User talk:ActivelyDisinterested

A cup of tea for you!

thank you for your contributions!! :D xRozuRozu (t • c) 17:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

page revert alert

Want to notify you that 4B movement was reverted by another IP editor against the concensus a week later, to add the wiki link yet again. I think at this stage WP:SEMI should be considered, as it seems like an attempt to avoid detection. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 04:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This could just be a good faith editor trying to add a reference for the text. I've reverted it for the moment, I'll add a reason to the tag to explain the situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Defender of the wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For unearthing falsified references that persisted in the Elias Khoury biography for nearly five years. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this better

See Wikipedia:Consensus. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion?

If you would like to move our brief exchange down to the Discussion section, I have no objection to your moving my comment along with moving/editing yours. I agree it does look out of place up there. Regards, Andreas JN466 12:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave my original comment in place, as there is a general misunderstanding of what deprecation involves. No objections to moving the rest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I would maintain that there are differences between "generally unreliable" and "deprecated", even if no edit filter is set:

1. "Deprecated" signals that the judgment was the result of an RfC, rather than a more limited discussion between editors. Given that this is an RfC, the distinction is germane.
2. The words "generally prohibited" are only used with respect to deprecated sources (they are used both in the WP:DEPREC summary and at WP:DEPS#Effects_of_deprecation). They are not to my knowledge used with respect to WP:GUNREL sources – at any rate, they are not used in the WP:GUNREL summary nor in WP:QUESTIONABLE, the WP:RS section the summary links to.

To me, that makes the distinction worthwhile and more than academic. YMMV. Andreas JN466 14:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that 1/. is important, deprecation only happens through RFC so any deprecation shows it must have come from an RFC is true, but that isn't a point about a sources reliability. As to 2/. yes the 'generally prohibited' statement only appears in deprecation, but it's a pretty weak point, if you try using sources that have a strong RFC consensus of being unreliable you would quickly find that their use is prohibited.

Please note I'm not saying that editors shouldn't be of the opinion that the source should be deprecated, but rather that it's not misapplied as that could muddle the close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I take your point on muddling. Best, Andreas JN466 18:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Update on a question you had asked...

Hi, this is just a courtesy post to inform you of a development re: a question you had asked back in August.

At an RfC at the Reliable Sources noticeboard (here [1]) a paid COI editor had attempted to get a particular source deprecated. You had asked, quite correctly, What is the purpose of this RFC?

That question can now be answered as yesterday the paid COI editor made a COI edit request [2], asking for the removal of a number of paragraphs (adverse to their client) on the basis of the contents of that RfC. I'm not sure if they made the request solely on the basis of that RfC, but it seems fairly clear that that was the purpose of the RfC.

The COI edit request in question has since been deleted by another user who considered it inappropriate. I’m not sure if that was entirely correct procedurally but I can certainly appreciate that user’s sentiment.

The paid COI editor works for a company who describe themselves as only using “White Hat” practices. I've had some concern on that point for a while, as I note that on their website (specifically here [3]) they advertise something rather akin to astroturfing as a surface they can provide (which I personally don't consider a "White Hat" practice, although opinions may differ - I'd say it was at best "grey"). The activity above appears to be a kind of reverse astroturfing (i.e. where the RS nature of the sourcing of existing adverse info is questioned with a view to removal, as opposed to creating an online RS source containing positive info with a view to inclusion).

Given your question back in August I wondered if you might take a look at the COI edit request and let me know your thoughts? No urgency, just whenever you should have the opportunity... Axad12 (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Correction: I meant to say "service they can provide" rather than "surface they can provide". Apologies. Axad12 (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I was impressed by the editors behaviour. It was obvious that they were trying to get sources pre-judged so they could use that to further job they were employed to do. This goes against the 'edit first' ideas in WP:CONSENSUS.

Most editors aren't paid for their contributions and their time shouldn't be needlessly taken up by those that are. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That isn't to say editors of the article should simply dismiss the concerns expressed, editors should check if there are any issues to be resolved, but that editors should deal with those concerns based on policy and judgement. Noticeboards are meant to be third opinion, used when further input is needed, not as a way to circumvent discussion elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Any thoughts on whether placing positive stories in tame media (i.e. astroturfing) is a "White Hat" activity? Axad12 (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to offer an opinion, but I will say that if I needed help with PR I wouldn't use a service dedicated to Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. And that correctly implies that placing positive stories in tame media is a standard PR tactic, and that the Wikipedia definition of astroturfing (at least insofar as it effects issues like RS) is just a rather irrelevant side effect of a standand PR tactic in the real world.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

Thanks I hadn't thought of it like that before. Axad12 (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Reliability of sources

Hi, thank you for your answer. I would like to bring this to your attention: "you age" (instead of "you're"); it seemed right to bring it to your attention. Have a wonderful evening. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I've corrected it. I've been having issues with a recent autocorrect update. It has a tendency to change words I've correctly typed with incorrect refurbishments ;). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)