This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tarl N.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I do not know how to properly report someone to administrators, and I will try and likely fail to report this abuse, but I ask you to look again at the talk section on William Barr. One of the editors is using every edit they make to criticize Donald Trump in some way, which is not what Wikipedia is about.Princetoniac (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Princetoniac: Generally, discuss it on the article talk page. There will be a variety of people following the discussion, probably participating. Be aware, that differences of opinion are not vandalism, so be very careful of using that label. Mis-use can get you sanctioned. The question is whether any statement has reliable sources (see WP:RS) backing it up or not. If it does, it should stay, if it does not, it should be removed. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
You are correct, of course that using the term vandalism about the William Barr article was improper. I should have said "recentism", which other editors have noted as well. Another editor had a similar tussle (if that is the right word) as mine and handled it better. Thank you.Princetoniac (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Response to Horseshoe Changes
I did properly explain my changes, and they were in unity with the consensus on this page that it is incorrect to misrepresent two scholarly opinions as the entirety of academia. I wonder if you have actually read my comment? WonderfulFriend (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion is between 3+ users including me, and one user who does not address the individual concerns me and the others bring up, and simply reverses them. Correct me if I’m wrong, but does deliberate misrepresentation not damage the credibility of Wikipedia, as well as misguide potential readers?
Again, the user cited two independent scholars among tens of thousands of political science PhDs and claimed them to represent the entire academic concensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonderfulFriend (talk • contribs) 04:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Notification
There is every requirement for this edit to stand, and your preachments, condescension and unwillingness to engage in dialog toward resolution place your deportment under the same suspicions you have adduced to mine. In addition to the lack of notability for many of the Penthouse contributors you've included in Publication history -- as well as the egregious lack of citations for them, there appear to be errors and omissions throughout the entire Wikipedia article. Your unwarranted removal of the edit I have made does certainly represent vandalism based upon published guidelines.
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
AustynconradtCJ (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
You have *NOT* initiated a discussion at WP:DRN. You have made nine edits since creating that account. One of them to User:Suomonev/David Alexander (Author), which suggests a relationship between your current account and that one, four of them reverted at Penthouse (magazine), two of them to this talk page (including your claim you had started a discussion at WP:DRN, and two at your own talk page.
Some musings on the burn-down-the-wiki crisis going on. If you don't know what I'm talking about, take a day or so to read WP:FRAMBAN, or accept my TL;DR version below:
Fram had been a long-time, prolific editor.
Fram had served as an admin since 2007, as one of the more active administrators around.
Fram at times can be rather a jerk. This has been a repeated bone of contention, driving a couple of recall motions and appeals to ARBCOM.
Part of being a jerk has included relentless criticism of WMF's missteps, in harsher terms than might be considered professional.
Out of the blue, WMFOffice removed Fram's admin rights and blocked him from en.wiki for a year. The proximate trigger appears to have been posting "Fuck ArbCom" during a bitch session on the ArbCom noticeboard (see previous bullet point about professionalism).
Jan Eissfeldt, manager for Trust & Safety within WMF, explained that the decision had been made to ban Fram for harassment. No further details to be provided. Ever. Because privacy.
From the above, we had a brief wheel war between prominent admins and WMFOffice, with WMF then removing admin privileges of said prominent admins (By the way, use of the WMFOffice account is a new tactic. WMF officials previously acted under their own names, they now have decided they need anonymity). WMF has simply stonewalled on this for weeks, which makes it look like there isn't any justification for the ban. One theory has been that it's simple payback for Fram's criticism of past WMF missteps (which included the manager mentioned above, on a previous project). Another theory has been that it's a raw power-grab; WMF wants to run things professionally, and not have volunteers doing administration. Either way, they have stonewalled not only the admins asking for justification, but also ARBCOM and Jimbo. It appears that just scheduling a simple chat takes a month. The CEO of WMF, who signed off on Fram's ban, claims to have been unaware of the consternation caused by those actions until weeks afterwards (including a period during which 19 prominent admins and bureaucrats resigned). That comes across as either clueless or a deliberate statement that administration of en.wiki is beneath her notice.
