User talk:Bn

If you don't mind me asking, what's the basis for your knowledge that an article about WhoWhatWhy is coming out in January and that the magazine has requested that details be held until publication? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Russ Baker and asked him about independent reliable sources. Bn (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an off-wiki connection to WhatWhenWhy beyond that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. No CoI. Bn (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this discussion. While I'll certainly take your assurance on good faith, I have to say that I independently have the same concern as User:DrFleischman based on your recent edits to Russ Baker, which included inappropriately inserting a block quote to the lead section of the article. In my experience such devotion to a subject is an indication of COI in the vast majority of cases, but am glad to encounter an exception. Coretheapple (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk the blockquote up to ineptness & carelessness. Time was short, actual responsibilities pressing. If you look at the history of my edits, they are sporadic and widely spaced in time. Other matters engage me far more than this.

This article concerns nothing about myself, family, friends, clients, employers, or my financial or other relationships, nor any other external relationship beyond having read Baker's book & some reportage on WhoWhatWhy and having heard him present his views, and more generally nothing that I have a stake in or stand to benefit from beyond the stake and benefit that we all have in being informed. Check off those points in the definition of COI, and you will see that it does not apply to me.

I do get annoyed at misrepresentation and distortion.

Have you considered that the same question about inordinate interest could be asked of you and 'Dr. Fleishmann'? Cherry-picking one negative statement out of a generally positive article, or assuming (without checking) that someone who says something positive must be a publicist, suggests a possible difficulty with NPOV on his part.

Your concerns seem to be mostly structural (in a sense), not ideologically rooted. But I have to ask what is wrong with "It’s very hard to find people who do real investigative reporting anymore, and it’s these lone guys who don’t have any ax to grind, they’re not serving any corporate agenda, they’re not serving anything but their own reporting." It's a characterization that applies to the subject person, by another professional in the field, recorded by a reporter and published in RS. Your edit comment "let" doesn't tell me anything.

My responses here may be delayed by matters that concern me more pressingly and, frankly, more seriously. For example, I've got to get a grant proposal tucked away, and I have to go over the French translation of a new paper of mine in linguistics. Bn (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind moving this comment to Talk:WhoWhatWhy#Restructured? The AfD page is not really a place for extended discussion about identifying primary vs. secondary sources, especially when I raised the issue in connection with the primary sources tag rather than in connection with deletion. Please keep your comments at AfD short so that other editors and closing admins can evaluate all of the arguments without having to troll through a long back-and-forth. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind. I'm sure editors will read both. On a completely unrelated (friendly/cautionary) note, I suggest being careful with that sense of the word "troll". I'm familiar with it, but once when I used "trolling" unambiguously in that sense I got bit by a rather prickly editor who said I was calling him a troll. Bn (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WhoWhatWhy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WhoWhatWhy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bn, on the talk page of Maurice Gross, can you specify the exact version of corresponding French article you used. You can used Template:Translated page for this purpose. Plus presently the article is missing a lead, please summarize important points of the article in a lead.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bn (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to bring to your attention that User:Dr. Fleischmann has placed a "connected contributor" template on the Russ Baker talk page stating that you have a connection to the subject of the article. I assume you've noticed it. I went to that editor's talk page and inquired why, and he made certain statements. I've pinged you on that user talk page but I wanted to be sure yous aw that discussion[1] so that you could weigh in either there or on the article talk page. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answered no at DrFleischman's talk page. No COI. Bn (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've seen the response. Given that you're functioning here as a kind of representative of the subject I think that WP:COI does appear to apply. But whether it does or not is secondary to the POV character of the article and the necessity that it be dealt with. Coretheapple (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Returning today to purge any outdated or useless material on my user page, I am leaving this exchange in place as an instructive illustration of how an ad hominem argument can be disguised by wikilawyering. The vague "functioning as a kind of representative of the subject" exceeds the COI guideline because it applies to anyone who researches biographical information about a person and seeks to represent the person accurately in a Wikipedia article about that person. The covert innuendo of personal connection or hobbyhorse commitment is belied by the fact that I forthwith dropped the matter, now more than three years ago, because I don't have time for such nonsense. These two editors, however, do seem to have a persisting interest. Bn (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of persisting interest, I notice that you've just removed the connected contributor template, which was added by User: DrFleischman a dog's age ago. I have reinstated it as I do not believe removal is warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh! Looking at the Russ Baker article occasionally with gaps of a year or two is not a persisting interest, it is an occasional and rarely recurring interest. Your instant pounce to replace it shows that it is you who have the persisting interest. It seems to be among your hobbies.

I removed the template because it was not warranted even at the time, much less so now, but primarily because when I do occasionally look at that article it appears as a slur on my character. The record on that Talk page testifies to my good faith efforts brusquely rebuffed as villainy. The record of my other edits testifies to my bona fides as a sometime Wikipedian.

The hostile policeman style that you exemplify is what drives good editors from Wikipedia. Bn (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering that I didn't notice your 2019 missive for three and a half years, I guess I'm not a very good cop. Have a nice day and stay safe out there. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Perceptual control theory were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "Add topic" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]