Misplaced Pages

User talk:I JethroBT: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:06, 21 December 2015 editCurly Turkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users103,777 edits →TH1980: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 07:59, 21 December 2015 edit undoI JethroBT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,314 edits →TH1980: reply with summary of thoughts. Let's keep this conversation going as long as we need to.Next edit →
Line 122: Line 122:


Hi, can you take a look at TH1980's edits to History of Japan? They're clearly disruptive---every aspect of that information had been questioned on the talk page, from its mischaracterization, to its undue weight, right down to its contentious positioning in the Shōwa section. He's fully aware of the issues---there's no room for assumptions of good faith here, especially as it is typical of his "editing" style to revert those who remove what CurtisNaito has added. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;] 03:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Hi, can you take a look at TH1980's edits to History of Japan? They're clearly disruptive---every aspect of that information had been questioned on the talk page, from its mischaracterization, to its undue weight, right down to its contentious positioning in the Shōwa section. He's fully aware of the issues---there's no room for assumptions of good faith here, especially as it is typical of his "editing" style to revert those who remove what CurtisNaito has added. ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;] 03:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Curly Turkey}} Some open-ended thoughts on their behavior (and yours) after reviewing (FYI, I've tried to look a lot of the article and talk page history, and I'm also pretty tried. I'm always willing to accept I've overlooked something and revisit my opinion, but I suspect we fundamentally do not see this situation in the same way. {{u|TH1980}}, feel free to chime in here as well. I'd rather discuss this here than more on the article talk page.):
:*My initial read was that TH1980's involvement with the article wasn't terribly deep (at least not relative to others active on the article and talk page). They've made 19 edits between August 2015 and this December.
:*The edit warring from 30 August to 1 September on the "better source needed" on the Diamond source was disruptive. Without commenting on whether the source was appropriate or not in context, the behavior was problematic and either he, Hijiri, or one of the few others participating there should have started a discussion over at RSN; I even note that Hijiri early on during that dispute, though it never actually happened. An editor found an alternative source that folks seemed to be satisfied with, and that (eventually) seemed to put an end to that issue.
:*TH1980's various copyedits seem fine to me, certainly not problematic. If they introduced an inaccuracy of some sort in these copyedits, there's nothing suggesting to me that it was intentional, and they certainly haven't edit-warred over it.
:*I see some content edits that look fine to me as well (e.g. , , ) and others less so (e.g. ), but the latter doesn't fall into "clearly disruptive" territory as much as there are concerns about scope or due weight there that you and others have mentioned. And look, I know the article really needs folks able to commit to broader research; Murakami's legacy, for instance (, ) should be contextualized in the scope of Japanese history. If there are sources supporting his contributions to sci-fi or magical realism or whatever, that info IMO is better placed elsewhere, say on Murakami's bio rather than on this broad historical overview. Also, I suspect that if the discussion was more focused on "how can we use this information" rather than a presumption of how any contribution that TH1980 makes to the subject is disruptive or unimportant, it may have saved everyone a lot of trouble.
:*Outside of the Diamond dispute, TH1980's interactions at the talk page appear don't strike me as disruptive; it's usually tacit agreement with Curtis or a basic suggestion here and there. I do see that they are dealing with editors who cannot help but see them as anything but disruptive. Any suggestions TH1980 makes seem to get disregarded out of turn with comments from you or others like "No one's buying your spiel." There's fundamental distrust there, and I'm not sure it is warranted. Later, TH1980 sought an RfC and you shut that suggestion down multiple times. Reverting or disagreeing with contributions for reasons based on due weight / scope is one matter; your outright rejection of even the ''possibility'' of an RfC feels a lot like ], and I'm concerned about it.
:So, we can talk this out more here if you want. Maybe there is a way we can communicate better on the talk page. I've been thinking it might be a good idea for folks to post drafts of substantial article additions for comments / edits on the talk page before they get added to the article itself. I don't want to stop anyone from going to ANI if they want to, but I'm generally a fan making people's lives less stressful, not moreso. ]] 07:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:59, 21 December 2015

Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23


This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Unblock request by User:Excelse

Concerning the unblock request by User:Excelse, see also my commentary here. As I was the opponent of this user in a recent arbcom case and have been warned on my talk page that even if I believe that other editors are acting inappropriately it is never acceptable to make personal attacks and inappropriately labelling edits as vandalism, shouldn't Excelse also be warned on his talk page, as his edits were more disruptive than mine? Onefortyone (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Onefortyone: I'm heading to a wedding shortly, and I don't have a great deal of time to look into this behavior until Tuesday. I'll echo Bbb23's sentiments on their talk page response to you; if you want to file another SPI or submit a report to ANI based on the behavior you've noted, you are welcome to. I, JethroBT 15:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Hello!

