Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Notifications

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives.

I was unable to verify that this source which you cited here supports the related article content. I suspect that the content at the cited CNN article has changed since you cited it. Could you please cite a better source? Thanks.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtmitchell The live updates things is weird. Scroll down on the page until you get to updates that are at least 10 hours old and Ctrl+F for the title I put in the citation.

I searched for sources that mentioned the Potomac collision, 1000 feet, and avoiding ground collisions at once, and the only ones were CNN and a forum post... Aaron Liu (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird indeed. The article is fast-developing and I won't try to pursue this further for now I may get back to it and try to inmrove the assertion and/or cited support at some later point. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helo How to I edit --Hanshaa (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ey! Looks like someone left a bunch of wonderful links on your talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're confused about this edit, it means that the sources in question are highly unlikely to gain "reliable" status due to their reputation. If you have issues with this, you're free to discuss it at my talk page or over here. ToThAc (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

did i create my novel series by august --Antoniogarcia930 (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i dunno Aaron Liu (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron, I've been watching some pages that I think may involve a conflicted editor. I just installed Twinkle, and looking at their edits, some (about half) are marked "vandalism" in red. Is this something Twinkle does automatically? And what exactly does it mean, please? Any help greatly appreciated, as always. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a button to rollback with an edit summary referencing vandalism. I like to use WP:UV instead for its way better UI and revert options (and WP:RW if you need some more advanced features). Aaron Liu (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know. I think I'll try that one instead. Twinkle looks a bit tricky. Thanks! ArthurTheGardener (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron Liu. I wonder if you wouldn't mind having a look at an edit request I recently posted for a page you've edited before, here: Talk:Glenn Dubin#Updates to Early life, Career and Philanthropy. The edits are straightforward, so I hope you don’t mind implementing. Thanks so much. AM for Dubin (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron, is there a Wiki tool I can use that gives the stats on the areas I've edited in, please? I'm sure there is somewhere, but I've looked everywhere and I can't find it. Would you mind pointing it out, when you have a minute, please? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully xtools:ec/en.wikipedia.org/ArthurTheGardener is what you're looking for. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is great, Aaron. thank you. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Polygnotus/Scripts/XC.js makes it easy to identify non-extended confirmed users, and being extended confirmed is a requirement for editing PIA articles. What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is awkward, but User:Bugghost/Scripts/UserRoleIndicator does this plus configurably labeling other rights as well, with a method that has less potential of doxxing the WMF's servers. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not awkward, that is a good thing! Software is iterative, especially gaming. I'll steal some ideas. Polygnotus (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ooh gaming i luv gaming Aaron Liu (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Top 3 please. Polygnotus (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure, but maybe Return of the Obra Dinn, pre-Miku Fall Guys, and Undertale. There's definitely a lot of better games in my library I haven't gotten around to yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello --Dwaynehurley (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can i creat a page for my company ? --Dwaynehurley (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that this isn't an editing question, but I've run into some trouble with a territorial editor who first told me not to edit the pages they'd been working on, and then when I made comments on the article's Talk page, initiated a COI complaint and a sock enquiry against me. I could use some advice! (See my Talk page [1] and [2] [3] for details.) I can understand that the editor might be frustrated that some of their edits were removed, but a) I wasn't the one who removed them and b) the walls of text and the barrage of entirely speculative personal comments about me are beginning to feel like harassment. Am I overreacting? Any thoughts you can offer would be welcome. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, that's a lot of stuff. Firstly, I don't think you need to worry about the SPI. Interpreting meatpuppetry to forbid you would be quite a stretch. Secondly, this is a grey area for COI-or-not, but I personally I don't think COI should apply. The policy's purpose is to prevent a relationship from unintentionally distorting facts, and I've spent 8 minutes rewriting this specific sentence already so I'll just stop explaining this point here. Finally, this all seems rather unfortunate and I think nobody wanted to do anything wrong. It looks like Coals thought you were accusing him of upsetting a man who has...passed, if I may use that word, and Coals seems to have taken great affrontery at the idea. Though Coals phrased this in a rather obtuse way, this wasn't really helped by you claiming they're here to "plan flags or mark territory". In hindsight, you could have said things along the lines of "I don't know what you mean" and reiterated your absense of a COI, but hey, that's hindsight. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aaron. I really appreciate your thoughts. I sincerely hope it doesn't happen again, but I'll bear what you said in mind if there's a next time.ArthurTheGardener (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron, Sorry to bother you on this topic again, but as an impartial editor, would you mind having a look at the situation on Talk:Stabbing of Salman Rushdie, please? I'm trying to help establish a peaceful consensus, but I'm puzzled by the editor's response to my suggestion, and I'm not sure how (if at all) to react to it. Any thoughts would be very welcome. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you "follow" the editor from their contribution history? That is indeed Hounding, though I agree that their response was impolitic as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No:I arrived there via a linked page, and saw their contributions. They still seem to feel I have a COI, but they agreed to close the discussion some time ago. Is it best for me to ignore them from now on, and leave the OR concerns to someone else? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. If so, you could say "sorry, I didn't notice it was you" and that the article happened to be within your editing area or something like that.
2. Yeah, you might want to avoid them. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure if that approach would be welcome, as this article was one of the two interrelated articles I expressed concern about some time ago, but thank you for your advice, as always. I’ll avoid them if I can. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir,

Good Day...

