Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:47, 4 October 2022

Feel free to push my button: Help!

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

AN close review

You know, an attempt to undo the damage through a compromise edit is not generally regarded as a smoking gun of something or other on this site. But aside from the weakness of your attack on me personally, you should know that a close appeal is about --- the close and not about any of the cast of characters involved. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This AN is a new low for me. Seeing comments saying that editors with certain religious beliefs are not suitable to edit in certain topic areas gain traction instead of being immediately repudiated is disheartening. I would also like to see some justification by FormalDude for violating BRD to reinstate SPECIFICO’s bad edit - it appears to be a DS trap that I walked face first into. The close at ANEW also misrepresents the timing of this sordid ordeal but that mess needs to just pass into the archives. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I was also thinking it was a new low, and it feels to me like the latest in a string of new lows. What's really mind boggling is that the article isn't even about religion. I'm pretty sure everyone involved in the laptop controversy is a Christian, so I just don't see how religious views could even hypothetically result in any relevant bias. It would kind of make sense if it was an RFC about school prayer or something like that, but this is just nuts. Levivich (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a funny point. The Biden family is notably Catholic, so perhaps Protestant editors should not edit there. Let's leave that topic to the Pastafarians. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I dunno, Pastafarians advocate for teaching their religion in schools--clearly, right-wing. Levivich (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Sources: Almost no one disputes the authenticity of the laptop at this point. The RFC: sources are clear about the ownership of the laptop. The closer: those referring to RS have the stronger argument. AN: Wow look at this partisan, Christian, inexperienced closer. The closer: Let’s let the close review play out. The starter of the close review: You attacked me. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Jokes aside, I wrote up a more detailed review of the yes votes, which I ultimately decided not to post at AN. But I will post it here because there are basically only 3 yes votes that carry any weight.

1. Yes 1: Only uses a RS to say the initial claim was by a blind Trump supporter, and implies that since this is the only connection to Biden, it must not be real. Refers to no policy or RS regarding the wording.
   
2. Yes 2: (The OP here) says the initial reporting used was an undocumented allegation (which doesn't make sense since the initial allegation was the documentation), then attacks the RFC as premature and suggests the opener of the RFC made a mistake in starting it. Refers to no policy or RS.
   
3. Yes 3: Seems to say that the RS calling it "Hunter Biden's laptop" is simply journalistic laziness. Refers to a RS that calls describes it "Hunter Biden and his laptop" and later "allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden," but refers to no policy. This !vote refers to sources and is solid.
   
4. Yes 4: Says it's an allegation and it is still somewhat dicey. Refers to no policy or RS.
   
5. Yes 5: Simply refers to "comments above." Refers to no policy or RS.
   
6. Yes 6: Conflates the contents of the laptop with the ownership of the laptop. Refers to no policy or RS.
   
7. Yes 7: Refers to veracity of the laptop passing from a shopkeeper to Giuliani to the Trump admin. Refers to no policy or RS.
   
8. Yes 8: Refers to the sources listed, and that the majority are still not convinced it was Biden's. This !vote is solid on policy grounds, but miscounts the sources.
   
9. Yes 9: Similar to #4, says it remains an allegation. Refers to no policy or RS.
   
10. Yes 10: Says there is still much ambiguity, and to wait. Refers to no policy or RS.
    
11. Yes 11: Similar to #8, refers to the source list and says that since sources still use alleged so should we. This !vote is solid.
    

So of the 11 "yes" !votes, only 3 refer to sources, and none refer to any policy. Consequently, of the "no" !votes, 10 explicitly refer to the sources provided, and 2 more imply sources. 12 vs 3 is typically a no brainer. On this basis, the close is firmly on solid ground. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I dare say it doesn't look like there will be consensus to overturn (and I guess that's why the closer doesn't seem too worried). Levivich (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Finding data on users?

How did you find out how long a user has been here and how many edits they've made, if the user doesn't report it themselves on their userpage? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi PhotogenicScientist, I use a user script User:Enterprisey/userinfo that displays certain basic info about users at the top of their user page. There are other similar scripts listed at WP:USL. Levivich (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Holy moly... almost got lost in a scripting rabbit hole there... that is a LOT of background that I'm going to decidedly ignore for the moment, to preserve my sanity

But I got that script working! Thanks for pointing that out. And to the users who wrote such great documentation for it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Besides that, you should be able to just hover over a username and it should tell you basic stuff. Sir Joseph 14:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

SJ, is that a default function or a script? I have so many scripts installed I don't remember anymore what's built in. Levivich (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have exactly one script installed now, and I can't see that, so I can confirm it's not a default function PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Idk if you've checked out Preferences/Gadgets, but there's a bunch of useful stuff there, too. I believe the "Navigation Popups" gadget (which I have turned on) is what gives you the nifty mouse-over previews. Between the gadgets and scripts (and also, Preferences/Beta features), it gets hard to keep track of what does what, but they do make the user interface easier to use. Levivich (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Photo, if you want some script recommendations, take a look at my .js file: User:Levivich/common.js, those are the ones I use, they certainly make my wiki-life much easier. Levivich (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I don't have time right now to dig in, but I've saved that for future reference PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

closure of ANI thread

why you deleted ANI notice that i posted, plz explainGidua (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)