Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:44, 13 January 2016

Earliest discussions are found at /Archive0. For later discussions see /Archive 1 and following archives.

Monty Hall problem mediation

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Monty Hall problem has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Rick Block (talk)

Request for Amendment to Arbitration

Hello, Martin Hogbin. This is to inform you that there is a request for amendement regarding an arbitration case that you have commented on.Likebox (talk) 05:03, 8

?oygul's contributions

These diffs represent the sum total of ?oygul's contributions to WP apart from subjects directly related to the arguments concerning Tree shaping.

Martin Hogbin (talk)

Superluminal Aether

Your hrash words indicate that you need to acquire more intellect. Read the peer-reviewed publication. Sir-Restriction (talk)

BoB sig

Hi Martin, your signatures on this series of comments seem to have gone astray. In my view a significance section is a good idea, but I think we can go into much more detail than the paragraph you proposed, and can show sources which contest the significance. As in the Luftwaffe view that it was all part of the air war against England, which included the Blitz. . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the sigs. I am happy to include all views on the significance based on relaible sources. Which sources do you think contest the significance? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeking WP:Environment members

Hi Martin, I'm looking for editors to collaborate on making some improvements to Efficient energy use, and I noticed you were a member of WP:CCTF. I have a paid COI regarding the article, which has been declared. Would you be interested in helping me out?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

When consensus is very obvious, anyone can close a RfC

See: WP:ANRFC. Nonetheless, I'm going to request a closure there. Banedon (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus according to WP policy is not so obvious but I support your suggestion so long as the request is completely neutral. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

My proposed wording, 'Requested, uninvolved, disinterested admin to close this RfC' was entirely neutral; yours was not, as it asked for consensus to be assessed and made no mention of WP policy. I have asked for a uninvolved, disinterested admin. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Martin, are you absolutely sure you need an admin to close this? I am a NAC that has closed over 200 RFC's. AlbinoFerret 20:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. I am not sure that I need an admin but I do need someone who understands the core principles of WP:RS and WP:V. After a discussion with one editor I am beginning to wonder if people are misunderstanding what I want to say, because to me it should not be particularly controversial. It might therefore be better to leave the discussion open for a while longer in the hopes that we can reach an (unexpected) agreement.

Would you be willing to help ensure that we are, in fact, all arguing about the same thing and not talking to cross purposes? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi, in your post to the "billion vs million" debate, you selected "option 1", but your comments indicate that you actually appear to support "option 2". In case there is a typo there, would you mind reviewing your post and confirming/clarifying your choice? Thanks. - WOLFchild 02:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Final warning

If you deliberately disrupt Misplaced Pages as you did here, I will request your topic ban from the subject. You know perfectly well that your edit was unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not make ridiculous threats to me. The change to the article that was originally made by another user was made in good faith and seemed perfectly reasonable to me yet it was immediately reverted with a rather threatening edit comment. I reverted the revert because to use the definition of veganism used by the The Vegan Society would seem logical and neutral. I cannot see that using their definition represents undue weight any more than using a definition synthesised from a number of sources selected by editors here. I edited once and have not since edit warred. The basic principle of Misplaced Pages is that of cooperative editing, which can be done by any editor acting in good faith. My edit was a good faith attempt to support an improvement to the article. No article is ever finally settled and improvements must always be considered posible.

Now, perhaps you could tell us why you think your version of the article is better so that we can discuss improvement in a civil manner. I have copied this discussion to the article talk page wher discussion of improvements should take place. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In all honesty, I have rarely seen you improve an article. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That does not sound much like civil discussion of why you regard the wording used in the GA version of this article as giving undue weight to one view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please start a new discussion on the article talk page about your viewpoint. You know this, yet over and over again you refuse to do the right thing. Do not copy over my user talk warning again. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to second this. I can provide numerous examples of your disruptive, tendentious behavior on vegetarian, environmental, and "green" topics generally. AGF is not a suicide pact. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin: I'm sorry to agree that, while we were all working on Carnism, I usually shared your position about what changes were needed—but thought your comments often impeded constructive collaboration. It's crucial not to give the impression of having a WP:Battleground mindset. FourViolas (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

