everything, including every single shortcut on WP, can be misunderstood by novices. This is why we have a link from WP:PROVEIT to the actual words of the policy, which they can read at their leisure. Crum375 (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If we can, over time, make improvements that make all that "anything and everything" less misunderstood by novices, then aren't we obligated to do so? Don't we have a responsibility as "editors" to improve every aspect of this encyclopedia in every way we can in order to make it less and less confusing, more and more clear, concise and helpful, both to readers and to other editors?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, we are always open to improvements. But you say that something which is very straightforward and linked to the complete explanation may be confusing for a novice. I believe that there is nothing on this planet which can't be confusing for a novice. We need to focus on the big picture: does it convey a clear message as a useful reminder to someone who has read the linked text (and an invitation to read to someone who hasn't)? I think it does, and apparently the other Opposers here feel the same. Crum375 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not so very straightforward, editor Crum, for in this context, the PROVEIT shortcut can easily be construed in the manner you describe, and just as easily be misconstrued as the imperative need to prove the statement itself rather than just to prove that the statement is verifiable. PROVEIT is therefore a misnomer that we all would be better off without.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• No the shortcut should not be changed/deleted - there is no need (see above for further disucssion). Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Remove from displayed list in WP:V - No need to break any existing or even future usage, let's just not encourage its usage. Even a cursory review of WP:List of shortcuts makes it obvious that this shortcut name, an imperative verb, is absolutely not consistent with the other shortcuts. User:LeadSongDog come howl 04:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So we should remove WP:IAR and WP:LETGO too ? Most shortcuts are nouns as most pages are concepts ("verifiability") or things (noticeboard, project, portal). But if a page name is an action like "ignore all rules", or can be handily abbreviated using a verb such as "let (it) go", then they're fine. I know WP:LETGO is not official policy but the page is referenced far more than many policy pages, including already here. Another example that is also appropriate here is WP:GETOVERIT.

Agree . Thank you, LSD, it's not so lonely at the top anymore! <g>

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a hint: when you're arguing as a lone voice in the face of reasoned and polite opposition, such that one editor who halfway agrees with the RfC you started is an encouragement, you might just want to read and consider WP:STICK. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, JC, for that vote of confidence! I shall be dead certain the horse is dead when, at the very least, the opposition begins to understand my position enough so that I don't feel like a stomped-all-over minority. The PROVEIT shortcut is a Janus-faced misnomer that must be dealt with in some way. As editors we should all feel better off without it.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

random break in RFC

• Comment. In the conversation previous to this RfC, editor Blueboar asked for examples of what I'm on about. So I went to the "What links here" page of the WP:PROVEIT Redirect. I went through the first 21 links and found the following facts:

1. In this Talk page section an editor is clearly misusing the shortcut to get an editor to WP:PROVEIT that a claim is true.
2. In this Talk page section an editor is clearly misusing the shortcut to get an editor to WP:PROVEIT that a claim is true.
3. In this Talk page section an editor is clearly misusing the shortcut to get an editor to WP:PROVEIT using Wikilawyering techniques and making straw-man arguments.

• Three out of the first twenty-one. That is almost 15% or 1 out of 7 (that's not as good as I'm doing votewise, but it does seem to be a significant number). So is anyone ready to at least concede that I might have a strong and valid point? valid, at least?
  

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  10:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The first one is "Now kindly stop stalling and just quote from the papers where Blench and Bender in particular have "cited seriously" Bernal's Kenyan Urheimat theory for AA as you've claimed above. I'm not bossing you around here; I'm simply invoking WP:PROVEIT." I.e. asking for citations with an appropriate shortcut. Both editors understand it exactly. I.e. in that case you really do not have a point.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are other instances in that section where the editor who imposes WP:PROVEIT asks that the claims be proved.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  10:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then WP:PROVEIT. ;) Sorry, but that's the whole point of it. Without evidence, everything said is just an assertion.

The second is a misuse? 'User:62.56.53.218 said in an edit summary of 09.48 on 5 October 2008 "Just added her ttles in full they are all factual go check". One should not have to "go check"; if you know she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. See WP:PROVEIT.', that looks entirely appropriate to me.

In the third example, an editor was accused of wikilawyering after demanding that citations have page numbers added to them. Again, this looks like an entirely valid use. The idea of evidence is to present evidence, not to say "oh, you can find the evidence out there, just go look".

That's the problem with evidence, sometimes people pick it apart. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the second example is clear misuse, though I cannot tell whether it is accidental or purposeful. "if you know she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it." This is a clear call for the editor to WP:PROVEIT that the claim is true. In the third example, the editor was actually and knowingly (I thought it was quite obvious) misusing the shortcut. There is no question in my mind that all three examples, plus Steaphen's misuse, are crystal-clear cases of misusing the shortcut, which is [[WP:PROVEIT|CLEAR-CUT PROOF]] that my proposal deserves serious attention.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to muddle your brain a little. It is becoming clear that the question of what constitutes a misuse of WP:PROVEIT is the bone of contention here.

In the second example, the request is for "evidence" (as in "sources"), not for "truth". Actually, this one can't be proved any other way, as any evidence would have to be a piece of writing anyway.

