Mamasanju
Notability versus relevance and inclusion
editHello Mamasanju. Thank you for your ping at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. I just wanted to raise a concern that, in your comments in the discussion, specifically this comment, there still seems to be a confusion between the notability of an event [what would be required for a separate article to persist and survive] and the criteria for its inclusion in another article [perhaps in a single sentence or a footnote]. The comment "The event itself is notable" is contradicted by the comment (in the same edit) that a separate article about the event would be deleted due to lack of notability. MPS1992 (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lemme get it straight. The event itself is notable because it went into news, but the notability level could only get it a footnote mention. For the article about it to be created, the event has to fit into all five criterias of WP:EVENTCRIT. But so far the event appeared to fit only 2 criterias: WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:GEOSCOPE, so this is quite borderline as the level of notability makes the event not enough for a standslone entry, but certainly enough for a one sentence footnote mention with skeptical tones.
- To address your confusion and put it simply, the event itself is notable because it's on news, but for me notability level required for a single sentence mention <= notability level of the hacking event < notability level required for a standalone entry to be created Mamasanju (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think that with the newfound consensus on that conversation we can safely assume that the distinction between the notability of an event [what would be required for a separate article to persist and survive] and the criteria for its inclusion in another article [perhaps in a single sentence or a footnote] has finally entered into their awareness. I think it's time to sit back and relax or do anything else we want :) Mamasanju (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think if you keep using "notable" to mean "mentioned [even once] in the news" then you are going to keep running into problems of not being understood. Rightly or wrongly, that is not how the term is generally used here on Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- If I take a neutral perspective into the equation I believe that the word "notable" is more vulnerable to a varied interpretation since no two humans are totally same in mind and body. Whatever my interpretation is, I don't think that the misunderstandings that arose from the "no two humans are totally same" nature will simply go away. Have a great weekend. :) Mamasanju (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think if you keep using "notable" to mean "mentioned [even once] in the news" then you are going to keep running into problems of not being understood. Rightly or wrongly, that is not how the term is generally used here on Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
MH17 Cyber Anakin
editIf you want to get consensus for adding something to Page A, you don't get it by going to the talk page of Page B. Not at all difficult.
Normally I would that suggest you go to Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown, but since you're likely to be blocked for evading your two indefinite blocks, that would be a waste of time. --Calton | Talk 14:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Calton I'm not him but should I put an excerpt here to prove that a CONSENSUS has been made? Mamasanju (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- User:Calton Originally I put that mention on main MH17 but Ahunt removed it so I started a discussion on that article's talk page to discuss the suitability of its inclusion with Ahunt and several other editors until we reached a consensus to put it on "International reactions". Don't you think it's archaic that a consensus which was about both article A and B on talk page of article A doesn't apply on article B? Mamasanju (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- User:Calton MH17 pages are subject to discretionary sanctions and 1RR if you have any comments or if an agreement is reached between us please reply here NOW. Mamasanju (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Calton: Anything to raise yet? Mamasanju (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I hear only crickets from your part so I raised the question to "Tea House" accordingly. Mamasanju (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I took the teahouse post down because I am quite repetitive but I put the concerning mention into draft mode once again pending discussion outcome there. I hope you'll respect the results even if you don't like it. Mamasanju (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Calton: See this posting with implicit consensus from User:Stickee Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown#Does the consensus listed below which are formed from a discussion on the MH17 talk page apply to this International Reactions page? Mamasanju (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Stickee: "If there was a possible consensus over there, then it would likely apply here to" Mamasanju (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please take a chill pill; there's no need to make 54 edits over a single revert. Users aren't required to reply within minutes, so just give it a day or two for people to come online to reply. Stickee (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure but I'm furious at the fact that Calton is still insisting on archaic rules and conveniently ignoring that Wikipedia is a consensus based community, not a rule based one. Mamasanju (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Stickee: Meantime, I put the disputed content into draft mode again pending discussion outcome. Mamasanju (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion on Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown#Does the consensus listed below which are formed from a discussion on the MH17 talk page apply to this International Reactions page as well? has produced an implicit rough consensus so I think the issue should be resolved for now. Calton and Stickee, have a nice week! Mamasanju (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
EXCERPT
editUser:Calton Here's the excerpt. Shall you read?
This is a extract from Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. The comments contained were not made on this user talk page.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yesterday I found these articles that reported a hacking incident that arose from this airliner shootdown:
I briefly discussed with User:Martinevans123 and reached a basic consensus to add some skeptical tones into the edit since there's few sources. However, after both edit and my chat with Martinevans was removed altogether by User:Ahunt, a new question popped up. Is it relevant to include this edit as a footnote and put some skeptical tones into it per my consensus with Martinevans? The only problem here is we found the event way too late. This is a borderline case since the notability and even relevancy of this cybersecurity event is up for debate. IMO adding skeptical tone into the edit is more better than removing it altogether, at least we can avoid WP:UNDUE or WP:BIAS accusations.
I have an idea to add the skeptical tones into the edit per my consensus with Martin to maintain both WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT:
On User:Martinevans123 concerns that no mainstream/conventional media has covered the hacking, I googled and found that news.com.au has diffused the news report into some of the newspapers they own:
Keep in mind that news.com.au is actually owned by Australian media giant News Corp Australia, so in this way the news just went into mainstream/conventional media, albeit on a smaller scale and is more like "mirroring". Mamasanju (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC) The knowledge of the event even spreaded far enough to the editors at Politico and Wired (magazine). Chinese security company Qihoo 360 has picked up the news, an indication that the story has received a widespread attention in 2016:
News (Chinese Language)
|
June 2017
editYour recent editing history at International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Calton | Talk 21:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- WIKIPEDIA is a consensus based community and your insistence to follow some archaic rule suggested that you treated this as a prison or an army base. Accordingly I had raise a question on Tea House to see who's right. Mamasanju (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Strangely enough, I don't work for you and am not at your beck and call.
Meantime, have a read of this: Wikipedia:BANREVERT --Calton | Talk 21:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not him but let's take a minute to analyze the BANREVERT "rule".
- "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), "
See that?
Next, isn't "block" and "ban" are two whole different things? I checked Bugment123123's profile and he's only been blocked for undefined period, not (site) banned. There should be much leeway in allowing anybody to take up blocked (rather than banned) user's old work and turn it into a more contributive one instead. Mamasanju (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
But don't worry, I will ping all the participants in the old discussion and start it over again, just expect that you'll be called out as an archaic user. Mamasanju (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see you're in military at some point because of your usage of military slangs like "beck and call". However, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN ARMY BASE!!! Mamasanju (talk)