My take on this is that the theory of a power-grab is probably accurate. WMF probably wants to professionalize management of the wikis, and certainly examples of inept handling of administrative manners are legion (indeed, Fram's "Fuck ArbCom" comment originated in such problems). Picking Fram as an initial target was an excellent choice, Fram's behaviour would have long resulted in management action from any normal organization (discussions of increasing intensity with immediate supervisor, followed by discussions with both supervisor and HR, followed by being forced into various types of HR training, of increasing lengths and unpleasantness). Where WMF failed was in providing a good excuse. With Fram's edit history, finding a smoking gun should have been trivial — even the one they did pick could have been positioned as such with some work. But they didn't, instead stonewalled and insisted nobody had the authority to question them. That doesn't work well with volunteers.
My further take on this is that if WMF wants to take over all the tasks of admins, they're welcome to them. They may not understand the Sisyphean nature of the task they are undertaking. But they're going to have to pay those new admins, and their managers — because you don't get blind obedience from volunteers. It's likely that the attitudes of paid employee admins towards volunteer wikieditors will be different, with a good chance that en.wiki becomes less congenial to said wikieditors. But WMF may have come to the conclusion that en.wiki is large enough that it no longer needs expansion, only maintenance. And fewer volunteer wikieditors will actually be easier to manage. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Attic Salt: Sorry, but my tolerance for Wikidrama seems to have waned this year. Even before the recent 5th round on ANI we were involved in (with a surprise decisive outcome), I was already fed up by the FRAMBAN drama, so I'm backing away. I expect to still use Wikipedia (these days it's impossible not to do so), but my role in its maintenance is probably over. Maybe a year from now, things will look different. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 02:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
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.
Officially, do you think that the greatest QB of all time is debatable? I just want to know. Why didn't we just keep the previous iteration again? Please remind me. Mk8mlyb (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: I think as the years have gone by, it's become less debatable. However, the debate was never about calling him the GOAT in Wikipedia's voice; that's straight out. The statement he is considered by many sports analysts to be the greatest quarterback of all time was what we argued about. Bagumba found numerous references to exactly that effect - that many sports analysts considered him that. At that point, there was nothing left to argue over. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: Okay, Brady has done a lot to cement his really strong case as the GOAT, but overall, do you think that the debate is still open and fun to have--as in today? Because I think it absolutely is. You'll still find analysts arguing that Montana is the GOAT, and that's after Brady won Super Bowl 51. And don't many of them consider Montana to be the GOAT? Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with all this, but after seeing how excessively and massively overhyped Brady has gotten and how way too many people are saying "the debate is over" (hint: it's not), I've gotten really disillusioned with the people behind all this and maybe even Brady himself. It's like they think Brady is a god, which he is in a metaphoric way, but from what the "debate is over" people are saying, you'd think Brady is literally the messiah. It's sad, because I actually love the guy--he's one of my favorite quarterbacks ever and it's a joy seeing him tear apart defenses the way he does. No, scratch that, he's a straight-up hero in every sense of the word, both on the field and off the field. But whatever, I'm not here to gush over Brady. I'm here because I'm concerned that the hype train has finally gone too far. Sorry if I sound angry, but it's just not right. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: The only debate was over what the article stated: "... considered by many sports analysts...". Now that's settled, indeed sources do document many sports analysts consider him to be the GOAT, I have little if any interest in further debate on the subject. Besides, I've pretty much given up on Wiki. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: Pretty much. This summer I was disgusted at how much effort went into each of Arianewiki1 and WP:FRAMBAN dramas, both cases which basically required someone in authority to tell an editor "stop being a butthead". Routine in most businesses, with a progression of actions to take if the message doesn't get through. But because Wikipedia has essentially no authority lines (Wikimedia's T&S attempted power grab notwithstanding), each took months of flaming by a huge number of people to eventually resolve. It's a setup almost designed to cause burnout, and because my efforts were primarily in the arena of attempting to limit vandalism, I decided to get out before I suffered that burnout.