"editor was actually and knowingly (I thought it was quite obvious)": Obvious. Obvious? Uh, what's obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to someone else. It sure isn't to me. What is the case for considering the accusations valid? Really, I don't see it, but I may be myopic here. Paradoctor (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read the discussions Paine linked to... here is my take: in two of the three examples, the editor who is using the link to "PROVEIT" was asking for a citation to back an unsourced statement... a proper use of the link. In the other, we had an unsourced statement that was challenged, a citation that was added in response, and challenger then linked PROVEIT as part of a request for a specific page number and a quote ... because he doubted that the supplied source actually supported the original statement. All three were somewhat heated discussions over somewhat controvercial unsourced statements... In other words all three were appropriate situations for an editor to say "Oh yeah? PROVEIT". Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Blueboar for taking the time to read the examples. The problem, at least with the first two examples, is that the wording was wrong. It may have been accidental, and it probably was accidental, but both editors were very clear that the other editors had to verify that the claims were true, and not that they had to verify that the claims had been made. This is the essence of WP:V, that verification of TRUTH is not sought, ONLY verification that the claim was made.

Suppose you and I were editing the Abortion article. I added a claim to the page and reliably sourced it. You read it and you refuse to believe that the claim is true, even though it's reliably sourced. So you hunt down a counter-claim that says just the opposite of my claim, and you find that the source you came across is a very reliable one. So you add the counter-claim to the Abortion article along with an inline citation. As you are well aware, this is how it's supposed to work. Wikipedia is not interested in which claim is right, wrong, true or false. WP:V is very clear that a challenged claim must simply be verified that it was made, and not necessarily verified that it is true. And in the first two examples, it was the truth of the claim that was mistakenly sought.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I afraid none of Paine's three examples above hold up to closer examination, as the participants in each discussion were all long-established editors who would well understand what the shortcut meant. All but one was over a year, and that one has thousands of edits. Even I assume that anyone who has edited here for more than a few months has incurred some thickening of the skin, although it still discomfits me that that should need to be the case. If examples are needed they should be better than these. User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, LSD, close examination shows that in the first two examples, one editor was saying to another editor that a claim had to be proven to be true by using a verifiable source. This is NOT what WP:V is about. Read the first sentence of the policy. In each of those two cases an editor misused the shortcut to get another editor to PROVE that a claim was TRUE, not that the claim was just verifiable. Why is the difference so difficult to understand? If the shortcut is used to say, "You have to WP:PROVEIT that a claim was made," then it is being used correctly. And out of those 21 links, there were 12 cases where the shortcut was used correctly (there were six of the 21 pages that no longer had WP:PROVEIT on the page in spite of the page being on the "What links here" list). If the shortcut is used to say, "You have to WP:PROVEIT that a claim is TRUE," then it is being used incorrectly. And in the first two examples I noted, that was precisely what had taken place. Two editors had said to two other editors that they had to PROVE that a claim was TRUE, not just verifiable, TRUE. And the third case was an example of a different way the shortcut can be misused. Let's throw that one out, because there are probably several shortcuts that can be Wikilawyered around.

So where does this leave us? There are two clear cases of abuse out of 21, well, actually out of 14, since as I said, 6 of the pages didn't have the shortcut on them anymore. So there are 21 total pages, minus 6 no-show pages, minus the one example we threw out. This leaves 14 pages.

There is no challenging the fact that out of those 14 pages, fully 12 were examples of the shortcut being used correctly. However, the undeniable fact remains that on 2 out of the 14 pages, WP:PROVEIT was being misused. That is still 14.3% or 1 out of 7.

I'm not saying that those two editors who used the shortcut to try to get other editors to prove that a claim was TRUE did so with any malice aforethought. If they were asked, I'm sure that they would tell us that they merely miswrote the words, and that they really meant that verification of the claim was needed. It would further be hoped that the other editors would have the savvy to actually READ the section and the policy. But none of that is to the point. The point is that, because this shortcut is two-faced, because it can be misconstrued either by accident or with malice aforethought, then it is a misnomer that has to be dealt with in some way. It should be deleted, moved, or at the very least, removed from the shortcut box. If we opt for that third choice, than I would further ask that experienced editors who draw this shortcut like a gun (honestly, I'm grinning, no incivility intended) be extremely careful that they use it only to ask for VERIFIABILITY of a claim, and not for the TRUTH of a claim.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the objection to WP:PROVEIT, but I also understand the unwilliness to let go of long used terminolgy. What about adding WP:SOURCEIT to the policy shortcut box where WP:PROVEIT is? Over time editors may come to a consensus to use that shorcut, and at a future time WP:PROVEIT gets dropped, or maybe not and WP:PROVEIT will win out. Ward20 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, editor Ward20, for your understanding and helpful sentiments. I would gladly settle for the two-faced shortcut, WP:PROVEIT, to be removed from the shortcut box. That way, experienced editors could still use it to point to that valuable section of the WP:V policy (and hopefully they would use it sparingly and only to ask for verifiability of a claim and not for the truth of it), and it won't be visible to less experienced editors who now see Policy shortcuts: WP:PROVEIT jumping out at them like a sore thumb.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide quotes, not just links to pages. As far as I can see on none of those pages is WP:PROVEIT being misused. In every case the poster is asking for sources. WP:PROVEIT is a shortcut for this and a link to the policy, and is understood by all parties.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No problemo, John. From the first example:

