User talk:Carwil/Archive 2016

Hey, I'm just dropping you a note because you previously participated in this RfC on the Campus Sexual assault Talk page. The dispute was never really resolved, in part because of a lack of participation. I've posted a new RfC that deals with the issue, and, if you have time comments would be appreciated! Nblund (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Sorry, I know this is tedious. I realize I may have bludgeoned the issue in the DRN. I will be doing my level-best to keep my comments to a minimum, and maybe that will lead to better progress this time around. Nblund (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anna Rügerin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anna Rügerin's 1484 books are the first publications known to be typeset by a woman? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Rügerin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Anna Rügerin), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

groups facing bias

Thank you quality contributions for more than ten years to articles about

women and other groups facing bias, such as African Americans in Tennessee, Sudanese refugees in Egypt and Anna Rügerin, for personal projects such as Coca in Bolivia, for supporting projects such as anti-war and climate change, - user of many languages, you are an awesome Wikipedian

!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1395 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for turning up the FBI cite. I think there are still some ambiguities here, so I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions just yet but you brought up a good point. Please review my recent changes and my discussion of them and discuss on the talk page for the article if you have something to share about these edits. Yakushima (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the vague warning you left on my talk page, I would like if you could elaborate via special:diff which edit you are talking about and what issue you have with it. Have I written anything offensive about Brock? Ranze (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for linking the diffs, addressing:

• special:diff/725763371 and special:diff/725818752 are not debate over a sexual detail, but rather, Emily's attributing a statement to Brock (him making a claim about the sexual detail) in her victim impact statement. Brock's own statement to the judge doesn't mention this. That Emily brought it up herself is what makes it seem acceptable to mention. I don't see how BLP protection for her applies here, she brings up this alleged orgasm-claim in her impact statement and this statement is referenced in our sources.
• special:diff/726759804 and special:diff/728219251 are not proposing original research, but rather, the location of sources, which is not "original" research. Wikipedia editors finding sources is certainly describable as research but not 'original' since it is merely locating other people's research. Original research is making a source out of yourself. The questions I asked about the case are ones I was wondering if people could answer through reliable sources. I was also asking what documents were available to the public to reference, because it is helpful to attach primary sources to the secondary sources which report on them. It allows secondary sources to be better read.

We already include information about blood alcohol. The issue is obviously relevant, but even if we debated that, secondary sources report on the blood alcohol content, establishing that the issue is a notable one.

I am simply proposing we do what we can to find all the information reported in sources to give as much information as is acceptable about the blood alcohol content.

If a secondary source says "blood alcohol was xx% how is it original research to ask "does anyone know if it's been reported when the test was taken?" Organizing a collective search for the most accurate secondary sources and seeing if the underlying primaries are citeable or not does not seem like OR to me. OR is like "let's go break into the evidence locker and test it ourselves" or something.

What speculation about Emily Doe's consciousness are you talking about? I just want to report all the facts. For example that she opened her eyes when pinched, and the paramedic ranking her 11/15 on the Glascow Coma Scale. This is reported by a secondary source here: http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/03/21/brock-turner-trial-continues-in-second-week-of-testimony/ so I'll be adding it. This was the sort of thing I'm discussing: non-original research, ie the location of sources, not the manufacturing of sources.

The external impetus is obvious: Brock is still claiming innocence and his lawyer has stated an intent to appeal the case, so it's not example a matter we can conveniently bury, we should strive to remain neutral here.

I have read her entire statement multiple times, possibly more than you have. I am not victimizing her, and I am not mounting a defense, I am simply trying to keep the article neutral. Right now the BLP violations are against Brock not against her.

I'd like if you could make a clearer argument as to how I'm violating BLP concerns because I don't really see it. Leaving out facts on the other hand, or taking a side in the case (even if it is the side of the jury) is not NPOV. Ranze (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Learning more one can always be lured into the wrong idea that one knows everything, special:diff/729611069 is the first instance I can recall reading about an incline in this case, previously I had instinctively just pictured the entire scene as a flat one. Whether or not and if so, to what degree, it was inclined, seems like an important detail to explore, since it could have affected the speed of Brock's cadence. Stumbling down a ramp would be easier to mistake for running than crawling up one.

Do you happen to know any other articles which mention an incline? Like someone other than Brock talking about it? Or maybe say how steep it was? I'm beginning to wonder if this detail even made it into the crime scene statements since it does seem like a subtle one that may not have been taken into acount. Ranze (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policies remain increasingly in mind, particularly that it is required to abide by US law and neutrality/verifiability/NOR. I would like to use the talk page to discuss further about

WP:BLPNAME

and any other issues people want to bring up.

In this case when I did include names, I considered them people to be directly involved in the article's topic. They were witnesses who offered testimony or police professionals who worked that case, that's clearly direct involvement.

I didn't include any intentionally concealed names (the names which were not included in the complaint I didn't try to find) and the complaint has been widely disseminated. Ranze (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your expert contribution. I fear there are some who want to erase the history of this man's racist views. Please check back and keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should just go ahead and edit the article. This one editor clearly has a personal bias which has no standing in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be greatly appreciated at Talk:James Watson#"Geographic ancestry" - is that like being descended from an atlas? Joe Roe (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carwil,

I'm trying to reach you to schedule a time to chat/interview for the VU EdTech Podcast - LeadingLines; please let me know.

Jeeyen18 (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carwil,

Tomorrow's edit-a-thon at Vanderbilt Library in Special Collections runs from 11AM to 4PM. The theme is "Nashville Architecture" and we're building on this year's list of the Nashville Nine (Most Endangered buildings). Lunch and how-to edit provided.

Mary Anne 129.59.122.20 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The

Hello, Carwil. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]