I still use Wikipedia, and my talk page is still set up to send me email when someone leaves me a message. But I no longer have daily time set aside to do vandalism patrol - maybe once a week I take a quick glance and only take action when things are really blatant.Tarl N. (discuss) 04:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
NE 2001/2 debate
Hi Tarl,
I was just curious if 2001 should he counted because to win the Super Bowl, one must make the playoffs.
@EPBeatles: The issue is "only team since 2002 to fail to qualify for the playoffs", means that all teams since the one specified have reached the playoffs. Saying "since 2001" would be incorrect, because a team after 2001 did not qualify. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 01:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Super Bowl XLVI Edit Removal
Hi, Tarl. My edit from Super Bowl XLVI was removed. I was trying to say the best play from that game. Is it okay if the best play in the game is added? Thanks. NewYorkGiantsarethebest (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@NewYorkGiantsarethebest: No. There were two specific problems with your edit. It was uncited. Please read WP:CITE and WP:RS. It also used loaded language, see WP:PUFFERY and WP:NPOV. But the basic problem is that it was simply your opinion and as such did not have a place in the article. If there was something specific about the play that should be documented (it was the longest, the first, the one which changed the game, the one which ...), that would need to be called out and documented with reliable sources (again, read WP:RS. Simply saying "an amazing pass" is not encyclopedic and self-evidently simply a personal opinion which is not relevant ten years down the road.
Either way, before you add anything further of this nature, take it to the article's talk page first. Describe what you are going to add and why, so you can get feedback on why it's likely to get reverted. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 17:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: Oh, trust me, I heard. In the days leading up to it, it was increasingly clear he wasn't coming back to the Patriots. It's not clear whether he'll ever play for the Bucs, though - with the COVID-19 crisis, we might entirely miss the 2020 season. Although that gets us into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. Either way, he's got his $50 million guaranteed, which I presume includes a clause saying he gets paid even if no games are ever held. Now, I'm just hoping he doesn't get sick, or only gets a mild case of it, since he's right in the epicenter in New York. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 16:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Only person who knows for sure is Tom, and he ain't talking. My theory is he asked for team changes whch Belichick nixed; things like mortgaging the team's future seasons to get one more good season now. Either way, now that he's in Tampa, he gets a fresh team with a good receiver corps. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: FYI, ping and yo are synonyms. Also, the only time Wikipedia interprets them (and issues a notification) is when it translates the quadruple tilde into a signature. So if you modify something about the notification after the signature has been translated, it has no effect. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 17:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe I just left a talkback to your previous comment on Wikipedia, but I apologize if I did it incorrectly as I am new to using this platform. Please let me know if you did not receive. Thanks, Erica. EricaS97 (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey, did you watch Avengers: Endgame? I did, and it was awesome! I know it's been a while since it was released, but man, that movie is a pure spectacle. In fact, it's become one of my favorite movies ever. I still can't get over it! It's a wonder the MCU has become an icon of pop culture. You agree? Mk8mlyb (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
"April 2020
Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jean Monnet, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Don't make this edit again. You already acknowledge you understand what an edit war is, by your edit comment, doing it again will get you blocked. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices."
You obviously haven't read anything.
I commented edits AND opened a new subject in talk page.
I'm counter-reverting you, refrain from posing as an admin when you clearly haven't worked a single minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.131.39.197 (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
So that people understand who exactly you are, you qualified a person who created the 999th federation in history a "visionary", based on a quotation from a US newspaper who has the same political leanings.