It was a pleasure to discuss with you, I have to create an article for my working organization about my company and our Managing Director. Could you guide me on that it must be very much appreciable.

Please reply to my concerns, and we will discuss them further.

Thanks Balaji --ICPLBal (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. In short, please don't do that. I doubt whether this company meets our criteria for inclusion. Furthermore, everything mentioned in Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing applies here: No one would gain any advantage from having a Wikipedia article. To document your company, you'll find much more leeway and efficacy in putting the article on your company's website. (@Dwaynehurley: This applies to your question as well.) Aaron Liu (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted your edit in regards to Jacobin. I've changed it back to Green, as your own close found no consensus for additoinal considerations. Also I changed a couple of instances where you wrote WP:NEWSOPINION to WP:RSOPINION as that is the correct shortcut, although perhaps a new shortcut is in order. TarnishedPath^talk 23:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the shortcut. I swear I searched a shortcut that resulted in a valid target and previewed...
But as you can see at WP:MREL, a no consensus close is a yellow close; in fact, the table parameter is "s-nc" (source-no consensus). This is longstanding practice, as RSP is just a summarizer for the outcomes of past discussions, and a no-consensus outcome should be summarized as such. You can read the last time this was debated at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 10#No consensus versus mixed consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can see from that archived RSP talk discussion that it was one (maybe two) editor's view that if community consensus prevoiusly to a RFC discussion was that a source was GREL, that a subsequent discussion where there is no consensus shouldn't result in a downgrade. Although it doesn't seem as though that argument was accepted by a number of other editors.

Perhaps it would be best if I request that you reconsider your close, as taking some of the arguments from that archived discussion, it isn't clear to me that, in the Jacobin RFC, those !voting against GREL adequately rebutted the arguments of those who !voted GREL. Too me that would suggest consensus for GREL irrespective of any head count. TarnishedPath^talk 23:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion, the participants were split nearly half-and-half between downgrading or not. As I said in the close, the argument to be weighed was "GRel has misled editors into thinking Jacobin is usually citable" vs. "GRel is fine and the emphasized standard considerations are enough" . As the idea that GRel should always apply—and is sufficient signaling in this situation—does not seem to have any backing of strong precedent, I don't think the latter argument was anywhere near 2x stronger than the former to claim consensus for GRel—especially as the !tally leaned towards the former—and I'd like to see why you think it is. I think a better path forward would be starting the RfC I suggested on whether all sources like Reason and Jacobin should be labeled GRel or additional care. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"GRel has misled editors into thinking Jacobin is usually citable" is not a convincing argument for downgrading and I would have downweighted that argument. It's an unconvincing argument that could be leveled against any source and more importantly it doesn't even tangently reference WP:PAG. I could argue that 'GREL has mislead edtiors into thinking that source x is alwasy reliable' in any discussion and it would be a poor argument. Editors are expected to have some basic understanding of the core WP policy WP:RS and when a usgae of a source (regardless of who RSP records coummunity consensus) is reliable or not.

The argument that standard considerations alwasy apply, WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL, and that a source containing WP:BIAS and a lot of opinion is not a basis for determining GUNREL, is a more convincing argument and one which actually references policies even if only tangently. Arguments from that position should have been weighted higher than the former arguments.

The fact that participants were split should be not a major concern when there is one weaker argument and another stronger which at least references WP:PAG. TarnishedPath^talk 02:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an average Wikipedian would agree with your >2x assessment of the strength ratio between the arguments. GRel, MRel, and GUnRel (which was not even mentioned in my close, by the way) are just markers for RSP, an information page; there is no PaG stating that "sources that can be satisfied by standard considerations should be marked GRel" nor that "MRel means editors should pay closer attention to whether an article is opinion". And the downgrade argument was "Jacobin's opinion pieces are far more likely to be misused as reliable straight news", not your characterization that underestimates both this misuse's alleged volume and the unreliability's magnitude (the distance from reliability of opinion pieces is far greater than that of the usual occasional GRel unreliabilities).