I followed your email about the IeadsLab and put in my 2 cents; now where are the results to be seen? BTW I read Asimov's I, Robot (and The Rest of the Robots) - much better than the film, in my opinion. It's also available as an AudioBook on YouTube if you'd like to listen to it. Cheers! Shir-El too 13:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Shir-El too: Hey Shir-El. Thanks for taking the time to participate, I really appreciate it. I haven't actually seen the film, but it sounds like I'm better off not having watched it. I haven't read The Rest of the Robots yet— I'll have to give that a look! I've been listening to audiobooks a little more these days, so thanks for the recommendation. As for Future IdeaLab Campaigns, I'll be publishing a report on meta here with the results around the end of January 2016. I'll also announce the first IdeaLab campaign we'll run at that time. Oh, and this talk page is my volunteer account, so if you want to get in touch with me about my WMF-related work, I'll usually respond a little faster over at m:User talk:I JethroBT (WMF). I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Books and Bytes - Issue 14

The Misplaced Pages Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
  • Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Misplaced Pages, and scholarly citations
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

Return administration

Plz follow back reply redingote bot Palashvai (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Asian Month Barnstar
Thanks for your great contribution in Misplaced Pages Asian Month 2015! --AddisWang (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@AddisWang: Thanks for your hard work and for the insane amount of article reviewing you've done! I, JethroBT 08:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Season's Greetings!

Hello I JethroBT: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Misplaced Pages. Cheers, North America 19:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

TH1980

Hi, can you take a look at TH1980's edits to History of Japan? They're clearly disruptive---every aspect of that information had been questioned on the talk page, from its mischaracterization, to its undue weight, right down to its contentious positioning in the Shōwa section. He's fully aware of the issues---there's no room for assumptions of good faith here, especially as it is typical of his "editing" style to revert those who remove what CurtisNaito has added. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Some open-ended thoughts on their behavior (and yours) after reviewing their contributions (FYI, I've tried to look a lot of the article and talk page history, and I'm also pretty tried. I'm always willing to accept I've overlooked something and revisit my opinion, but I suspect we fundamentally do not see this situation in the same way. TH1980, feel free to chime in here as well. I'd rather discuss this here than more on the article talk page.):
  • My initial read was that TH1980's involvement with the article wasn't terribly deep (at least not relative to others active on the article and talk page). They've made 19 edits between August 2015 and this December.
  • The edit warring from 30 August to 1 September on the "better source needed" on the Diamond source was disruptive. Without commenting on whether the source was appropriate or not in context, the behavior was problematic and either he, Hijiri, or one of the few others participating there should have started a discussion over at RSN; I even note that Hijiri suggested exactly this course of action early on during that dispute, though it never actually happened. An editor found an alternative source that folks seemed to be satisfied with, and that (eventually) seemed to put an end to that issue.
  • TH1980's various copyedits seem fine to me, certainly not problematic. If they introduced an inaccuracy of some sort in these copyedits, there's nothing suggesting to me that it was intentional, and they certainly haven't edit-warred over it.
  • I see some content edits that look fine to me as well (e.g. , , ) and others less so (e.g. ), but the latter doesn't fall into "clearly disruptive" territory as much as there are concerns about scope or due weight there that you and others have mentioned. And look, I know the article really needs folks able to commit to broader research; Murakami's legacy, for instance (, ) should be contextualized in the scope of Japanese history. If there are sources supporting his contributions to sci-fi or magical realism or whatever, that info IMO is better placed elsewhere, say on Murakami's bio rather than on this broad historical overview. Also, I suspect that if the discussion was more focused on "how can we use this information" rather than a presumption of how any contribution that TH1980 makes to the subject is disruptive or unimportant, it may have saved everyone a lot of trouble.
  • Outside of the Diamond dispute, TH1980's interactions at the talk page appear don't strike me as disruptive; it's usually tacit agreement with Curtis or a basic suggestion here and there. I do see that they are dealing with editors who cannot help but see them as anything but disruptive. Any suggestions TH1980 makes seem to get disregarded out of turn with comments from you or others like "No one's buying your spiel." There's fundamental distrust there, and I'm not sure it is warranted. Later, TH1980 sought an RfC and you shut that suggestion down multiple times. Reverting or disagreeing with contributions for reasons based on due weight / scope is one matter; your outright rejection of even the possibility of an RfC feels a lot like asserting control, and I'm concerned about it.
So, we can talk this out more here if you want. Maybe there is a way we can communicate better on the talk page. I've been thinking it might be a good idea for folks to post drafts of substantial article additions for comments / edits on the talk page before they get added to the article itself. I don't want to stop anyone from going to ANI if they want to, but I'm generally a fan making people's lives less stressful, not moreso. I, JethroBT 07:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
User talk:I JethroBT: Difference between revisions Add topic