Do you even know what an encyclopaedia is?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.131.39.197 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
You are engaged in edit warring. You have not achieved consensus in removing the term you dislike. Revert again, your IP address (both of them) will be blocked. Removing the reference in particular is improper. Stop. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
You are a lunatic
You continue to revert my edit, saying "Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Bill Ayers."
I literally used a source that is cited on the Weather Underground page on this site to back up my edit. Your insane, irrational bias makes you think that an organization that detonated numerous bombs doesn't qualify as a domestic terrorist organization. The FBI classified them as such. THE SOURCE I USED WAS FBI.GOV. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? This is not an opinion. You are, as the title says, a ******* lunatic denying objective facts because of political extremism.
You are incompetent at this and have zero business having any say in anything. I am looking into a way to report this disgusting, manipulative BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bswastek (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
An editor has started a report concerning you on AN/I
Hello T. In your post at the ANI you talk about an IP. If that is a response to something in my post I typed OP referring to Bswastek as they are the "original poster" of the thread. I just wanted to clear up any confusion. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk
@MarnetteD: No, my reference to the IP was about BMK speculating that the two sections on my talk page (one by an IP, one by Bswastek) might be the same author. I'm pretty sure they are unrelated, but I do seem to have stepped into a swamp of aggressive editors unhappy with me. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Drsruli: Sorry, which first rule? I don't know of any rule that makes sense for you to change comments that are themselves the subject of discussion. And please sign your talk page edits. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
First, it's not the subject of the discussion. Secondly, there is still sufficient context for any subsequent reader. Drsruli (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Drsruli: Yes, it was the subject of discussion. That was exactly why you changed your comments, because someone took offense. You can strike out the comments you think might have been offensive, but leaving subsequent comments referring to something no longer visible is simply disruptive because subsequent readers have no clue what later comments are referring to.
We all make mistakes, and the way we acknowledge them is to own them; we can strike them out and rephrase appropriately, or simply apologize after the fact. But trying to change a conversation after it has occurred is not acceptable. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Drsruli: You seem to have a problem with policies on Wikipedia. This isn't "any other forum", this is Wikipedia. And no other forum allows you to change comments that someone else already has responded to - making them look ridiculous by complaining about something you subsequently remove. The talk page discussions are intended as an archive of discussion - they can be removed, but editing comments made either by someone else, or by your own self after they are already part of the conversation, makes the conversation unreadable.
Your repeated disregard of long-established policies on Wikipedia, asserting your right do as you please, will result in administrator action against you. You need to start reading the Wikipedia polices as they are pointed out to you, and start conforming. Starting with WP:TALK, how to behave on talk pages. All beginners are giving a fair amount of leeway as policies are pointed out to them, but that belief in good faith starts to fade after multiple separate editors point out the same policy to you. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
This is the first instance of any brush with this particular policy. I have redacted without any notice at all until now. Drsruli (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
You were informed on that page before you couldn't do that, and the proceeded to undo the edit where someone fixed it for you. Then you undid mine. That means this wasn't from lack of knowledge. I will re-instate that edit now. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
(And on reddit, for example, you'll see instances all over, of people redacting comments replied to; it's entirely permitted. Every forum that has any capacity to edit or delete one's own remarks, makes no distinction, and in cases far more impactful than the case in point.) I maintain that this redaction is permissible and correct. Drsruli (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Twitter, would be another good example. Trump posts a video with a white supremacist in it. Somebody points it out. He deletes it. Does Twitter force him to put it back up? Drsruli (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Again, this isn't reddit. THis is Wikipedia. And while I am unfamiliar with reddit, I doubt your practices would be considered acceptable. "The sky is Red", followed by someone complaining "No it isn't", followed by your changing the text to say "The sky is Blue!", leaving the other editor's comments looking nonsensical.