What you don't seem to understand Andrew, is that saying that Bernal "is cited in the major reviews of this field and taken seriously by the major authors in this field" is not the same thing as actually proving it. You have been asked and repeatedly to prove that Bernal is taken seriously as a linguist, and more specifically, that his Kenyan Urheimat theory for the origins of Afro-Asiatic is not a tiny minority view. You have been unable to prove either one of the two things, much less the latter. Instead, you link me to an interview with Ehret saying that he basically appreciates Bernal when it comes to his take on the "Egyptian influence on Greece" although a boat-load of other professionals he collectively labels "Classicists" apparently do not. There is no mention of Bernal's standing in the linguistic community, much less of his very idiosyncratic Kenyan Urheimat theory or his equally fringe "Rift Valley Urheimat theory (you write that "Martin Bernal came to argue for this Urheimat based upon perceived connections between Afroasiatic and Khoisan languages" -- that's classic fringe). Please, for the umpteenth time, stop stalling and produce those quotes per WP:PROVEIT. Otherwise, it's clear that the edit cannot remain in place.

— Causteau (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear-cut case of asking another editor to PROVE that a claim is TRUE, not just to verify that the claim was made. Now, from the second example:

Though Catherine may have been regent for the Kingdom in 1513-1514 and was certainly Queen Consort at the time, it does not necessarily follow that she bore the title of Queen Regent. For example, the Prince of Wales was regent of the United Kingdom from 1811 to 1820 and was known as the Prince Regent, but Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, who was regent of that kingdom from 1934 to 1941, was not. User:62.56.53.218 said in an edit summary of 09.48 on 5 October 2008 "Just added her ttles in full they are all factual go check". One should not have to "go check"; if you know she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. See WP:PROVEIT.

— Opera hat (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, the editor was asking that the claim be evidenced to be TRUE, and not just that the claim be verified to have been made. As I said above, both of these editors were probably acting in good faith, and most likely they both meant to mean just that the claims should be reliably sourced. However, their wording clearly shows that they were also calling for whether or not the claims were TRUE. So they were either consciously or unconsciously misusing the WP:PROVEIT shortcut.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are "and produce those quotes per WP:PROVEIT" and "the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. See WP:PROVEIT". In both cases they are simply asking for sources, and pointing to the relevant policy. That's no different in intent to putting a { {cn} } next to a questionable article paragraph. And this is clearly the intent, and is understood as such in each case.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, JB, that of the first 21 links to the shortcut, 12 were used correctly, i.e., in all twelve discussions, WP:PROVEIT was used only to ask for verifiability using reliable sources. The above two cases, when you read the entire quotations, clearly ask for more than just verifiability. They clearly ask that the claims be verified to be TRUE. And this is not proper usage of the shortcut.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Paine, the problem is that you are interpreting their statements. None of them mentions either "true" or "truth", so there is no question of any literal statement. If you wish to assert that their statements amount to demanding proof of truth, rather than proof that the challenged statements were indeed what was said, you need to provide evidence that your interpretation is the only appropriate one. So far, your argument is basically, "why, isn't it obvious?". I'm afraid not. Paradoctor (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, Paradoc, for I certainly seem to be missing something. Let's see, first of all, your premise that the actual words "true" and "truth" must be used for me to make my assertion. This I don't follow. ". . . not the same thing as actually proving it. You have been asked and repeatedly to prove that Bernal is taken seriously . . ." "You have been unable to prove . . ." To me, the editor is using "prove" and "proving" in the incorrect sense as regards this discussion. The editor is asking, NOT that the other editor verify that the claim is valid, but instead that the editor PROVE that the claim is true. And in the second example, ". . .if you know she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it". Here the editor does not, to me, appear to be asking for mere verification of the claim, but for "evidence" that the claim is true. So I guess I'm just not getting how this can be seen as anything other than, in both cases, editors asking that a claim be proved to be true rather than just asking for a reliable source to support that the claim has been made.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"your premise": No such thing, I'm afraid. I merely stated that the assertion is not in the words you refer to, but rather in your interpretation of the words actually written. It follows that we're talking about a problem of interpretation.

'the editor is using "prove" and "proving" in the incorrect sense': That is the thing we're rotating around.

So, how is the editor in the "Bernal" case using "prove"? Apparently, s/he wants to see a proof that "Bernal is taken seriously". I submit that this is mere shorthand for "please provide citations to reliable literature that makes the assertion that Bernal is taken seriously". So, the subject of proof is not Bernal's reputation, but the existence of citable assertions about it.

In the "Catherine" case, we have the same thing: The "evidence" requested is not evidence that she was queen regent, but that there is literature claiming this. In this particular case, a primary source in the form of a document assigning the title to her would also be acceptable, but I doubt that this is what was asked.

You sure make this discussion interesting. :) Paradoctor (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As do you, Paradoc. You do seem to forget though, that I went through 21 links to find these two cases. And at the same time I found 12 cases where the WP:PROVEIT shortcut was used correctly. This has to give you the inkling that I know the difference. The above two cases definitely are requests for verification. However they are also clear-cut, no-interpretation-required requests that the claims be PROVED or EVIDENCED to be TRUE. I do know the difference, and there is a clear difference between these two cases and the other twelve.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"the inkling that I know the difference": I agree that you know a difference, but since we disagree, it's evident that our criteria are different. As you refer to cases I haven't seen, it might be helpful if you cited one of the cases where we seem to agree, so we can compare corpses. Currently, I have no idea of the criteria you apply in your determination that the present cases are misuses. Paradoctor (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The cases you haven't seen are:

1. Talk:Epitaph
2. Talk:Original sin
3. Talk:Yom Kippur War
4. Talk:Fasces
5. Talk:Spanking
6. Talk:Nuclear winter
7. Talk:Anti-Arabism
8. Talk:Counter-terrorism
9. Talk:Michael Collins (Irish leader)
10. Talk:Genocide denial
11. Talk:Axl Rose
12. Talk:Acupuncture

Use your browser's search function with PROVEIT in the field and you should be taken to each instance of the shortcut's usage on these pages. You will find that in each of these cases, the shortcut was used correctly, i.e., it was used to request ONLY VERIFICATION that the claim was made, and NOT that the claim had to be PROVED to be true.

And lest we forget, there is also the example on the Zeno's paradoxes Talk page. Editor Steaphen used the shortcut to demand proof that the claim(s) was TRUE. That's actually 3 out of 15, and leaves us with 20%. Twenty per-cent! Possibly 1 out of 5 times the PROVEIT shortcut has been misused over the years! The numbers seem to get better and better (or worse and worse from my perspective).

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sidenote: I'm not sure your chracterization of Steaphen's usage is correct.

Main course: I had a look at the examples, and I don't see what specific criteria you applied:

1. "Axl Rose is a tenor 100%" ... "Once again: WP:PROVEIT" [5]
2. "Terrorism has often been used to justify military intervention in countries where terrorists are said to be based." ... "This paragraph falls fouls of WP:PROVEIT and WP:OR." [6]
3. "your presumption that the ADL is Anti-Arab does not require rebutting (WP:PROVEIT)" [7]
4. "Please demonstrate the relevance of why Michael Collins' 12/13th century alleged ancestry is relevant to this article, see WP:PROVEIT." [8]

No. 4 is a clear misuse, the issue here is WP:DUE.

I don't see any substantial difference between your two examples and #1-3, in each case we have the request to prove a statement of fact. If there is a difference, please explain it. Paradoctor (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

When I read those examples and the other cases, I was unable to justify their usage as specifically calling for the truth of the claim itself. The two cases I did choose I felt were very clear-cut examples of asking for both verifiability of the claim and for the truth of the claim. And you don't seem to agree that editor Steaphen used WP:PROVEIT to call for the math claim to be true? <sigh> Then I may as well give up.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"I may as well give up": Forgive me for saying so, but how can you give up if you haven't even started? I asked you to "explain it". Your reply was "I was unable to justify their usage". Ok, but that explains nothing, it only restates what you did in terms meaningful only to you. Where are the reasons? I. e., something like "editor X said 's', which by this or that rule of English usage has to be interpreted as t, which violates "r" in part p of policy P". This gives me text I can read, and respond to. What you did in the above reply was in effect saying "I chose the two examples and not the other because they looked to me like they support my position.". Help me! Paradoctor (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see... in the Rose example, it was very clear to me that the WP:PROVEIT asking editor was not asking for truth, but just for verifiability:

“ Once again: WP:PROVEIT. Wiki really doesn't care about what your voice teacher can do or your personal assessment of Rose's voice, and neither count as a reliable source. If you can find reliable sources that contradict what is in the article, feel free to share them here. ”

In your 2nd example, the editor was just asking "Who says . . ." and clearly using the WP:PROVEIT shortcut correctly.

Your 3rd example, is actually a very good example of correct usage. The editor used it in the same manner one might use WP:BURDEN or WP:BOP.

The 4th example:

“ Please demonstrate the relevance of why Michael Collins' 12/13th century alleged ancestry is relevant to this article, see WP:PROVEIT. ”

is again, just a request for the other editor to verify the relevance (verifiability) of the claim. So all those appeared to me to be correct usages of the shortcut.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we please ignore Steaphen in all of this. He was banned shortly after for his behaviour on that talk page, and his protestations as far as I can see are part of that. Instead find editors in good standing that have misunderstood it if you want to prove a point.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we should ignore an editor just because he is "not in good standing". Misuse is misuse. Either Steaphen was confused about the shortcut (IMO the most likely) or he misused the shortcut with malice aforethought. Either way, Steaphen's usage represents what I consider to be a classic case of misuse of the shortcut. That discussion was indeed why I came to this Talk page to attempt an improvement.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Before we get into this further, let's get back to brass tacks... Even if we can pick holes in Paine's current examples, I am sure that he will be able to find other examples where this shortcut has been misused. To me, the occasional misuse does not matter... I think all the situations where editors have used "PROVEIT" appropriately far outweigh the occasional misuse. The fact is, there are more than enough situations where saying "PROVEIT" was, is, and will continue to be both appropriate and necessary that the occasional misuse can essentially be discounted.

