User talk:Eggishorn

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. You are also indirectly mentioned in this comment. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed you reverted my edit adding a pointer to the Rhode Island "Bloodless Revolution" in the disambiguation header for Glorious Revolution. I think your revert was reasonable as the term and incident are both extremely niche. Google searching does suggest the term is used in the small number of academic history/political science texts that discuss the incident (eg a Google Books search). Would appreciate your feedback - do you think creating the redirect page Bloodless Revolution (Rhode Island) would be reasonable, or is this also excessive? GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 23:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GlobeGores:, thank you for your question. The answer is dependent on understanding the reason we have redirects, disambiguations, or headnotes in the first place. We include these as aids to the reader. We need to consider whether a reader arrived at this page is likely to be looking for the page subject. If there is a reasonable chance that they would not, then one of these types of finding aids is appropriate. So the real question becomes: Is there a reasonable probability that somebody coming to our project looking for information about 1930's Rhode Island politics would instead find the Glorious Revolution? I didn't think that would be the case, which is why I removed the headnote. For the redirect, they question is similar,: Is there a reasonable probability that a reader would type "Bloodless Revolution" into our search bar instead of T.F.Green or History of Rhode Island or similar? I have my doubts about that, as well. From your links, I think that "Bloodless Revolution" would not be the starting point of a search on the topic but be instead something that would come out of research on the topic. I could be wrong, though. Maybe Rhode Island 7th grade history teachers routinely assign "Bloodless Revolution" to their students and expect them to find out it was very different from what the name implies. That's the best guidance I can give you. I hope it helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really, only preserving one sentence from the Wild Cartoon Kingdom article for the merge into Chris Gore? Shameful. TheNewMinistry (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNewMinistry: Fortunately for me, I'm shameless. YMMV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That userbox that I created about vindication has nothing to do with by upcoming three month ban if you were thinking that. That was the first time I created a userbox as well, and don't yet know how to do it right yet. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart:, thank you for the explanation. I accept that the timing was misread by others. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that when you merged Meddle Tour (as a result of the AfD), you added a bunch of unsourced content to a good article, thus violating the "factually accurate and verifiable" part of the criteria. In this instance, the point is somewhat moot as I've got some book sources here that I can use to resolve the issue, but I would just add a word of caution for future merges. Cheers! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do about repeated talk page rule violations? 27.33.119.160 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. There are no talk page violations identified in any of your complaints. Please stop trying to push your violations of the WP:CCPOL, especially the WP:BLP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that repeated talk page violations have nowhere to and hence should never be addressed? Because if not, you didn't answer the question, which is an important one in general and in whatever chance there is you're wrong in this instance. As none of the core content policies are about talk pages, and my complaints are not about anyone's biography, you don't seem to understand the problem at all. 27.33.119.160 (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this as clearly as possible: THERE ARE NO TALK PAGE VIOLATIONS in your complaints. Stop trying to complain about something that doesn't exist. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All caps assertions are not convincing. Even if you're right, where are talk page violations addressed in general? 27.33.119.160 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is peculiar that you ask my advice and then call it "unconvincing" when told it. You are wrong. Flat out. Period. However convincing you think that advice is, you are not going to get anywhere with this. Please go away. Far, far away. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please give one example of my wrongdoing? Don't remove edits. Aburh (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aburh:, see the edit summaries. They explain the reasoning. If you have further questions, please ask. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 09:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other ULFA commanders have wiki pages, and Rajen Sharma, based on his position within the rebel organisation, deserves one as well. It is self explanatory. Furthermore, that article does not present in AfD. Aburh (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Barbados PM page: Sentences have been improved in accordance with political record writing.

@Aburh:, no person is inherently notable by virtue of their position or the presence or absence of other articles. See the standards about notability and when maintenance templates can be removed. The previous version of Mia Mottley more accurately reflected the source cited and so the change was not an improvement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 09:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is GeezGod - I have blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Girth Summit:. I thought it was likely either them or NeverTry4Me. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith:, thank you for providing the notice which the thread opener was supposed to. As you can see from immediately above, this has already been handled as a vexatious report. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlueboyLINY keeps deleting discussions on talk pages, then puts personal attacks on my talk page. User:BlueboyLINY has a WP:COI. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@0mtwb9gd5wx:, what they are doing is deleting your attempt to use ersatz personal warnings on article talk pages that contain accusations and aspersion. What they are leaving on your talk page are community-approved warning templates. I don't know what you expect me to do about either. If you don't want to be warned for abusing article talk pages, then don't abuse article talk pages. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several motions have been proposed at the Jonathunder's use of admin tools in content disputes case request which you are a party to. You can view them here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

One year!