His comments actually don't appear to be nonsensical. (And of course, if the matter has been repaired, and this bothers him, then he can delete his own comment, as well.) (Which is what would normally happen on reddit, for example, in my experience. At least, that's what **I** do. I'm a gentleman.) Drsruli (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Drsruli: Again, this is Wikipedia. What you like to do to yourself is your problem, what you do on Wikipedia is subject to Wikipedia policies. It is NOT acceptable to say "well, I fixed my comments, someone else can go and fix their conversation to match what they should have said should I have said what I should have said in the first place" (yes, that was intentionally absurd). It is not for you to make requirements that everyone else accommodate your peculiarities. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Facebook is another popular forum, where one is free to delete or edit one's own comments without regard. Again, in cases where the issue is far more impactful than the current one. Try it for yourself. One owns one's own words, in general. The only forum that I can think of, that's even close, currently, is google meet, hangouts, where the ability to delete anything is non-existent, completely. (Which is a common point of criticism for that format.) Drsruli (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
AND, on all of the other forums that I have mentioned, one does NOT have the ability to check history, if one truly wishes to find the context. On wikipedia, nothing is ever really gone - the previous versions are always available. So it's always possible for any confused party to subsequently check the history and see what was there. It's actually impossible to render subsequent comments truly unintelligible. Drsruli (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Drsruli: Again, you see to misunderstand. Or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This isn't "anywhere else". This is Wikipedia.
On your own talk page, you can delete entire conversations. What you cannot do is selectively delete stuff to make a conversation nonsensical. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I shouldn't be forced to preserve a mistake. In this case, it actually borders on hate-speech. Trump can remove his video; I can adjust my words (which really don't change the point that I was making in the comment at all, merely editing my choice of words). I maintain that this redaction is permissible and correct. Drsruli (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
We all make mistakes. We own them by acknowledging them and flagging them as mistakes. The fact that you made the mistake doesn't go away, and making conversations nonsensical by changing past comments is simply unacceptable at Wikipedia. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The conversation wasn't nonsensical, in any event, even after my edit. And if it was, the history is always available. If I have the ability to edit my words, then this is a proper use of that ability. Drsruli (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I've had enough of this. I've pointed out the policy, I've explained it in detail, I've explained why. I'm done with this conversation, if you insist of being disruptive, we can get administrators involved. Indeed, if you think my actions deserve review, you can complain about me - but I suggest you read wp:boomerang before you do that. In the meantime, stop arguing with me and read the policies you've been pointed to. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
**REMOVING HARMFUL POSTS and PROHIBITED MATERIAL** One is permitted to remove even somebody else's harmful post; how much more so, one's own? Drsruli (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Reason for my added 'Axis powers' on Atrack at Pearl Harbour
Hi there.
The, reason I added the Axis Powers fact, Japan --the attacker-- being a member of, to contrast with what has been being said that the US --the victim-- was still neutral at the time.Thhings6sz (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
He measured 5'9 3/4 at the NFL combine. He is not even 5'10, so he can not possibly be listed at 6'1. The Patriots list him at this height but they do this because of the fact that it is the game of football and teams tend to over list players. His measurements can be verified on various websites. This Page used to have his measured combine height listed correctly as 5'9 3/4 despite having his overall height listing at 6'1. Now, someone has even gone as far as changing his combine height. Fix it