Paine... It is obvious that you feel strongly about this, but pushing for it may be hurting your case more than helping it ... I know it has had a negative effect on me... shifting me from "I don't see the need, but I don't care enough to strongly object" towards a more solid "I oppose the removal". I think it is unlikely that you will gain a consensus to remove this link... so perhaps it would be better to drop the idea? Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"he will be able to find other examples": Maybe, but apart from my personal preference for convincing over discouraging, please note that he already made a statistical argument that these two examples would constitute sufficient reason to believe there is a significant problem with the shortcut. Before we get into that, I'd rather milk the current point for what it's worth, I don't think we have yet arrived in diminishing returns country. Paradoctor (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OK... but I think you are arguing just for the sake of argument... my point was that, even if we were to accept Paine's interpretation of these examples, I don't think they do constitute sufficient reason to believe there is a significant problem with the shortcut. Nor do I think that his finding a few more would be sufficient reason. I think that the benfits of being able to properly use the link far outweigh any potential for abuse. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not arguing for the sake of argument as Paradoc might be. I'm arguing against a two-faced misnomer of a shortcut that should be TNT'd about as far away from Wikipedia as we can get it! First, you say you want examples. So I show you very real examples where editors asked NOT JUST for verification, but also for TRUTH OF THE CLAIM. Now, you imply that I wasted my time. You might be right, and I might not garner consensus for this, but there are other ways of getting rid of nasty things in Wikipedia that editors cling to as if they were married to them for fifty years. PROVEIT has to GO, it HAS TO. It is a longstanding shortcut that I've shown causes problems, so it has been causing these problems – edit wars, incivil heated arguments on Talk pages, confusion among novice editors and abuse by longstanding editors – for a longstanding time. It's about time to get the shortcut the heck outta Dodge!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"just for the sake of argument": I'll admit to enjoying this particular exchange, but my heart is pure, my intentions are good, and I'm on the right side. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no "right side" or wrong side, Paradoc. There is only improvement of this grand and great encyclopedia, this information resource that has no equal. I have been in Blueboar's shoes before, and I have been in LeadSongDog's and Ward20's shoes before. The first argument I ever made on WP was just like this one, though. I argued to move the Shirley Temple page to "Shirley Temple Black". I felt among other things that Black has been even more notable as a government-service worker than she was as a child star. There were IIRC more than ten involved editors who promptly and effectively shut me down, though some excellent compromises/improvements were made. It wasn't really a consensus, though, until I read Black's own words, which indicated that she herself never had a problem with being identified with her sparkling, child-star image. Only then was the issue of renaming the Shirley Temple page brought to true "consensus". I am no stranger to being on the minority side of an issue. But when I know my proposition will improve this encyclopedia, then the majority will find that they have the proverbial "tiger by the tail".

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  05:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I like kitties. ^_^ Though I have to assure you, there is a wrong side. :-P Paradoctor (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As you wish, Paradoc, but if there is a wrong side, then it would have to be a bunch of good, experienced editors who, for whatever reason, blindly close their eyes to a solid gold case of shortcut abuse and misuse. WP:PROVEIT is nothing. It's just a shortcut with two possible meanings. It could be misused accidentally, it could be misused with malice aforethought, and it could be misunderstood by confused novice editors. Three strikes! The dern shortcut ought to be out.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! Not WP:SPOT, too! o_0 Paradoctor (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps another way of looking at the question is to ask what extra value the WP:PROVEIT shortcut brings. How does it improve on the alternatives? Are there cases where it is simply a better choice, or could the alternatives serve as well, making it redundant? User:LeadSongDog come howl 14:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To Papyrus: Yes, there are cases where I think it is simply a better choice... I would agree it is a link that should be saved for rare occasions... but it is a very useful link to have when those rare occasions arise.

To Paine: shouting "it HAS TO go" and threatening a "tiger by the tail?"... my, you are getting worked up over this... perhaps it is time to take a wikibreak? Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Emotional outburst noted and hopefully forgiven by all. You're right, BB, I think I'll go whoop some vandal butt for awhile. As Uncle Arnold said, "I'll be back."

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of tigers... you might want to read WP:TIGER... a very nice essay that seems to apply here. See you when you get back. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Just briefly checking back, and yes, BB, that's a good one. I apologized for the ALLCAPS, because that was out of line. However, I cannot and will not apologize for the TBTT statement. I know that fulfilling this RfC proposition will improve Wikipedia. I am the metaphor personified.

“ You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral. ”

For better or worse, that is me when I know I'm right. Admittedly, it sometimes gets me into trouble, but life is far too short to settle for mediocre, two-sided, Janus-faced misnomers like this shortcut.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose and remind editors that this issue is addressed elsewhere: "The shortcut is not the policy". Perhaps this warning should also be added to WP:SHORTCUT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, editor WhatamIdoing! From the link you provided, ". . . Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus. Major changes to a policy or guideline page are discussed first on the talk page, especially with policies, . . ." This particular shortcut, as previously noted can have two meanings, thus making it a serious and confusing misnomer. I realize that "The shortcut is not the policy" covers shortcuts that do not necessarily mean what the pointed-to policy is meant to cover, but I sincerely believe that this shortcut, WP:PROVEIT, is not what that procedural policy was meant to cover. I am hard-pressed to accept that WP:POLICY#Adherence asks us to accept a two-sided, Janus-faced misnomer shortcut that has caused, and continues to cause confusion and misuse on Wikipedia discussion pages.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Geez, I was bringing some questionable language from WP:NPOV over here which is so poorly worded it allows all sorts of WP:OR to sneak in, and now people want to get rid of "prove it"? How much more questionable nonsense would sneak in? Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Misunderstanding_of_.22A_Simple_Formulation.22 here with relevant proposal to this page Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Earlier_version_and_proposal here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC status

Refs.: WP:PROVEIT – RfC: Should shortcut WP:PROVEIT be changed/deleted – [9] & [10]

At present there are five solid opposing editors and one editor, myself, who still wants the WP:PROVEIT shortcut completely removed from Wikipedia, either by moving it to another name or by outright deletion. There are two editors who have suggested a compromise to remove the shortcut from the shortcut box, and to allow the shortcut Redirect to remain and be used sparingly. I still strongly believe that this shortcut must go. However in the spirit of seeking agreement/consensus, I would seriously consider a compromise if opposing editors would also be willing to do so.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to nit-pick, I count Six opposing editors... but even five to one seems to be a clear consensus against removing. As for the "hide it" suggestion... If there are times when it is appropriate to use the shortcut (and I think there are), then we should continue to list it. You have yet to convince me that there is a valid reason not to list it, and unless you can come up with a new argument I don't expect you will be able to convince me. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict). There are only five editors who are clearly opposed. The editor of which you speak is probably Paradoc, who has not indicated an opinion, although has argued for the most part in opposition of this RfC.

So Blueboar, in accord with what you say above, you appear to endorse the confusion and misuse of this shortcut. Why would you want the confusion, edit wars and incivil disputes caused by this shortcut to continue?

On a separate note, and to be completely straightforward, I have asked for help on this discussion page. I sincerely would like to keep this discussion informal as long as possible.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• PS. You have a majority, not a consensus. There is a difference.

Your argument is similar to saying that because some people drink and drive, we should do away with cars, and that if I am in favor of cars, I "endorse" drunk driving. I think that is a fundamentally flawed argument. I don't endorse drinking and driving... but I would strongly oppose banning cars. Similarly, I do not endorse confusion and misuse of the PROVEIT link, but I support appropriate use of this link... and that means that I stongly support keeping the link. Furthermore, I think you are seriously over stating how much confusion and misuse actually exists, and I think that what little confusion or misuse might exist can be dealt with in other ways... and are better dealt with in other ways. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Perhaps you don't consider 2 out of 14 (14.3%) a significant number of misuses? Or perhaps you find the sample size inadequate? If I go pull an AQL sample, then who knows what I might find? There might be less than 14% or there might be more than 14% editors who use the shortcut inappropriately. I am only closely familiar with one case, which is the case that brought me here in the first place, first to make a BOLD edit, and then to open discussion to attempt to get you involved editors to see just how badly used this shortcut can be. Since you and the other opposers (with the exception of Paradoc) were not involved in this heated discussion, then how can you possibly feel the powerful opposition I have to this shortcut? So I do understand your position, Blueboar, and the positions of the others, however I still firmly believe that this shortcut is a two-sided, Janus-faced misnomer that must be dealt with, someway, somehow.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

<backdent> You now have 6 opposing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What misuses? The links you provided were to experienced editors using it as a shortcut to a policy. You have yet to link to an editor using it to mean something else. Please, as you have no evidence and have convinced no-one, perhaps it is time to LETGO?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Called it ~4 days ago. Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

JB, your refusal to "see" that those editors were calling for a claim to be proved/evidenced to be TRUE does not negate the fact that they were doing so. That is clear misuse of the shortcut, whether they were experienced or not. Then you have the example that sent me here to discuss the issue. I feel that it is highly unfair of you to call my evidence "no evidence", and to pressure me into submission. The shortcut is a two-faced misnomer that has no business on Wikipedia, and I will continue to believe so until you can provide at least as hard evidence in support of its continued misuse as I have provided to get rid of it.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• PS. When used as a call for truth, this shortcut is actually in violation of this policy!

Does anyone else see the irony of one editor asking (in the face of pointed questions) for something that he's unable to convince anyone else is necessary? Just curious. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No irony here that I can see, JC.

