Nightenbelle

Talk

Userboxes

Awards

Tools

Works-In-Progress

Archives

Info before you post

If I declined your AFC- before you ask for advice, please review the comment I left and make sure you have read

I do archive this page as needed or after two weeks. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"you may get snark if the answer is in one of those three essays" -> I think you mean "policies",

WP:ESSAYS have no official status. (t · c) buidhe 05:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Well no, I meant essay. The essays contain policy, but they explain them in "a short piece of writing on a particular subject" thus.... essay. Thanks anyway. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nightenbelle, I am requesting that we reopen Emanuel Cleaver on Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. If you have taken a look at the RFC on the talk page the results are about split and I do not believe any progress will be made. I do not know how to officially reopen a notice board that is why I am contacting you here. Let me know if I can do anything to help. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

until the rfc is closed- I cannot reopen the dispute. Let it run it’s course and then we will worry about reopening the dispute. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. Grahaml35 (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me when and what the outcome of an RFC is answered? I apologize because this is my first time opening one. It is currently 7 for support and 5 for oppose. Thanks! Grahaml35 (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely- an RFC runs for 30 days unless there is a really clear winner at some point sooner. At the end of 30 days a neutral uninvolved editor will look at all the comments and count them as well as evaluating the arguments (IE- if 30 votes just say per nom, and the other side has 29, well thought out logical reasons- the 29 would win a simple majority isn't enough) then that editor will close the RFC and will announce the consensus. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hope you are well @Nightenbelle:

I was seeking dispute resolution for the 2024 Russian presidential election page because the user is no longer replying to the talk page, which is why I was forced to go to dispute resolution. They haven't replied for ages and when I add the content in after a week or so they delete it again but refuse to answer my messages on the talk page. How should I solve the problem? LauraWilliamson (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I suggested other avenues of getting assistance. But the DRN is not appropriate at this time for the reasons I already stated. And your attitude on the talk page and their personal talk page did not encourage them to respond. So please try a

WP:DRN.Nightenbelle (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, but it is very rare that

DRN is useful after there has been an RFC, unless the RFC was inconclusive because it was not reasonably written. If an RFC finds rough consensus (or solid consensus), DRN isn't normally necessary. If an RFC results in a finding of No Consensus after adequate participation, DRN will also probably result in No Consensus. The only reason to have DRN after an RFC would be if the RFC wasn't done very well. DRN after 3O is often useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Are these sources correct to corroborate the article reliable sources: lenta.ru/articles/2021/02/04/switzerland/ https://www.eduopinions.com/blog/universities-business-schools/the-4-best-business-schools-in-switzerland/

Thank you.

Draft:Swiss_School_of_Higher_Education

Vladislav at SSHE (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no. It’s a blog opinion piece. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nightenbelle,

I added the long quote to the reference on dan pena so that people could refer to it... since it seems like many editors don't actually click through to the article and say that x or y isn't referenced. I'm new to this so could you guide me what is the right way to do this? Regards Ifdc (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The right way to do it is not to sneak in quotes in citations. You cite your source and that's it. If an editor wants to see the source- they will click on it. Its not our job as editors to force a source down people's throats- just provide one to show that we didn't make up this information. Thats just common sense. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am notifying you You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at

Thanks, Danielbr11 (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this is not an issue for arbcom. You were given options- this wasn’t one of them. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you made up a policy with your circular reasoning. Nowhere does it state a publisher must be unbiased.Danielbr11 (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and once again you ignored what you were told and are venue hopping trying to force someone to break consensus. 3 experienced editors have told you you are wrong. Arbcom is not going to take this case because you have not exhausted all other avenues and this is not a case for them. Why are you so afraid of the reliable sources board???? And why are you pushing you POV so hard? Nightenbelle (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one guilty of breaking the rules on what the POLICY STATES and you know it because you have intentionally fabricated rules to obviously disallow an edit that is against your POV! I do not have to post in every single forum in dispute resolution but of course the reliable source noticeboard would say my sources meet exactly what the policy states.Danielbr11 (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

before you go to arbcom you have to exhaust all other options. For Pete’s sake I’m not fabricating rules. I’m about done with the personal attacks you are tossing around. If you can’t be civil I will take you to the admins. How many times do you have to be asked to argue your case- stop the personal attacks. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the very first line of the reliable sources policy says, “ Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” that is what your sources fail. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

before arbcom will take a case you have to have tried all other options- the talk page, drn, (both of which you have done) but also rfc, rs board and if you think we are breaking rules- the ani. Although ani won’t take a content case- which is what they will tell you this is. Arbcom generally won’t take content cases either- which is what this is. Ani will take a case on personal attacks- which if you don’t quit attacking editors and focus on the information and sources is where I will be heading next. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nightenbelle you are INCREDIBLE you just added “independent” and “with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” I cannot believe you just fabricated that! The admins will see this.Danielbr11 (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I literally copied and pasted from policy. Please- post on the ani. Go for it. The other editors and I have been professional and tried to explain it to you while you made personal attack after personal attack. But by all means- report me for literally copying and pasting policy on my own talk page. Show the editors how awful I am by quoting policy. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go read

Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires.[10] The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.[11][12]” again copied and pasted. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s ok I did post about you here because my sources were not “widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions“ or “ do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that this guideline requires” my sources are reliable independent and published because “reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Volunteer_fabricating_policiesDanielbr11 (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you are cherry picking sentences- your sources do not have a reputation for fact-checking accuracy. That is the problem. Nightenbelle (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 Independent review has a reputation for fact checking. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/4/29/predatory-politics-what-was-the-greatest/ Harvard has reputation for fact checking. https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolution/ Fff has reputation for fact checking. Christian Science monitor has reputation for fact checking. https://www.csmonitor.com/1985/0606/ecomm.html And once again the policy states they don’t need to be unbiased.Danielbr11 (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC) On top of that you were wrong about this source. It is not a primary source and it is directly published on the Hawaii edu page. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIFDanielbr11 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The unedited list of numbers hosted on a former professor's personal page that happens to be on the University of Hawaii server is still a primary source. None of those other sources have I commented on- because I haven't reviewed them. I reviewed 3. On the DRN. Not one of those did you bring up there. Nightenbelle (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back- the Jstore article I did say was unacceptable because it was a book review that did not actually attribute the deaths to political motives- IE- it doesnt say what you want it to support. Nightenbelle (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I fixed your arbcom notice- you have to remove the nowiki tags.... although now that there is an ANI pending.... they will have to close pending the outcome of that. Good Job. Nightenbelle (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, a letter, an eyewitness account, an autobiography, or statistics compiled by an authoritative agency“

The Hawaii article is not created By a participant or observer. Regardless here it doesn’t say anywhere that a primary source can’t be used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_of_primary_sources_in_Wikipedia And motives do not matter the item for the list is called Mass killings under communist regimes. It could be famines executions battles it doesn’t matter.Danielbr11 (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. It’s an official report- which is the next thing listed right there in your quote. They are “most often” created by participants- not always. Any interpretation of that raw data is

What do you mean interpretation i am simply stating what the chart says it says communist regimes that many deaths.Danielbr11 (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But to get that number you have to add individual totals together- which is analyzing (very basic- but still ) the raw data.

The case request mentioned here was removed as premature. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi nightenbelle can i invite you to check my last source i posted in the list of wars talk under communist regimes.Danielbr11 (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. Done. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended the Do Not Archive date on this dispute into the middle of February. It had been 2 February, and the dispute was staying up and not being archived because it was being discussed. However, if the dispute passes the Do Not Archive date and there is a temporary pause in the discussion, the dispute can disappear into the archive, which surprises and annoys everybody. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, there were a few editors who were obsessive about removing the Do Not Archive date on closed cases so that they would get archived quickly. I don't care if resolved disputes or skipped disputes stay visible for a while.

A few obsessive editors is me ;-) I'm one of those who removed the DNA on closed cases. Although I've gotten more lax about it since i noticed I was the only one worried about it. :-) Yeah.... I'm hoping it gets resolved in the next day or two. They have found common ground- now to get them to focus long enough to find a good title. :-) I'm excited at how this one has been going. Its been a nice change. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another arbitration request has been filed concerning articles about atrocities by Leninist regimes. There is probably being attention or discussion in opinion magazines and blogs to the subject of, well, Leninist atrocities. It won't surprise me if there are more content-conduct disputes in the next week about the same topic.

This case is being filed by an editor who is trying to report a POV-warrior, rather than being filed by the POV-warrior. But both cases indicate that history is being written about, well, Leninist atrocities. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. POV warriors are getting thick around here. If you want to push your own POV- go start a blog. Or a vlog. Or a tiktok. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POV warriors get thick whenever someone starts pushing a POV, sometimes on a blog or in an opinion mag. Someone is pushing a POV somewhere about Leninist atrocities. Well, Leninist atrocities really were and are atrocious, and we have to report what the

neutral point of view

, and a reasonable reader can conclude that the atrocities are atrocious.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said that maybe you should have a kangaroo userbox. That would mean that if someone throws a

Maybe a ninja Kangaroo then? I wish I was in Australia today. Its rough here. And cold. And I'm dreading the drive home. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The drive home in the winter was one of the disadvantages of working for a living in information technology, before they told me to have my team run ten test cases a day on a system that wasn't working yet. That was no job for a 65-year-old to do. So I haven't driven home for seven years. My sympathies. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Purchasing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Domestic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In closing the Pashtuns case, you introduced a weird error. In referring to

weird!! Leave it to me though. I’m sorry. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with weird errors due to various types of brackets, such as mismatched parentheses, for more than half a century, and so this was really something that I was sort of the right person to deal with. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You closed it as Closed. Should you have closed it as Resolved, which is better? I wasn't following closely, because I thought that you had it under control, but the conclusion looks like it was resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

resolved would be better. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It doesn't matter whether we say that the editor was causing the problem or that the editor was the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The lab leak case was easier than the case of the Romani Hungarians. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL perhaps both? Some otherwise perfetly reasonable editors just can't avoid chasing certain carrots when they are dangled in front of them. But.... no longer monkeys in our particiular tent of the WP circus.