Please list the source for the Official NFL Combine measurement. Saying that he measured 6'1 at the scouting combine is beyond false and that is vandalism. cite your sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.83.234 (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
Greetings: It is not original research. I added an additional spelling to the others in the lede, none of which have citations. The spelling I added is actually present in the text with a footnote (#18). Kdammers (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I removed Joseph P. Kennedy mention of <Timeline of World War II (1940)> because he ends his term as American ambassador in UK on 22 October, 1940 (as appear in his own article) so, for me, it hasn't sense put that he was asked to resign of its office in december (almost 2 moths later of his resignation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlejandroR1990 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@AlejandroR1990: I'm not sure where you get that his "term" ended on 22 October. Ambassador appointments don't have "terms". They are at the pleasure of the president, and Kennedy was explicitly recalled after his remarks: When the White House read his quotes it became clear that Kennedy was completely out of step with Roosevelt's policies. Kennedy was recalled from his diplomatic duties and returned to the United States.Tarl N. (discuss) 21:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Retirement
For what it's worth, while I've essentially ceased activities on wikipedia, I do monitor my talk page. If one of my past actions needs attention, leave a message here and I'll find it. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Patriots fans
I think I recall you telling me that you're a Patriots fan. Well, what kind of Patriots fan are you? Because I'm not sure the Patriots even HAD many fans before Drew Bledsoe and Tom Brady. They were awful and on the verge of moving, yet no one seems to remember they existed before the 1990s. Mk8mlyb (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: I've followed them since the mid 80's with Steve Grogan, back when they were known as the patsies. I followed when Kiam bought out the Sullivan brothers, had the the Lisa Olson incident, followed by the truly awful 1990 season. I thought it was good when he sold them to Orthwein, but less so when it became clear Orthwein wanted to move them to St. Louis. I was happy to see Orthwein's awful season paid back with Drew Bledsoe, but was even happier when Kraft bought him out after it was clear he wasn't going to be allowed to move the team. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Well then, I'm glad to see you're enjoying the Patriots win and establish themselves as one of the best dynasties the league has ever seen. But if there's one reason I'm not happy about the Patriots winning, it's what happened to Drew Bledsoe. Until Tom Brady, Drew Bledsoe was unarguably the best quarterback the Patriots had ever had, even taking them to the Super Bowl in 1996, and he was one of the best QBs of the 1990s, period. And how did they repay him when he got injured and replaced by Brady? They threw him out and traded him to the Bills after the season ended because Brady was the guy they wanted at QB. And we all know what happened after that: the Patriots become a dynasty and tear up the league and Bledsoe gets benched for Tony Romo until he retires in 2006. Basically, Brady and Belicheck and the Patriots achieved all their success of five Super Bowls and counting at Bledsoe's expense, their star QB and the best one they'd had up until that magical '01 season, and they proceeded to thank him for all he'd sacrificed and given for the franchise...by cutting him loose and coldly throwing him out the door without a thought. I honestly feel bad for the poor guy. You sure you don't? Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: Bledsoe wasn't thrown out. After Bledsoe's chest injury, through the rest of that initial season with Brady, it became obvious that Brady had taken his job. Every season, every QB has to fight to keep his job against the other QBs on the team. That happens every team, every year, for every position. It was blatantly obvious to Bledsoe and everyone else on the team that next season he wasn't going to win his job back. He could have stayed, and ended up as backup QB for a year or two. He preferred to move on to somewhere he'd be the starting QB. The team gave him control over where to be traded - including within the same division, which is normally out of the question. So he asked for the trade to the Bills. This was all carried out in the full glare of daily headlines in the Boston Globe's sports pages.
Do I feel for him? Sure. And what's more, he was a class act about it, which makes me like him even more. But in football, you don't own a job - you fight for it every year, every game. Eventually, Father Time or Uncle Luck catches up to you. Bledsoe experienced the fall all star quarterbacks eventually get - he was no longer the best QB the team had. It happens to all football players - eventually someone else arrives who is faster, stronger, or simply smarter. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Textures of the exoplanets by NASA/JPL-Caltech/MIT
Discussion moved to other editor's talk page
The vast majority of the textures, appearances and dimensions of the NASA's artistic representations are merely speculative and appear in a large number of Wikipedia articles, such as this image or here, here, here. The artist-speculative texture of Proxima Cen B by NASA is here (same texture that you told me is "actively misleading"). If the parameter of the mass radius is 1.3 times you can fix it. Download Celestia, download the NASA oficial image, fix the .ssc file with the new mass radius parameter and take screenshot. --Piquito veloz (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The picture you reference actively states "artist's conception", which the image you added did not. The image you added provides no useful information, and indeed provides erroneous information (a claim that proxima b would be the same size as earth), and as such is a net detriment to the article. I notice you have added a bunch of similar images to other articles - they seem to all be screen captures from Celestia. That's a copyright violation, see WP:COPYVIO, and all those images will need to be deleted. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Celestia is GNU/GPL license and is compatible with CC-BY-SA and the NASA/JPL-Caltech/MIT images are public domain. Fix the parameter of radius in Celestia scc file is easy, i can fix and upload new image with new radius.--Piquito veloz (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Artist conception of Proxima Centauri b by NASA.1 The size of Proxima Centauri b is around 1.3 times the size of the Earth.2
New upload with fixed radius since ssc file inside of Celestia with a new radio of 8291.6 km. The problem is because to the user that has created >4000 exoplanets to Celestia, sometimes he makes mistakes because is a very hard work there. --Piquito veloz (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
You told me: "First, there is no reason to import them from Celestia" The big reason to use Celestia is the same reason you are using Wikipedia: Wikipedia and Celestia have free licenses and very compatible, anyone can expand or improve content. For example, if someone questioned that the mean size of Proxima is 1.3 times than Earth can improve ssc file and there is the big reason Celestia is the best choice. --Piquito veloz (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
You told me: "Third, if those images are indeed available, you must import them from the original source".. of course, I can put each source of the textures in my pics, not problem there. I am sure that most of textures, models and database are public domain because the chief source of textures is the NASA and ESA or default textures of developers under GNU license. --Piquito veloz (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
You told me: "If you don't, I'll raise a complaint at the copyright violation noticeboard" Here is a collaborative environment and does not work through enforcement coercion, just ask for sources and I will be happy to provide you the sources. Sources will appear in the info of the images in Commons.--Piquito veloz (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
As you're already aware of, I'm not a big fan of the whole "Tom Brady is the GOAT" thing, especially when it pertains to how to articulate his status (or lack thereof) of such on his page. To be honest, I know a lot of us talked plenty about this and we seemed to agree to keep Brady's page as it is, I just can't seem to get over my objections to it and I still think it should be changed to say he is only one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history. But before I get to that, I have to ask you this: as a Patriots fan, do you think the Falcons choked Super Bowl 51 and should have won that game hands down, or did the Patriots truly rally to win? Even more importantly, how did Matt Ryan perform? And most importantly, is he responsible for the Falcons choking the game? Basically, what did you think of Super Bowl 51? Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: Heh. When a massive swing in score occurs, it's usually not the fault of the losing quarterback, so Ryan shouldn't shoulder the blame. All that a quarterback can affect is his own team's score, not the score that got run up against him. Successful drives (particularly a sequence of successful drives) are always a mixture of good offense and poor defense (by the other team). It could be purely one or purely the other, but that's pretty rare. In the case of Super Bowl LI, it could have been a combination of exhaustion on the part of the Falcons defense, poor defense calls, good choices on the offense, extraordinary luck on several plays, and most importantly, not giving up.
I was at a Superbowl party for that game, and most people gave up on the patriots at 28-3. Several guests left the party to go home, disappointed. It would have surprised nobody if the Patriots had thrown in the towel at that point - but they didn't. How much of that was due to Brady, Belichick, or simply good team dynamics, is not really knowable by us in the peanut gallery.
In summary, rallying from down 28-3 in the 3rd quarter to win the game really was the Patriots winning it, not the Falcons losing it. The Falcons defense could have been better, but you can always say that about any team losing a game. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 00:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Rubin
Hello! Can you help me understand why you consider this to be "outright vandalism"? The articles states that some sources describe Rubin as a conservative while he describes himself as a classical liberal. Either way, I don't think there is consensus to label his movement as conservatism or classical liberalism so I fail to see how that edit was "outright vandalism." Kindly, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: I was checking past edits by this IP which has been making questionable edits for months. Given that it changed from a wikilinked description of conservatism (which goes into the intricacies of what that means), and the article describes him as conservative, changing the infobox to "classical liberalism" (with no explanation or linking to any intricacies), that's clearly intended to replace "conservative" with "liberal" without the intricacy of distinguishing between 19th century liberalism with today's. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, no. If the IP meant to change it from conservatism to (modern-day) liberalism then they would have just wrote "liberalism" (or, maybe, "progressivism"). But that's not what happened. The IP clearly wrote "classical liberalism" because that's the term used in the article and by some sources (e.g). Not linking something or failure to leave a proper edit summary is not akin to "outright vandalism." In fact, such practices are covered by WP:NOTVANDALISM. I sometimes forget to leave edit summaries and I don't always include links, but I am certainly not a vandal. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: And Dr. Pournelle was an 11th Century liberal, but using that term in an infobox would have been equally misleading. If that edit had been the only edit made by that IP, I would have chalked it up to a mistake. However, their talk page is replete with other editors undoing damage by that editor, and I found that edit only because it was part of a pattern. I conclude WP:NOTHERE. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
That might be so, but even NOTHERE editors can make GF edits. I'm not trying to bust your chops or anything, just please only label edits "outright vandalism" if the edit is obvious vandalism. Otherwise, it comes off a bit bite-y and we don't want to scare aware a potential constructive editor. Does that seem fair? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Point taken. In my defense, this was an editor making a point of elevating hot-button terms to prominence and eliminating associated explanations. A spot check showed it had been going on for months. IMHO, not a potentially constructive editor. But I'll take your request under advisement and tone down accusatory edit comments. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
As you will have noticed I have added the references that you requested.
The literature I have cited now is peer reviewed and published. So there have been some changes in what we can describe as a species and the level of evidence that is needed.
While many may disagree with the process, and outcome, until there is a refutation in the published peer reviewed literature the name should stand, as should the species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenjohnmaxwell (talk • contribs) 03:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I have left comments on your talk page and on the article's talk page. Discuss the issue there, before you re-instate your changes for a 3rd time. See WP:3RR before you get yourself blocked. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello Tarl
this is not a fossil. I have added some discussion in the talk section and have added my chnages.
The idea that there is a problem with the author of anew species providing information on it is tricky. There are other authors who have writen on this using other names incorrectly, my paper corrects the taxonomy.
You should have no problem with the taxonomy
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenjohnmaxwell (talk • contribs) 05:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@Stephenjohnmaxwell: Please carry out further discussion on the article's talk page. I note you decided to re-instate your changes yet again, and a different editor reverted you. You are now at WP:3RR which is a red line that can be used to block your account. I looked at the paper, and frankly, came to the conclusion that it was an April Fool's joke. I'm not an expert in taxonomy, maybe it is serious, but that's beyond the point. Right now, you need to discuss your changes on the article's talk page and achieve a consensus of editors over there. There are a lot of barriers you'll have to overcome, of which WP:PROMO is going to rank pretty high. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Hi! Thanks for your message. I will follow up with them. Can you please provide specifics about the inappropriate language that was used, so that I can be detailed in my conversation? I tried to see but couldn't find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsusmann (talk • contribs) 17:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Holy crap, did you hear the news? Tom Brady retired! It's over. It's the end of an era. What do you feel about that? I'm honestly pretty sad. He's one of the best QBs to ever play the game, and one of the best players ever He was one of my childhood heroes growing up, and seeing him go, it really feels like the end of my childhood. Mk8mlyb (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: Heh. Oh, yeah, I heard. I live in the Boston media market, I heard within milliseconds of the first rumor hitting. It was breaking news on all stations. His retirement will affect a few other elite players, who might choose to retire in a different year, so as to not have their own potential HOF nominations compete with Brady's in 2027.