• We have myself and two other editors who clearly see the need for improvement.
  • LeadSongDog
  • Ward20
  • Paine Ellsworth
    • comment... Um ... I don't see any comment by Mark20... so make that you and LeadSongDog. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Apologies to Ward20 for my error, which has been corrected. Thank you, BB. for pointing this out.  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  20:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks for clearing that up... note that Ward20 did not "clearly see a need for improvement" all he said was that he understood your opposition. His suggestion was actually to keep PROVEIT as a link, and add SOURCEIT as another alternative (something that I would have no objection to.) Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
        • "What about adding WP:SOURCEIT to the policy shortcut box where WP:PROVEIT is?" That was Ward20's suggestion. First you threaten me, then when I have been straightforward about asking for help at MedCab, you sneak over and persecute me, and now you totally misconstrue another editor's statements. I think it's time for you to leave this debate. You egged me back into this when I really didn't want to come back yet. So what's next? You gonna make more threats? Oh, excuse me, you gonna warn me and advise me some more? Dern stuff can be contagious as heck!  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
        • No, that isn't Ward's suggestion... read it again, in it's entirety: "What about adding WP:SOURCEIT to the policy shortcut box where WP:PROVEIT is? Over time editors may come to a consensus to use that shorcut, and at a future time WP:PROVEIT gets dropped, or maybe not and WP:PROVEIT will win out." (bolding mine for emphisis). Ward's suggestion isn't to replace PROVEIT with SOURCEIT... his/her suggestion is to 1) add SOURCEIT to the box in addition to PROVEIT, and 2) let time and usage determine which (if either) is preferred. I have no problem with this idea. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict). Hopefully, Ward20 will return and notice the words being put in his mouth. He did not write, "add SOURCEIT to the box in addition to PROVEIT". He did write, "What about adding WP:SOURCEIT to the policy shortcut box where WP:PROVEIT is?" So I see Ward20's improvement as replacing WP:PROVEIT in the shortcut box, while allowing the Redirect to remain intact. Then let the future take care of itself. Are you amenable to this improvement?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ward also wrote: "...and at a future time WP:PROVEIT gets dropped, or maybe not.... I interpret "and at a future time WP:PROVEIT gets dropped" to mean "keep it for now". Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the way I read it, too. When coupled with his first sentence, Ward20 suggested to replace WP:PROVEIT with WP:SOURCEIT in the shortcut box, and keep it (the WP:PROVEIT Redirect) for now. Are you amenable to this improvement?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that I interpret Ward's comment very differently than you do. I interpret it as having both PROVEIT and SOURCEIT, and time will tell which people use. So we will have to agree to disagree unless Ward comes by and clarifies. I would be amenable to having SOURCEIT in addition to PROVEIT, waiting a while to see if this addition changes behaviors, and if so then reopening the issue of removing PROVEIT... I am not amenable to removing PROVEIT at this point in time. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been monitoring closely enough. My intent was to offer a compromise exactly as Blueboar describes above, having SOURCEIT and PROVEIT both in the box. It would allow editors to migrate away from PROVEIT, if they wish. It also allows editors to note SOURCEIT and PROVEIT are equivalent which indicates truth need not be proved. I am not advocating any particular wording one way or another, I just wanted to advance a possible compromise. Ward20 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then, Ward, I must have misunderstood you when you indicated to put SOURCEIT where PROVEIT was. Okay, so the only change you advocate is the addition of another shortcut. Why do you suppose WP:SOURCEIT, WP:BURDEN, WP:UNSOURCED and WP:BOP aren't enough? And what makes you think anything would change for the better if WP:PROVEIT remains in the shortcut box?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I view it as a compromise to find out if there is a future consensus to use WP:SOURCEIT over PROVEIT. There seems to me to be a consensus not to eliminate PROVEIT right now. As I said previously I understand the reluctance to let go of long used terminology. I think a compromise similar to this would minimize any disruption over the long term. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day and some parts will take longer to optimize than others. Ward20 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree to disagree.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• We have one editor who appeared to be arguing for the sake of argument (productive nonetheless) and who never actually voiced an opinion either way.
  • Paradoctor
• We have six editors who oppose this resolution without really giving strong reasons to do so.
  • Jclemens
  • JohnBlackburne
  • Crum
  • Blueboar
  • WhatamIdoing
  • CarolMooreDC

I looked over the conversations that Carol pointed us to, and I tend to agree there with the majority, but mostly I see how people made the dissenting editor feel. I guarantee you, JC, that no matter how hard you and others might try to make me feel that I and my ideas don't belong here, it ain'ta gonna happen. We are init for the long haul.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Paine, I am going to be blunt here... The change you want isn't going to happen. Get used to it. Your continued pushing of this is now becoming a case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Please drop it before someone gets pissed off enough to take action. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BB, thank you for your bluntness, however please corral your threats! You fellas need to stick to the issues. You've been pushing me to stop since the very beginning. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. What we have here is an issue of incorrect use of a shortcut. We do not have any other issues except for the one you seem to be threatening. I have been civil up to now, but I will not stand for being threatened. I did not come here to piss anybody off, and that is not my intention now. So I will ask you just this once. Please stick to the issue at hand and stop trying to turn this conversation into a fiasco, won't you?

I am not threatening... I am giving warning and advice. You can take it or leave it as you wish. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Paine you are completely mischaracterising the debate. No-one is agreeing with your interpretation and unfounded assertions: you are in a minority of one. And those that oppose you do not need to give strong reasons: it is you trying to convince others that needs to provide persuasive arguments to change a long standing and widely used shortcut. This has already gone on too long, there was clear consensus before the RfC. Opening an RfC and posting elsewhere as if it were still open to question was quite unnecessary.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

