User talk:WMrapids

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kent Vanderwood has been accepted[edit]

Kent Vanderwood, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Imzadi 1979  22:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey, would you possibly consider move your refreshed comment here back above the start of the relisting discussion, along with the other responses? - where it currently is, it might get missed. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Iskandar323: I tried to do this. Haven't seen this many collapsible boxes in a discussion before, so it is strange... WMrapids (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bludgeoning, personalization, and multiple faulty RFCs[edit]

Wmrapids, I have pointed out here where you made demonstrably false statements about other editors and their motivations that can only serve to derail a discussion. Your multiple-bludgeoned RFCs and personalization have come to a point of impeding progress; it would be helpful if you would allow discussion to proceed without adding reams of your own opinions, and then let a less-involved editor be the one to put up the next, hopefully better formulated, RFC which would optimally occur after ample discussion of the alternatives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A less involved editor was the one who led this last proposal after my proposal was shot down. The new move discussion was much better with less bludgeoning, but then users began to complain about the move process (it did get possibly get procedurally messy, but the discussion was still clear). It was appropriate to share my opinion on those opposing the move based on its process instead bringing forward new proposals or counterarguments. Though I don't think many other valid alternatives exist for the move, I have no problem participating and seeing what is proposed and will keep my mind open. Thanks for sharing your concerns. WMrapids (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


WMrapids, I'm finding that the amount of time needed to do simple tasks like get clarification on sources and clean up faulty citations is taking endlessly longer than it usually does in my work. If you could answer requests for information on talk without personalization it would be very helpful. Samples:

  1. I asked you three times on talk for your opinion on the Vox sources, which uses WP:NYPOST; when you answered, three days after my first query (while actively involved at the talk page), that answer included the unnecessary personalization of Please stop with making an apparent false equivalence of Vox with La Patilla (the latter reposts multiple deprecated sources in a partisan manner). Again, your behavior is seemingly badgering at this point and becoming disruptive. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia in an attempt to illustrate a point. A simple answer like "Yes, I've examined the NY Post content and am satisfied that BLP policy is not a concern here", or some such with your reasoning backing that position, would be a more collaborative approach and would have saved us all time and bandwidth, and would have avoided casting unnecessary aspersions.
  2. In the "Attack" discussion section, after NoonIcarus raised a point that is supported by sources and at least worthy of discussion, you added the unhelpful remark Time to stop splitting hairs.
  3. In the Recent edits to the lead discussion, while avoiding for multiple days answering good faith queries on talk, you replied instead with personalization: please stop with your possible badgering and sealioning behavior. I appreciate that today you did provided the quote, so that we can now move forward with a more collaborative discussion. But relative to both this discussion, and the one in item 1 here, you've not yet answered about the VICE source and others.
  4. In the Discussion of 'use of coup' sources section, I appreciate and acknowledge that you mentioned I'm trying, and wish we'd see more of that collegial tone. I also appreciate that you eventually moved your list to sandbox, where we can hopefully better process through it (as time allows) without clogging talk. But while everyone else was trying to give you constructive comments to strengthen your position in support of your preference (which your original list did not support), your response included: Should we also ignore this because it’s a guideline? It’s like a guideline matters in one instance, or it doesn’t in another. I’m really getting tired of the bludgeoning and Wikilawyering on this topic.

I also appreciate that you have lightened up on the alphabet soup; it makes your responses much more digestible. But can you see a difference in the posts I highlight above compared to:

  1. At 8:40 you asked me a question,
  2. At 8:43 I acknowledged your query and told you'd I'd get on it tomorrow (Sunday), and
  3. I did that as soon as I caught up after church.

