User talk:Morbidthoughts

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Greetings. You've removed a few of these sections from boxers' articles on the premise that such rankings need secondary sources, yet on tennis players' articles (e.g., Novak Djokovic) they seem just fine to use an ATP ranking—a primary source—with no secondary sources. Out of curiosity, are WikiProject Tennis doing things wrong too? Likewise for snooker players (e.g., Ronnie O'Sullivan) they use a primary source from their tour. The rankings used in boxing are not even affiliated with the boxers themselves, so what would be inappropriate about them being used as primary sources? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sports articles are riddled with trivialities of what editors think is WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Why are those specific rankings included if they are not mentioned in relation to the boxer in secondary reliable sources? WP:WEIGHT is policy and inclusion can be seen as promoting and endorsing the rankers like whatever hell the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board is. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also the equivalent argument to ATP rankings (who the men play for) would be the sanctioning body rankings. Boxing articles seem to address this by noting the boxer's title history. Those are also widely reported by RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, and that's why I mentioned other examples because I was interested to see a rationale. I've long considered the myriad rankings in active boxers' lead a bit of a mess, but they've been a mainstay for years so I hadn't given them much thought until now—in fact I'd completely forgotten that I once brought it up at WikiProject Boxing. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph of Naoya Inoue's lead—zap altogether? I'm thinking the pound-for-pound stuff could stay, as that's a very regular talking point in boxing circles, but the divisional rankings are really cluttering things up across myriad articles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even the pound-for-pound stuff since it's not static and would require monthly updating. It's better to mention when he achieved the number 1 ranking to keep that static, and I'm guessing that independent sources would have noticed that too. The last sentence also seems like synthesis about being the only Japanese person to win those awards without independent sources confirming these. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to love 'em. Is it time to get an RfC going at WikiProject Boxing or just put the feelers out there as a general discussion? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's previously been discussed on the wikiproject without input from the broader community, a RfC is indeed appropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated discussion.[1] If there is not enough feedback from enough users, there should be a RfC follow-up right afterwards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to give you a heads up that there are categories such as Category:American people who self-identify as being of Chumash descent, so if you remove "self-identify" type language, there is likely an associated category. I fixed the categories for Lorna Dee Cervantes and Stepfanie Kramer.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, I am going to putter away at these categories to verify if the category applies or not. I am starting with Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't obvious, I've been incrementally reviewing the biographies under the categories to ensure that they strictly comply with Wik.ipedia.Pro's core policies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The BLP article, Bagrat Galstanyan, is being influenced again by the claim that concluded to have no consensus for inclusion at the BLP committee. Apparently there is a “new” source but it doesn’t actually prove anything, the source verbatim uses the word “allegation” for this claim which means it has no proof. I have reverted the WP:BLP and consensus violating edit [2], but it looks like it was restored again. I’m not very active on Wik.ipedia.Pro, and I thought you might be interested in this as an experienced user and someone who participated in the BLP discussion. Cheers! AntEgo (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was restored with a recent reference to what seems like a reliable source that verified the allegations existed. This was bound to happen since he is now in the public eye as a political dissident. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, should we not use the word "alleged" then since that what the sources uses? just "accused" is vague imo, it omits the fact that the accusation has no proof like the new source states it with "alleged". AntEgo (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't a fundamental difference between alleged and accused in this context, proof or no proof. They are synonyms of each other. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ 147.10.251.171 (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your previous clean-up work on Dominic Ng. Do you think its Accolades section violates WP:NOTCV. - Amigao (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is secondary reliable sourcing about the individual accolades, it's not really an issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Robby Starbuck shows that you are currently engaged in an ; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the , which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DTR Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I am missing some kind of magical diff that makes it all make sense, you better tell me about it. Otherwise, that would still be a way to WP:BAIT me into a WP:BOOMERANG over at WP:AN/3. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need any kind of magical dif to raise WP:BLPBALANCE and implement WP:BLPUNDEL since you did not gain consensus or repaired your edits. You are free to gain that consensus on the article talk page or BLPN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored an entire edited volume dedicated to the subject and a full-length article in Dictionary of Literary Biography, a highly credible source. These are major resources and any bibliographer would know this. I will be posted a pdf of the DLB article soon and making that available. The reviews also should be restored; reviews have been on this page continuously.

As well, you have edited the controversy paragraph to reinsert poorly sourced and contentious material. That is in direct violation of the instructions, which I quote: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.

It is important to note that the blog is anonymous and highly defamatory. There has been no recourse in terms of demand for retraction as the identifying number cannot be traced; this was done to shield the authors from repercussions. A similar article for the communist party People's World was removed on demand; this should establish the unreliability of this material. Here is a link to the People's World page: https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/safe-space-fail-wayne-state-professor-remains-on-job-after-sexual-harassment-allegations/

My earlier edit of this paragraph was totally justified under Wiki rules: I was responding to the persistence of defamatory material. And I would be justified in continuing to do so. The edit I made covers the facts but maintains neutrality, and I ask you to consider it again. Please talk to Starrygrandma about this if you need to; she advocates total removal. Thanks.

"At Wayne State University in 2019, a social media campaign in by some students against Watten, alleging hostile interactions, resulted in an article inThe Chronicle of Higher Education. Wayne State hired an independent investigator, which led to disciplinary sanctions in November 2019. Concurrently, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) wrote a legal opinion addressed to Wayne State, criticizing its handling of the speech issues involved. Watten's faculty union, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), filed a series of grievances citing a lack of required due process and requesting the restrictions be withdrawn. After their being modified in arbitration, Watten has returned to teaching a full schedule since 2023."

The first sentence notes the fact of the blog without linking to it. It states that there were allegations, but there were not sustained in the investigation. It includes FIRE's major public rebuttal to the university, certainly a relevant public document. It adds the support of the faculty union. And it states that I have been teaching.

Thanks for your help. ThisDirect (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make any edits about a blog as multiple people have made edits to your article. Continued discussion about this should be made on the article text page or at the BLP Noticeboards. If you continue to make disputed edits to the article, you will be blocked from doing so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editing is a travesty. Would you please identify what level editor you are, and how I may ask for assistance at the next level. I believe a fraud is being perpetrated, likely by one of the editors. I received a solicitation for a "wiki crafter" who would help restore the page; it is possible that the "wiki crafter" severely edited the page in order to promote such services. If you are that person I would ask you to identify yourself and restore the page. But basically, I want this to stop; please direct me to a supervisorial editor who can discuss the matter. ThisDirect (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am just an editor, but have no supervisor editor overseeing me. The correct venue to discuss specific issues about your article is WP:BLPN or your article's talk page which you already have been doing. The solicitation that you received may just be a scammer. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And very likely one of the editors who has made the changes. It could be you!

All of the material you deleted is verifiable, and you are simply causing a pile-up of work to get it corrected. I will seek a higher-level complaint as you people have clearly been getting off on destructing editing. Some of it seems to be revenge for comments I made on Joe Amato's thread. Get a life, is what I say. ThisDirect (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could be paranoid and perpetuating the Streisand Effect on your article. Good luck. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]