JB, I'm not mischaracterising anything, except perhaps the tone that this debate is taking upon itself. You people are real gems! I come here with the intention to improve this encyclopedia, and all I get is blind following of a misused shortcut just because of its longevity. Let's face it. That's pretty much all you have, isn't it? The shortcut's been around the block several times. It's my information that longevity of anything has never before stopped the improvement of Wikipedia. As well it shouldn't. So that is a very weak reason for doing nothing to improve this policy. You fellas seem to be getting a little out of hand, so I'm outty for awhile. When I return, it is hoped that civility will rule the day, and that editors will be sticking to the issue at hand and coming up with valid reasons to keep this shortcut. At present, there are no valid reasons to keep this shortcut, and I have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that improvement is necessary. Thank you for listening.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on the edits, not the editors. There's no point in antagonizing each other.User:LeadSongDog come howl 20:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, LSD, since Ward clarified his position, it is now just you and me against the . . .— anyway, do you think it is useful to continue to attempt compromise? or are you willing to acquiesce to the status quo?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archived discussion from MedCab talk page - March 2010

WP:PROVEIT

There is a discussion and RfC in progress on the WP:V (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#RfC status) talk page about this shortcut. I am not out to use MedCab as a stepping stone to the next formal step in dispute rez, however I would like to keep things informal as long as possible. The dispute is about keeping or canning a longstanding shortcut, WP:PROVEIT, which has been causing problems for a long, long time. It is invoked by most editors correctly, i.e., to get an editor to PROVE that a claim is verifiable by reliable sources. Some editors, however, invoke the shortcut in an effort to get an editor to PROVE that a claim itself is TRUE, which, of course, is not what WP:V is all about. I am still a novice in the arbitration process, so any help you can give me would be appreciated.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Paine Elsworth is developing a case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT when it comes to this shortcut... so I agree that he could use some help. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And from my perspective, the same can be said of this editor, who refuses to acknowledge hard evidence, nor produce any in favor of the shortcut. I tell you guys, I am sincerely trying to stick to this issue on that WP:V Talk page, however since the beginning, involved editors have not only refused to listen, there has been a good deal of innuendo for me to give up and leave. Sorry, that's not an option for me.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you asking for, support, or for someone to close the RfC? The RfC seems to have a pretty strong consensus, and I don't think dragging it out for the full 30 days is going to change anything. -- Atama頭 22:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not ask for "support", editor Atama. All I ask is for your counsel regarding unofficial, informal mediation for a dispute on Wikipedia. I do not ask for you to impose sanctions or make judgments. There are 6 opposes, yes, however there are also three editors who agree that some improvement to the policy/shortcut is necessary. If I'm not mistaken, that doesn't even come close to a "consensus".

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think mediation is a good idea, mediation is one step in the dispute resolution process, while the RfC is another, and the RfC is still in progress. As to the RfC, not a single person has supported the removal of PROVEIT as a link to that particular portion of WP:V. I'm also having concerns with your conduct in the RfC, especially statements like, "At present, there are no valid reasons to keep this shortcut, and I have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that improvement is necessary." I'm not offering any threats, but for your own sake I very strongly suggest withdrawing from the dispute at the RfC. You're a good editor with a history of positive contributions but that discussion is heading downhill fast, and in the interest of avoiding drama it might be best for you to move on. This is just friendly advice from someone who hates seeing good people get into bad situations with good intentions. -- Atama頭 22:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your good advice, Atama, and I really do wish I could take your advice, but you seem to be missing that I'm not the one who continues to show incivility in that RfC. But besides that (what's a little incivility among good editors!) what you really seem to be missing is that there are two other editors who agree that an improvement is called for. Both editors have supported the removal of the link from the shortcut box, while keeping the WP:PROVEIT Redirect intact. This would hopefully discourage its misuse. It's a compromise that I would be willing to accept. And I have noted this on the WP:V Talk page.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• PS. Also, I am just curious, Atama, why you would think that my statement you quoted would constitute bad conduct? The only actual reason given for keeping the shortcut had to do with its longevity, its longstanding status as a shortcut. And if I'm not mistaken, longevity is no reason to hold back improvements to Wikipedia, are they? In this particular case of the WP:PROVEIT shortcut, the only thing "longstanding" meant to me was that the shortcut had been causing edit wars, incivility on Talk pages and confusion for a long, long time. And yes, I thought at the time that I had proved my case, that improvement is necessary. There were two other editors who agreed with my assessment. So how does my statement constitute bad conduct on my part?

It seems like "declaring a win" in a quixotic manner, and more than a bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Even those two people who give you a little bit of support by saying that perhaps something can be improved, you've latched onto like a man grasping at straws, despite the fact that even those people ultimately disagree with you. You've also declared that you've made your case that improvements are necessary, ignoring the overwhelming consensus against you. This strikes me as rather tendentious, and is disruptive. However, you've also seemed to come around at the end of the discussion (one might say, come to your senses), so it's not really something I'm that worried about. But the discussion was troubling before that point. As a rather glaring example of such disruption, when Jclemens asked you to drop the stick, your response was a thanks for the support. I'm not sure if that was just an attempt to moderate your response in polite terms, but it really just looks like you're pretending that he said the opposite of what he actually said. That kind of behavior makes it almost impossible to have any kind of a productive discussion. If I tell you that I disagree with you, and you thank me for agreeing with you, how can we even communicate? It's much worse than ignoring someone. That is why I had concerns, and I'll be very happy when that RfC concludes. -- Atama頭 21:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)