None of you has to agree with me but I would appreciate it if you would make your points by discussion of the article content on the article talk pages rather than by atacking me personally or making absurd and offensive threats here. I started by supporting a change made in good faith by another editor to one article and by suggesting some changes to another on its talk page. If you think I am wrong tell me why on the article talk pages. I look forward to discusing article content with you all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You say you showed up out of the blue to revert to a version edited by a sleeper account which spent the last three years silent and unused, only to show up out of the blue and edit the article on Veganism. I wouldn't think this is such a big deal except that being unusually prone to pattern recognition, I seem to recall several sleeper or new accounts showing up out of the blue on many other articles and topics only to be followed by you reverting to their version. I hope I'm misremembering the past and this is not true. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a thinly veiled accusation of some form of misconduct by me. If you think I have done something wrong then take it to the proper forum. I do not really care what you do or do not remember but I would like you to stick to discussion of content rather than atacking editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I think you should not indulge Martin and Zippy268's efforts at provocation for the time being. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again, please talk about content, not editors.

You may find it hard to believe but there are people who have different opinions from you. It seems that there are now several editors who disagree with the synthesis that we currently have in the lead of veganism. Discussing possible change is not provocation but how WP works. Please remember, nobody owns the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Gaslighting. Discussion of the putative issues appears at Talk:Veganism and is hardly relevant to the present subject. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet another attack. I am not twisting anything I just do not see the world from a vegan perspective. Neither do most other people. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So you are also alleging bias, just to be clear. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am saying that the article uses vegan language, which is wrong. There are vegan sources that say 'animals have commodity status'. Most people would do not use this language to describe the way that humans treat animals. We should use terminology used by the majority of people not the terminology of the subjects of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, this isn't just about veganism; there have been similar issues at other articles. It is our responsibility to educate ourselves about issues if we want to write about them on Misplaced Pages. Please see WP:COMPETENCE. To be active at an article where one has strong views but no knowledge, then to park oneself there for months or even years, isn't respectful of other people's time. SarahSV 20:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this 'is' about veganism, or are you just criticising me as a person.

I would hope that you would know that Misplaced Pages is not written by self-appointed subject experts but by anyone who wants to produce an encyclopedia. An important part of editing here is knowing what an encyclopedia article looks like and the diferrence between that and a promotional or POV pushing article. Simply by using vegan rhetoric in the lead the article pushes a POV.

I do not 'park myself' anywhere I edit articles and discuss the contents with other editors. Please can we stick to discussing article content. This should be based on what reliable sources actually say and not on editors' personal synthesis of selected primary sources. The question we are addressing is, 'What is a vegan?'. To answer that question we do not use our personal opinions based on the beliefs of a selected vegan minority but look for quality NPOV sources that actually say, 'A vegan is...'.

You will note that recently two other editors have suggested that we use the wording of a major vegan organisation which does make a clear statement saying, 'Veganism is...'. This statement was used in the lead of the article when it was a GA; which it is no longer. If you think that is not a good general statement of what veganism is the find a better one, do not just make one up. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I posted on your talk page because this isn't about that article. There were similar problems at BP, and others have mentioned other articles. The problem is the combination of strong views and not much information. That's common, but we have a responsibility to educate ourselves.

There is some good advice in Misplaced Pages:Maintaining a friendly space. It encourages us to ask ourselves: "Have I made sure to educate myself before asking others to explain things to me?" If we would all do that, it would make discussion more fruitful. SarahSV 21:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The only 'problem' on the BP article was a content dispute involving many editors of different opinions. I am not sure on what basis you presume to judge my knowledge or my need for education; it seems to be just that I disagree with you. I do not want or need advice from you about how to edit Misplaced Pages. Can we now please get back to discussion article content on the article talk page and leave the insults out; that would make things a lot more friendly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Cure for cancer!

We absolutely cannot have, '... proposing a vegan diet as a cure for cancer and asthma'. Editors here may well know that a vegan diet does not cure asthma and cancer but there are vulneralble people out there who are taken in by medical frauds such as this and who, as a result, do not try to get proper treatment and may possibly die as a result.

It is pretty obvious that the diet was not proposed literally as a bogus cure but we must make clear that it is just that. I will try alternative wording. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, these edits of yours are an example of the issue described in the section above. The sentence describes a view from 1815. It's perfectly clear what is meant, but to be even clearer I've rewritten the sentence and added an academic source. SarahSV 00:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I put this here by mistake. Can we please keep discussion of veganism to the relevant talk page. I have replied there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, this isn't about veganism, because it happens elsewhere too. At some point people are going to start collecting diffs with a view to asking that you be topic-banned from environmental/green issues.