If most Wikipedians would indeed weigh these arguments as you did, then the broad RfC I mentioned would not be difficult. Such an RfC would bridge the gap in strong precedent I mentioned earlier. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GRel, MRel, and GUnRel (which was not even mentioned in my close, by the way) are just markers for RSP, an information page; there is no PaG stating that "sources that can be satisfied by standard considerations should be marked GRel" nor that "MRel means editors should pay closer attention to whether an article is opinion".

You are entirely correct here. I don't like the source and have removed it many times. However my concern is that editors are going to use the yellow marking at RSP as reason to start yanking content/sources with little regards to the content. My concern is that would be occuring when the arguments leading to it being yellow at RSP were weak. If the only substative argument the downgrade side had was "GRel has misled editors into thinking Jacobin is usually citable" then they didn't have much at all regardless of the split. TarnishedPath^talk 03:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I simply don't think an average Wikipedian would find it any weaker than the GRel argument. And there's probably a reason your concern hasn't gained favor in Jacobin's RfCs. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a marker on an information page but it is also a straight description of reliability for which there is a very well established guideline. It is implicit in the description and has been the practice that sources that can be satisfied by standard considerations should be marked GRel and that MRel means something more is necessary than standard considerations.

The close is de facto saying (or at the least creating confusion) that it is a valid argument that sources are less reliable if they carry "predominantly opinion" which has no real policy basis and there are many more analogues in this regard. Also I don't think "care because it's predominantly opinion" is a correct description of the comments of most "option 2" !votes, a more substantial section was simply that it was a biased source.

But fundamentally, it is also not correct to characterise it as "downgrade or not", it was a straight question "is this reliable or not" and the responses were to that question, which is natural as that is how any non-RSN RfC is. On RSN, it's the same, the only difference is after the closer closes the RfC on that question, they adjust it into the RSP markers format with the real functional summary of the consensus being the comment in RSP. The fundamental problem here is really this. The close here is extrapolating a consensus to a presumed question of "downgrade and not" and not closing the actual question of reliability. The marker is then updated with the consensus unchanged. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did assess the notability of Jacobin's non-RSEDITORIAL content. On review of my close statement, I found: 1. I confused RSEDITORIAL with RSOPINION 2. the way I expressed my assessment was one mental hoop away from being explicit (although I did explicitly add it to the RSP summary). I've amended my close to hopefully make that clearer. I do not see any sizable group of !voters who !voted based on bias issues (an argument I already discarded), nor why it's wrong to characterize the RfC as "downgrade or not" when there is a status quo.

However, you did make me notice an error I made while !tallying that duplicated some !voters who expressed multiple options that they liked. With that accounted for (plus the downvoting of !votes based on the single incident I had already downweighted) the sizable lean I saw while closing does not exist anymore. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take your amendments are primarily stating that in other words, Jacobin’s non-WP:RSEDITORIAL content is generally reliable and I find no consensus for the reliability of Jacobin as a whole on WP:RSP. These statements seem to contradict. If a source's non-WP:RSEDITORIAL content is WP:GREL then the source as a whole is WP:GREL. WP:RSOPINION and RSEDITORIAL are always considerations regardless of a source being GREL, MREL or GUNREL.

As a comparison, see the entry on The Economist at WP:RSP for example which reads:

Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. Distinctively, its news articles appear without bylines and are written in editorial voice. Within these articles, Wikipedia editors should use their judgement to discern factual content – which can be generally relied upon – from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources. Its pseudonymous commentary columns and other opinion pieces should also be handled according to this guideline.

By precedent, stating that a source has a lot of opinion is not a policy based reason for stating that additional considerations apply. Additional considerations should only apply if there are concerns which aren't already addressed by WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL.

Going back to what I've said a few times above, a headcount is entirely meaningless when there is one obviously superior argument which references policy and guidelines, and which goes substantially unrebutted, and another argument which is along the lines of 'I think people are behaving in this way because it is green'. TarnishedPath^talk 02:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not obviously superior that sources whose non-RSEDITORIAL content is GRel yet are very predominantly RSEDITORIAL should be marked GRel, especially with the sway this argument found among the RSN participants. A broader RfC would clear up whether it is superior in a much more assured fashion.
Only about 4 mentioned the Economist versus 1 who offered an counterargument against the analogy; that counterargument was not engaged with, and I don't think I should downweight the counterargument that much simply because the arguer did not bludgeon the process. I do agree that it's a shame this line of reasoning did not find much dialogue. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That counterargument, put against me I believe, wasn't engaged with because it was weak. They argued that The Economist was different because it has sections which clearly have opinion and others which clearly have news. As I quoted from RSP above that position is not community consensus and therefore I should have had no need to counter it. TarnishedPath^talk 04:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you see this counterargument. I do not see anyone arguing that Economist has delineated sections. I am referring to whereas Economist is mostly reporting and some opinion, both Reason and Jacobin are mostly opinion and some reporting. As evident in the rest of that comment, a few from the option 2 side also cited precedent in magazines such as Spectator, which is MRel as listed at WP:SPECTATOR. The Economist argument is no stronger than this argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bottomline your contention is that the argument 'Jacobin having a green rating confuses editors about its reliability' is of near equal weight to the argument that 'we already have policies which cover editorials and opinion, and that is not a reason to judge the reliability of a source'? TarnishedPath^talk 04:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You agreed that there is no PaG stating that "sources that can be satisfied by standard considerations should be marked GRel", i.e. there is no strong precedent that general reliability in non-RSEDITORIAL content equals general reliability as a whole/as a source. There was consensus for the former but not for the latter. The Option 1 argument is only much stronger for the former. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "sources whose non-RSEDITORIAL content is GRel, yet are predominantly RSEDITORIAL should be marked GRel" wasn't the question of the RfC for arguments to be for or against it. Though it has been the practice generally (even if not written down), one can think that it's not obvious and a broader RfC would indeed clear it up. But that is besides the point, why is the close itself determining a "no consensus" for it?

One doesn't presume a different extrapolated question to an RfC question. You may think it's the question and some participants may as well take it as that but others won't. The "additionally considerations/option 2" on the RSN RfCs is also very broadly interpreted as different participants interpret it in different ways and not necessarily as a direct analog of the RSP marker (even if derived from it as the wording between the marker and the RfC option is different, if you read the previous close this exact problem was mentioned).

These things aren't something that is quantifiable, which is why the consensus of RfCs are strictly about the straight question (which is visible to everyone) and never for things not explicitly asked by the RfC question (which may be in the minds of some, may not be in the minds of other, another thing in the minds of some others, etc). It is also why the consensus is determined on the basis of what participants say with respect to the straight question and not what !option they pick (a "delete" !vote on AfD with a keep argument will be read as keep). That's the problem with characterising the RfC to be a question of "downgrade or not on RSP", that wasn't the question. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of note is also that, as TarnishedPath says, the two lines appear to contradict each other and that's because the RSP markers are a straight description of reliability i.e, WP:RS doesn't say sources which are predominantly opinion are less reliable and a normal reading of the MRel RSP marker instead of GRel RSP marker for this kind of source would say it is. This also likely makes the question of the broader RfC for RSP moot (requiring a policy level change for it to be anything else; also why the practice has been the way it is as I mentioned above) though it would be helpful to have it written down at this point and maybe even a RfC for it even if perfunctory. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, there are other listings in RSP, for sources that are GREL, that contain wording about the source having BIAS or lots of opinion and which state that editors should reference the appropriate guidelines in such situations. TarnishedPath^talk 02:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only analogue with comparable levels of packaging is Reason. Looking at its last discussion, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 352#Reason.com seems like it should have a strong consensus for "Additional considerations apply"; in fact, many participants in that discussion assumed the RfC would be closed as MRel as well. Now I'm wondering why Reason is still green. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the 2021 Jacobin RfC was closed as MRel for quite a while, but it was overturned and then reclosed in mid-2022. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#Jacobin, RfC closing review seemed to have near-consensus that the reclose was bad, but did not challenge it at AN. There's also a subsection on how to handle such sources at RSP with no clear outcome (at a glance). You could review that subsection when brainstorming for the broader RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for volunteering to take the time to read through and close the discussion. The newly updated WP:RS/P mentions that non-editorial content continues to be generally reliable as a source of fact, though biased. Would it then make sense to split Jacobin into two entries, one for editorial content and one for non editorial content? I would be satisfied with that, though the problem with this would be that additional considerations always apply to editorial content, so it may seem unnecessary (though if everyone agreed that additional considerations can still apply to biased grel sources, or that biased sources can be grel, then there should've been a grel consensus). It's true that there was no obvious consensus in that discussion, which defaults to yellow, but it wasn't a 50/50 green vs red !votes, it was a 50/50 green vs yellow !votes, and there wasn't a consensus for yellow either. There's of course no such thing as an in-between yellow-green category, so splitting it into two RS/P entries might be the best solution to clarify that its non opinion content is still generally reliable as a source of factually accurate information. Just a suggestion though.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we label it as editorial vs non-editorial, that might defeat the rationale behind the option 2 !votes a bit. How about splitting it into "Jacobin" vs "Jacobin (non-editorial content)"?

On "no consensus", I feel like that's a design flaw within RSP. There's been a few murmurs to differentiate no consensus from additional considerations by moving the latter to some other color like blue, but IIRC no discussion beyond the equivalent of a workshop was ever done. (And I don't have the time to start one.) For now, no consensus means yellow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ফাহিন হাসান --Fahin Hasan (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Storrs, Connecticut—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Newsjunkiect (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]