User talk:Eggishorn/Archive/2019

I do not know why Wikipedia is censoring this information on Russo. The abuse records are well-documented, the legal documents being in the public record, and reported by media. I have looked at the edit history, and it appears that some wikipedia editors are consistently removing the abuse information despite the documentation that exists from official sources (the Chattanooga circuit courts). Russo was charged, and in the documentation that was accepted by the courts as evidence (public record docket 15-D-1488), Russo admitted to sexual and physical assault.

So why are you censoring the information? If you are not, and it is just a matter of formatting, please provide the formatting in an acceptable way so the public can have this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huashang (talk • contribs)

@Huashang:, nobody is being censored. To avoid repeating myself, I refer you to what has already been said in the Russo talk page. For why, please read WP:BLPPRIMARY. It's not that anyone wants to "censor" this, it's that we cannot publish this information here under the policies this site and its owners have adopted. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is plain as day censorship. A news site pulled from a primary source (court documents) to substantiate the claims of abuse by a spouse. You are refusing both to use the court documents AND the news site! lmfao Explain how that is not disgusting censorship. Explain how this information is supposed to get out there if one is not allowed to use neither of both the news site which drew from the primary source or the primary source itself!!??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huashang (talk • contribs)

@Huashang:, it is apparent that you are neither reading the policy links that have been provided nor the explanations of those policies nor understand the meaning of the word "censorship". To address these in reverse order:

• While the internet often means "censorship" as a catch-all invective against every restriction on the speaker's desire to say whatever they want, that is not, in fact, what it means. In U.S. law (the law this website operates under) censorship means "prevented by government action from speaking" This privately owned website is under no obligation to allow all possible speech its users may wish to express. It explicitly does not allow that, as the Terms of Use you agreed to follow when you first posted to this site make clear. This information is plainly not being censored or you wouldn't have known about it in the first place, correct?
• The editors (myself obviously included) removing this information have done so in accordance with established policies. These policies require removal of all potentially defamatory material in articles about living people. We are trying neither to protect any individual not inflict pain and suffering on anyone. We are trying to protect this site itself. See the policy on Biographies of Living People.
• These policies prohibit the use of arrest records and court documents as sources for this class of articles. See the policy on the use of primary documents in BLP articles.
• These policies also prohibit the use of sources that are not of high quality. See the policy on use of Reliable Sources.
• The only media outlets to repeat these allegations all repeat or refer to the article published in the Post Millenial, which multiple experienced editors and administrators have judged is not a reliable source. See this discussion for more information on why.

All that taken together explains why many editors have removed these allegations. Please also note that warning in a blue box on your talk page. It says that this article is under high scrutiny and has to stringent comply with all applicable policies, including those I reference above. Failure to do so may lead to escalating restriction or removal of posting privileges for any editor.

Also, in the future please sign your posts on talk pages such as this. You can easily do so by typing four tilde characters in a row (~~~~).

I hope you take a moment to read the above and the provided links. It will help you understand what has been happening with this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is censorship by Wikipedia. Russo's page is incredibly poorly constructed, filled with poorly-cited praise and fluff. It doesn't even note her first book was Portal 24, published under the name Meredith Stroud with Alloy. It is deliberate misinformation for the purposes of supporting whatever constructed fabrications by Flatiron her current publishing house has deemed desirable.

It is not a commitment to truth, it is a commitment to nonsense.

You referred me to the talk page. Other Wikipedia mods -- Upvoted massively -- noted that The Post Millennial article was fully sourced and cited entirely based on the court documents, and not prohibited automatically as a source. The documents the article published by the Post Millennial were based on were a primary source -- A primary source validated by the court system. Lawyers and judges accepted this information. It was then replicated by TPM. But it is not reliable enough for Wikipedia? That is a ridiculous excuse.