(looks like your 2021 talk didn't make it to the archive) - Prayer for Ukraine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt:, thank you very much. This is very meaningful to me and very appreciated. Best wishes to you and yours. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, I love to hear that, - still, what happened to your 2021 archive? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Primefac: here too, because they commented that it wasn't outing before I removed it.

My thought is that even though this is probably easily found through Googling, we still shouldn't be linking someone's physical address and phone number if they haven't disclosed on-wiki. Do either of you have info I don't on why this is OK? If you want to email instead, that's fine too. I know this was done in good faith, no worries on that front. if I'm overreacting, I'll undo it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam:, Ryan's user page identifies that he uses his real name and that he's a solicitor in Manchester, England so I didn't see that as outing because the information was already disclosed on-wiki. Solicitors in England are required to be registered with the Law Society, I believe, so his contact information is required to be easily-available. I won't ask for unrevdelling because it's probably better to err on the side of caution I just wanted to explain my reasoning. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, your reasoning makes sense but might just cross the fuzzy grey line. Primefac and Barkeep have both questioned my revdel; if either one of them notes my concern about the address and phone number and still don't have a problem with it, I'll undo it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't fully considered the Personally Identifiable Information contained there-in. I've gone ahead and suppressed it and will be raising it onlist for further OS feedback. A more generic statement about why he's busy, without that particular link, would be fine. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having (literally) slept on the matter, I wake up to find myself in agreement with Floq and Barkeep's most recent statement - it's one thing to easily search for his name and title on Google and get that link, but it's quite another to post it on a rather well-watched noticeboard for all to see. Primefac (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for saying this, Primefac but it must not have been a restful sleep if it caused you to reverse your earlier correct statement. Firstly, where are you all getting the idea that I googled this? I never said I did. In fact, if you read back what I said above, It should be clear that I went directly to the Law Society of England and Wales. Ryan own user page gives this information. The only thing I posted that was additional was his address. The Solicitor's Regulatory Authority makes it clear that this is information that he has to make easily available. I had no need to google it nor did I connect any information that was not already there. Before we get to the "neverthelesses" and "regardlessess", WP:OUTING states: Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information Ryan's user page already did post that information. I can't have "outed" information that was always "inned". Due to this site's history of doxxing for harassment, I understand why you, Floquenbeam, ad Barkeep49 are sensitive to this but I would not have posted what I did if I did not think it was already public. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you did anything wrong even if you had googled it. I think our OUTING policy is interpreted in silly ways a lot of the time. But I respect that the community feels otherwise in enforcing it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, Barkeep. I'm content to accept the consensus of three very experienced admins and let this drop. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[1]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a paragraph to the Tiny Banker Trojan page that scammers often use this resource to convince victim's that they are 'infected' and they then proceed to ask for payment for 'removal' or other methods of extracting cash from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.129.57 (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you contacted me about this. Similar information has been in the article for the past six years so I also don't know what you think needs to be added or expanded. All content on Wikipedia is required to comply with the Core Content Policies. If you can find reliable sources that support this assertion, please use the article's talk page to request this edit. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you so much for the help you provided me. Also, about finding me some sources. A simple "Thank you" is not enough. That's why I decided to give you that start. Please continue to be as kind and nice you are now! Fisforfenia (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In your close, you wrote that The four options can roughly be divided into two "use" (Options 1 & 3) [sic] versus two "don't use" (Options 3 & 4) outcomes. It is overwhelmingly clear by both the number and strength of arguments that the discussion participants rejected the latter two options, making this discussion more about under what condidtions use of the Skeptical Inquirer is acceptable. Your close seems to be a WP:SUPERVOTE that rejects the ability of users to make a determination as to whether the source, in its area of expertise is considered to be WP:GREL or not. You more or less sidestepped addressing any of the substantial arguments within the discussion—the extent to which the source has as editorial control or a reputation for fact-checking. WP:SOURCE (a part of WP:V, a core content policy) states that we should [b]ase articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That policy also notes that the publisher of the work can affect reliability, so I really don't see any direct contradictions with policy here. I'd kindly ask that you withdraw your close and instead allow for someone to substantially address the arguments made as to the extent that SI has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as an organization, as well as the extent to which its editorial policies reflect or fail to reflect the typical qualities of WP:SPS (which is, by the way, a policy). That there's a consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy is tautological, but it's absolutely meaningless given substantial disagreements in the discussion over how those policies ought be interpreted and applied. If there's no consensus as to this in the discussion, then it's fine to say it, but the close as written seems like a supervote against the concept of there being a difference between Option 1 and Option 2 in the standard source reliability RfC. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reject absolutely the accusation of a supervote. I spent over an hour exhaustively reading that discussion and over twenty minutes writing a detailed close to explain why it wasn't a supervote. To be accused of supervoting within seconds is disheartening. The whole point of outside uninvolved closers is because the discussion participants become two enmeshed in their positions to see that the apparent difference is often not as wide as it seems. That was the case here, I felt. As I mentioned, I wrote the close that endorsed the four options so I am quite conversant with them, thank you. I don't need to have them explained to me. I also know that the presence of statements in a discussion dos not mean they must be taken wholly without question or rejected in detail in a close. For every !voter such as yourself that challenged the reputation for fact-checking there were literally two that said it did have such a reputation. it would have been an actual supervote to do what you ask and express an opinion of which was true. So I did not. If there are disagreements as to who policies are applied in relation to this source well, so what? Those disagreement apply to literally every source ever used on this project. We use article talk pages for a reason. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhawk10:, that was far too snippy of me and I apologize. That said, I did consider whether ruling on the general reputation for fact checking was appropriate or not but did not find that the actual discussion clarified it. The only way that this would have been decidable is on a simple headcounting basis. That is, there we more editors that said it was had such a reputation than those who said it didn't Such a simple vote would violate several policies. Injecting such a determination would have been an invalid close. Between the rock and the hard place, I picked rock. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that being between a rock and a hard place in closing an RfC, it's often tempting to pick rock. But there was either a rough consensus that "yes, the SI is generally reliable within its area of expertise" or there was no such rough consensus. Regarding it would have been an actual supervote to do what you ask and express an opinion of which was true, I'm also not asking you to express a personal opinion on which is true. I'm asking you to provide a closing summary of a lengthy discussion that addresses how the various participants approached the issue and to ascertain the consensus by examining the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of the issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. I don't really see a basis for the statement that the 4-option RfC can roughly be divided into two "use" (Options 1 & 2) versus two "don't use" (Options 3 & 4) outcomes, nor does it seem to have been a point of discussion in the actual RfC. This matters in a number of areas, such as FAC that requires high-quality reliable sources as opposed to marginally reliable ones, as well as for citations that support contentious claims in biographies of living people. These are some of the exact sorts of things that were discussed in the RfC. If there's is or is not consensus as to these use cases, that's fine, but the absence of any mention thereof in the closing summary amounts to sidestepping the dispute wholly based upon arguments that participants themselves did not so much as attempt to make. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, if [t]he only way that this would have been decidable is on a simple headcounting basis, that sounds an awful lot like a "no consensus" close in light of WP:DETCON, seeing as headcounting is not how consensus is ascertained. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly liked the close, many editors voting #1 probably don't need RSP and RSNP, they are already doing exactly what Eggishorn suggested as a careful reading of their comments where some do include qualifications shows. I'd like the other close withdrawn, the one that "endorsed the four options"! That said i don't think this dismissal of the importance of fact checking as was done in the RfC is appropriate. Mhawk10, even you compared SI to our paper of record, but missed that the magazine always goes to fact checkers. I think the argument made is a misunderstanding of what is possible and practical for magazines and newspapers and online sources with less time till publication. How fact checking is done is changing, but it's not true that it is all up to the authors now everywhere. A reputation for fact-checking is still part of core policy and strictly for BLP's. Newsweek went from green to yellow here when they dumped their fact checking department. If editors should no longer look for the professional structure in evaluating such publications, that should be made as a global decision not at made at RSN. There's probably a discussion to be had, i feel a little silly mentioning The New York Times Magazine fact-checking, and that IMDB, linkedin and Wikipedia are mentioned references in that CJR article. But an RfC closure shouldn't be endorsing or accepting arguments that are in direct contravention of what is very clear right now in the core policies. fiveby(zero) 23:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eggishorn, thank you for the close, but I was hoping you could clarify whether there is a consensus against or for specific use cases, such as BLP's, medical articles, and claims outside of their area of expertise? I believe the current wording will lead to disputes as editors who support and oppose its use for a specific use case will both cite it as supporting their position. I was also hoping you could clarify whether it should be classified as generally reliable of no consensus/other considerations apply at WP:RSP? BilledMammal (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to admit I am a little confused by the close. If we were to do an RSP entry on the article would you see it as green or yellow and what kind of description would you put? From my reading it looks like a yellow with caution on BLPs etc but I would like to hear your thoughts. PackMecEng (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Closure_review_of_the_Skeptical_Inquirer_RSN_RfC. Thank you.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023!

Hello, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023. Happy editing, Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you closed this RFC. I had some questions, but since you have been inactive, I started a discussion here. Thanks, Politrukki (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]