I understand that when people arrive at articles, they may know nothing about a topic. This is Misplaced Pages; we all do it. But the onus is on editors to educate themselves. The issue with your editing is that you expect other people to read the sources and tell you what they say and mean (and even then it seems to have no effect). Perhaps you underestimate how time-consuming it is; it just isn't reasonable to ask other people to do that work for you. Please bear in mind that we are all volunteers. SarahSV 00:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making these threats. I do not in any way expect others to do any work for me. We simply disagree on many things; that is not a reason to threaten to get me topic banned. I am not a lone tendentious editor either. At the moment several other editors have questioned the accuracy and neutrality of the Veganism article. You can easily see who they are but I can give you their names if you wish.

There are probably sufficient comments on this page alone to justify accusations of incivility, and page ownership and bullying by some editors but I do not believe that that is the best way forwards.

On several occasions you have called me ignorant and referred to a case where I objected to wording saying that 'dairy cows are kept pregnant'. I politely backed down on this point because I do not claim to be an expert on the subject and did not want to create further ill feeling. This does not mean that I was completely wrong or worthy of being called ignorant. As I understand it, the precise pregnancy scheme for dairy cows varies from place to place, culture to culture, and breed to breed. Lactation is not the only reason that cattle are made/allowed to be pregnant either. It creates new cattle and is is hardly an unnatural thing. In nature there are usually plenty of bulls fighting for the chance to mate with the cows at every opportunity.

I would be happy to continue this discussion with you if you wish, or we can just leave it if you prefer but please do not use it as an excuse for calling me names. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

How to deal with content disputes

There are ways to deal with content disputes which I am sure we all know. They are:

Assume good faith. I have no agenda other than maiking WP a reliable, verifiable, neutral, and authoritative encyclopdia. We disagree on how to do that and need to discuss it more but I can only ask you to accept that this is my only motive here. I have nothing at all against vegitarianism or veganism but WP is not a medium for promoting those views. At present, I believe that several articles on the subject are overly promotional because of the language they use, the selective way in which they use reliable sources, and the lack of criticism. My edits are aimed at resolving this problem that some other editors have spotted.

You will see a civil and productive discussion which I am currently involved with on the talk page. Let us stick to that.

Attack the content not the editor is a core WP policy. If you do not like my edits challenge what I write do not make threats or call me names.

WP:BRD I do not think any of us has stuck rigidly to BRD but we have all avoided persistent edit warring. In my latest edits I have stuck to BRD and intend to try to keep it that way. There is no requirement for anyone to discuss edits before making them or to stick to the party line in their edits. Please note that 'discuss' does not cover things like 'go away, it has all been decided' or 'stop being disruptive' or no response.

No matter how much time and effort an editor or group of editors have put into a page they do not own the page. It can always be improved and the wording or neutrality of the regular editors challenged.

An RfC is the preferred mechanism for dealing with otherwise unresolvable content disputes. It brings in thoughts from new users. We have one now, in which I have stated my case. We may have some more if we cannot resolve matters by discussion with current editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cows on a small farm in the South of England.

In the Veganism article we have, 'To obtain milk from dairy cattle, cows are made pregnant to induce lactation; they are kept pregnant and lactating for three to seven years, then slaughtered. Female calves are separated from their mothers within 24 hours of birth, and fed milk replacer to retain the cow's milk for human consumption. Male calves are slaughtered at birth, sent for veal production, or reared for beef.

I have some information from a reliable source, a husband and wife who run a small farm in the South of Englend, on how cows are kept on this farm. Of course this is not a WP:RS but I have no doubt that we could find one somewhere to support what they say. On the other hand I am not suggesting that we add this information to a WP article so I do not need a WP:RS.

Both male and female calves are not removed from their mothers but are not allowed to suckle from their mothers after 72 hour from birth however, they are kept close to their mothers for several months. They are fed cow's milk. The farm has never slaughtered male calves at birth. Sometimes male cows are avoided by using Artificial insemination with sexed semen but when this is not done the male calves are reared for rose veal. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)