I understand that you are feeling hurried to get the title/NPOV/"coup" situation resolved, but the approach you have taken has considerably slowed me down, relative to how much work I'm usually able to get done. The article is a complete wreck wrt sourcing and citations, and getting through them more expeditiously so we can move forward with the move discussion is a common goal; moving towards answering queries on talk without personalization would be a great help in getting to where we both want to be-- formulating the Move request. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. You personalized the response by saying "You have advocated vociferously elsewhere that we should never consider a source reliable if it reposts, aggregates or links to non-reliable sources ... How is it OK to use content sourced to the New York Post to cite BLP content? This was an attempt to prove a point about the recent reliable source noticeboard discussions regarding La Patilla. Vox and La Patilla are very different so yes, it was a false equivalency. And yes, context matters when it comes to sources.
  2. It really is splitting hairs. They are arguing that since a source doesn't explicitly say that there was a "gunfight" or such, it doesn't support describing the event as an "attack", which is original research. Along with placing in the introduction the "massacre" information, such edits are bordering the opposition's conspiracy theory POV that the event was a false flag operation.
  3. I would provide an answer and it was never good enough. That is why I raised the concern about "possible badgering and sealioning behavior" so that you would recognize that the constant demands regarding questions was becoming overwhelming. But you continued with the Vox questioning instead (see #1).
  4. It's because we have been splitting hairs in some cases (focusing on which guidelines to ignore, how to define an attack, etc.) while ignoring the bigger questions (is "coup attempt" description applicable per WP:NPOV). You yourself said that WP:NPOV is more important than any guidelines and that is why a discussion was opened on the NPOV noticeboard about whether or not the use of "coup attempt" would be appropriate for use. No matter how the article is titled, it may still be defined as a "coup attempt" in the introduction if there is an agreement on its validity.
You know that I have been receptive to your recommendations ("I also appreciate that you have lightened up on the alphabet soup") and I have slowed down my editing processes quite a bit so we don't miss anything (again, your recommendation). But with your last points, you seem to want more prompt editing, especially when it comes to answering your questions and for your own benefit when you want things done? I have the liberty of answering your questions when I want to. Maybe I could acknowledge your question in discussions, but again, not a requirement on my part.
Overall, we have a lot of similarities while editing; we both want answers and results. How we achieve this may be different for us personally, though. Thank you for reaching out to me and I'll continue to be as receptive as possible. WMrapids (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, this is a much welcome improvement, which I appreciate. You stated where you stand on the issue without repetitive bludgeoning, lecturing, or personalization. Thank you for listening.
  1. That was my third attempt to get you to respond; can you see that the discussion would have/could have/might have gone differently if you had answered the first time and I hadn't needed to press? I admit to still not being clear where you stand, and a more comprehensive answer would be to analyze the Vox source to make sure that no NYPost content is given UNDUE weight in the article; I don't know who added the source, or who has used it (I wouldn't), but that should be done at minimum, and I hope not to have to be the one to do it (I'm busy enough so far just cleaning up citations and checking sources).
  2. I agree with NoonIcarus on talk that you may be mixing up two issues, but that can be resolved on talk; we'll make better progress if you work on keeping WP:AGF intact and avoiding personalization. (See my first line in this post at how you've better done that now.) Clarifying questions always help.
  3. I continued because you didn't answer; I think you now may understand how a quote request works and hope work will be easier going forward. If someone doesn't have access to a book or paywalled source, you should just supply the necessary info from the source to back the content. That matter is still jumbled, but we can work that out on article talk.
  4. The NPOV issue of "coup" will be decided by the community when we get the RM ready, and I'll be content with whatever uninvolved participants decide. My point with this post is that we'll get there much more quickly via collaboration and straightforward answers to good faith queries.
    Guideline is very different from policy; WP:CODENAME is often overlooked; WP:RS is not often ignored. One possibility is that the RFC/RM decides that the codename is the best or only option here, and such a possibility is mentioned in that guideline, but I'd be surprised to see anyone arguing against the appropriate use of the RS guideline. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But ... in the 16:04 diff above you were doing fine, and then at 16:14 you reverted to accusations of OR and an acronym-laded policy lecture. Do you see the concern? What does your post do to advance discussion? If you'd work on your AGFometer, you might realize that I'm not posting that info as an intent to use it for synth, rather to inform others about why we might not have an update yet (basically, the ICC never moves quickly, and then chavismo stonewalled the issue for several years on top of that, but I'm not putting that in the article, and not advocating we add content without more sources). So now, I've not done a single bit of source work towards the RM in all my editing time this morning, rather tried to get the personalization on talk to stop; this is keeping us from moving forward as quickly as we'd both like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming that the operation is not an "attack" based on a user's interpretation of a source (saying that "gunfight", etc. is not present in a source) is original research, plain and simple. I'm not saying that you are attempting WP:SYNTH, just that it could go that direction with future editing and we should avoid that. You should focus on good faith too as you are now writing a novel on my talk page about my editing. I've said what needed to be said. Can we please move forward with the article now? WMrapids (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of my day is gone now, so I don't anticipate making any progress for the day on the needed work with sources; perhaps tomorrow will be a new day for trudging forward with the hard work productively!
And the "novel" belongs on your talk page, so issues don't have to continue spilling over to article talk :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]