The Post Millennial is also cited by the Media Bias Fact Check as being MOSTLY FACTUAL. This is a HIGHER RATING than the same site gives Buzzfeed, which Wikipedia accepts as a source. So that is ideologically motivated in and of itself. Explain that. Huashang (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Huashang:, you are obviously not reading anything except to dispute. This is not Reddit, no-one "upvotes" anything, for example. I have no obligation to provide you what you demand. I have patiently explained in great detail what I did and why, and that's where my obligations end. You are in no way required to accept my explanations but you will certainly face those difficulties I mentioned it you attempt to ignore site policies. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Eggishorn: Is there a reason you approved the anonymous edit [1] on the Rian Johnson page? I don't want to get in an edit war, but this edit is poorly sourced by someone with an ax to grind against the director. I don't want to roll it back if you had a valid reason for approving it. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Nemov:, I approved the edit because it met the core content criteria. It was (despite whatever personal feelings may be operating) neutral, it was verifiable, it was not original research, and it was sourced to reliable sources. This is normal information to be included in a film industry person's biography and I see no reason to exclude it. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Eggishorn:Awesome thanks! I've pinged the user on talk. I'll roll it back since the article sourced doesn't actually included any data to back the claim. This particular subject has been the subject of a great deal of vandalism. This is why the page is protected. - Nemov (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Nemov:, I'm slightly perplexed here. That does not appear to correlate with what I said. In fact I said it was sourced to reliable sources. I suggest reverting may fall into the WP:EW you initially said you were trying to avoid. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Eggishorn:I didn't roll it back. Just updated the part about audience reaction which isn't neutral. It makes the claim "audiences hated it." The citation is is basically an op-ed that doesn't include any data. - Nemov (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Nemov:, I see what you were saying now. I've accepted the newest revisions you made. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Eggishorn: Thanks for your help. - Nemov (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You closed RfC: Header text (i.e. changing header of WP:RSN) saying there is a "rough consensus in favor". I acknowledge that, as you say, "there are more editors in favor", but perhaps you can show that it's normal to regard 8 to 6 as consensus rather than no consensus? You say "opposing views are mostly couched in terms of convenience and preference of regular RSN readers", which I don't see, perhaps you can indicate what phrases we opposers used that led you to this conclusion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Peter Gulutzan:, thank you for asking this question. Standards for non-administrators making requested closes are based on the standards established for administrators closing deletion discussions. These define how judging rough consensus should be done. As the Closing Discussions page makes clear absolute numbers of editors on one side or another of an RfC are much less important than strength of arguments. If you look through AfD closes of certain (especially controversial or externally-canvassed) pages, for example, it is not uncommon to find these discussions closed in favor of a result that had the fewer arguments. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett for one such recent example. In this case, you and one other editor made the only strong, well-reasoned, and policy-based arguments in opposition. The remaining arguments in opposition were either more about the broader issues of deprecation of sources or reliability of source discussions. They did not specifically address the offered text or the desirability of its inclusion. I did not discard these opinions completely, as they did not clearly ...contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious but they did carry less strength than the arguments in favor. This was, therefore, a rough consensus in favor of the text offered. If you want a better sense of how I judge consensus in closing requested discussions, I maintain a log of previous closes. I hope this explains my reasoning to your satisfaction. Please don't hesitate to ask any further questions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for replying. We are not going to agree but I see that you know your job. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Peter Gulutzan:, I apologize that it's taken me a short while to respond to your most recent comment and I thank you for the understanding. In the event that you wish to pursue the matter further, you have a few options:

• Attempt to change the consensus as it now stands. You should probably wait some time, however, before attempting to restart discussion on the talk page. Generally at minimum 30 days (the standard length of an RfC) is expected to pass before a new RfC on the same subject is created.
• Solicit outside opinions. I will suggest that you should be a neutral as possible when doing this or you may be accused of forum shopping.
• Seek input or possible reversion from an uninvolved administrator. In my experience, most administrators will expect a clear statement on how you think the close does not adequately summarize the discussion. I obviously think it does, but good faith disagreements on this are certainly possible.
• Challenge my close. I am obviously less inclined to support this option but it is one you have and I would be remiss to not inform you of its availability. The Administrator's Noticeboard is the proper place to challenge non-admins RfC closes. As in the previous option, a clear statement as to how the close failed to evaluate the discussion is necessary.
• Move on to another task. I want to make it clear that I don't think you've done anything wrong in this case or that you are somehow over-involved or otherwise behaving badly. I have no complaints about your editing at all, as a matter of fact. Every editor, however, is a volunteer and we all always retain the option to choose to do something else.

I hope this does not come off as attempting to brush you off in any way but rather I would like to offer you some possible next steps since you seem to agree that my initial close was at least reasonable. Thank you again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's me who should apologize for not being clear. I do not intend to pursue this matter further and I regret that I caused you to reply again, since you had already answered my questions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I would like to thank you for the answer. I think you are the first one who actually paid attention to the discussion. I would like you to help me in understand the process, without making any polemic observation: why does other organizations (I would not say competitors), with the same characteristics and dimension are on Wikipedia without any trouble? I ask this because I need to understand how this works: i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_the_European_Sporting_Goods_Industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.223.167.193 (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and thank you or coming here for discussion. I will try to answer any questions you have about the project's sometimes Byzantine practices. If you want to ask other questions, please feel free to post them here. To address this one, you have just run into the phenomenon often referred to as: "Other stuff exists". Because this is such an enormous project staffed almost exclusively by volunteers who receive no formal on-boarding process or training, standards are a bit, well, inconsistent. That is to say, there are supposed to be standards, but co-ordinating persistent and rational interpretations is effectively impossible and even worse, some ignore them completely. In the specific case of FESI, the latter is undoubtedly the case and the article should probably be deleted. I will take a closer look in a short while. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for retrieving the source (Hughes), reading it through, and approving my edits! Much appreciated. I made a couple more changes (see the very bottom of the talk page) for consistency in the remainder of the article. It would be great if you get a chance to review. Stork19 (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Stork19:, I'll take a look at the request as soon as I can. Thanks for the kind words and happy holiday to you and yours. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

 

 

 

Hello Eggishorn: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Please don't accuse me of edit warring ~ both of you can keep your article ~mitch~ (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Mitchellhobbs:: An edit war occurs ...when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. In the context of political BLP articles, two changes do tend towards edit war-type behaviors. Two reverts in one day are enough to trigger sanctions, for example. The normal editing cycle is for a change, a revert by another editor, and then to open a discussion. By choosing to revert to your change and declare your intent to propagate that change to other articles, you have not given that cycle a chance to operate. Finally, that article is not mine nor is it any other editors. I hope this helps explain things. Have a Happy New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Kinda the reason I don't deal much with political articles ~ You too ~ regards ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

•  
•  
•  

 

Happy New Year!

 

•  
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Eggishorn,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

 

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply