Jump to content

User talk:Patar knight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user helped "2016 League of Legends World Championship" become a good article on 20 March 2017.
This user helped "Warren Allmand" become a good article on 21 April 2018.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least fifteen years.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hyperbolick (talk | contribs) at 11:25, 27 December 2024 (→Panendeism: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You can leave a message on my talk page here, or alternatively, you can send me an email

If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page. If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there.

}

Talk:Murder_of_Zvi_Kogan#Requested_move_25_November_2024

It appears that Feeglgeefhas given you the green light to send this to move review [1] and curiously blanked his talk page just 5 minutes after posting this. Several concerns going on with this NAC editor, and I'm going to look over several of closed RM's shortly. TiggerJay (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that and plan on doing that later tonight. I saw the edit, but didn't want to do it right away in case they changed their mind. To be fair, he appears to simply not archive anything, so I'm not sure if the blanking itself is curious, though there were several RM concerns. Please let me know if you do start a discussion about this later. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about bringing something up over at move review talk but figured I'd approach him on his talk page. In reality they have only ever "effectively" performed 3 moves closes , since the first one was a rather large multi-page move. It is interesting, to say they very least. All three seem to be the wrong ones to get started on with RMC/NAC -- usually people start off on the shallow end with SNOW type closures, not one where there has been significant discussion and with logical opposition. Also his replies to those who have challenged his closures boarder on uncivil behavior. TiggerJay (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Anyway, I've created the move review (Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_December#Murder_of_Zvi_Kogan) if that affects how you intend to proceed. I already posted on their talk page, but I only saw his comments as curt. Not courteous perhaps, but not purposefully rude either. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dr Disrespect

On 13 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dr Disrespect, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dr Disrespect's first videos featured a bombastic "champion" trash-talking game-play footage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dr Disrespect. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dr Disrespect), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't end up using the original hook that was based off my content, so not sure I actually deserve this. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your assistance

Hi,

I could use some assistance with this Talk:Taylor Lorenz#Rolling Stone Removal. A user is making non-consensus changes/reversions despite my request for them to discuss before making changes.

I am relatively new to editing, so if there is a better way to get support with this issue, I would greatly appreciate you pointing me in that direction.

Thank you! Delectopierre (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS is a decision at the reliable sources noticeboard that because of past errors, its use on politically sensitive issues shouldn't be used. You can read the relevant sections from our own article on the publication's factchecking issues at Rolling_Stone#Defamatory_false_rape_story_and_lawsuit or the Columbia Journalism Review article [2] on one of the failures. The removal is probably correct here, though the content is probably correct and not extraordinary.
In this case, I don't think it's super important. The only reason you would attack the a piece about you is to discredit it and the author, so there's no real need to include this explicitly. If you want to keep it, you should find a non-Rolling Stone RS that includes that phrasing, but I wouldn't spend time fighting over this in particular. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sure this particular instance is probably not worth fighting. But more broadly there are a group of editors who are, in my assessment, not at all interested in NPOV with this particular article as she is a lightning rod.
Anything remotely - possibly - neutral or positive about Lorenz, and they want it gone.
I am unsure how to proceed and feel they are chipping away at the article by deletion. I, for one, am close to giving up and just letting the article suffer from their deletions. Delectopierre (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also meant to say:
"The only reason you would attack the a piece about you is to discredit it and the author, so there's no real need to include this explicitly".
I agree! Which is another reason it seems, to me, that there is a problem with NPOV happening with a few editors trying to remove sentences like this one using technicalities/bludgeoning. Delectopierre (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sabiha Gökçen on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience invitation

Hi Patar knight. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for people charged with a crime

I think that we should be very leery about categorizing people for being charged with a crime. This has the feel of a smear on them as guilty. Wikipedia is proactively saying this defines the person. Even if we simply have the category named charged it still amounts to functionally smearing them. I do not think we should be smearing people who have not been convicted in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently edited a bunch of pages in various namespaces about people charged with crimes, so can I ask if this was in response to any one edit in particular before I respond further? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

I'd like to address something you did right here on Superman (2025 film). You attempted to remove content on the article on the basis of WP:BLPSPS. The information was about the casting folks looking Black actor to play one character, and an Asian or Latina actress to play another. #1. How in the frosted flakes does bringing up a matter of race / ethnicity (in the context of casting an [unspecified, too] actor / actress of a certain race) have anything to do with BLP? #2. WP:MCU (which has by WP:IMPLICIT de facto fostered over to cover the DCU articles) has consensus at WP:MCURS that Sneider is an expert self-published source so his stuff is good to go.

I saw the administrators' tag on your user groups and wondered for a minute, but I found it fit to discuss with you that the concept of a prospective, unidentified person or groups of people being a person or people of color is not concerning a biography of living persons, and that thusly treating that information as contentious is, eh, and I know that WP:AGF tells me to think the best of everyone, but this edit of yours really gives the appearance of impropriety that you've contested content in a possibly racially insensitive manner? You are clearly not acting in such a manner, but I ask you to just take a moment to reflect on the thinking that got you to that point, because it is baffling to me and should be something to note for you for future reference? IDK. I'm just confused as to why you did the edit.

Long story short: the subject of a person of color being looked for to be cast in a movie does not concern WP:BLP, and do review WP:MCU's local consensus around sourcing if you are to continue to contribute to the topic. I'd also like to wish you a happy holidays, and to thank you for your help as an admin. BarntToust 03:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in that aforementioned edit, you sort of misleadingly replaced the content in question with other content, not just outright removing the content that you thought was not okay. Please mind that you be careful about doing that. please mind the first words of WP:SUMMARYNO: Avoid misleading summaries. Mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important. BarntToust 04:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get to this last night because it was late, but I do want to explain. The stuff sourced to the BLPSPS-violating source without independent corroboration (i.e. "Blitz") was removed. Given that the casting section above and the paragraph below both have confirmations of the Gathegi/Mr. Terrific casting, I didn't really see a functional difference to change the routine and expected news that they're looking to cast a black actor as a famous black superhero (cited to the BLPSPS-violating source) to the strong corroborating evidence of that cited in the other (BLPSPS-compliant) source in the same sentence. In any case, it's a short edit. Maybe not technically perfect, but not misleading. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gunn has said that things in the script have changed throughout the development. por ejemplo, Gunn said a character was cut from the film who prospectively was going to be played by Bassem Youssef by the SAG-AFTRA strikes, and recently said he changed the ending of Superman significantly after consulting his wife.
"Blitz" was considered for Asian or Latinx performers. It was probably a code name for Hawk guy or Hawkgirl. A Latina, Isabela Merced was chosen to be Hawkgirl. It could have been an unrelated role, sure, or anything. But it's technical info that insights into the casting process. Not a BLP vio to say a filmmaker was looking for a specific demographic for a role. BarntToust 17:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP issue here isn't because of the potentially infinite actors being looked at, but the people (person?) doing the casting. Since James Gunn is the film's director and producer, the studio exec in charge of creative decisions, and someone who apparently only answers to David Zaslav in the WB hierarchy,[3] anything that references a casting decision for the film is the same as referencing something that Gunn or John Papsidera acting on behalf of Gunn did.[4] As a group of two where one is the other's boss, it seems like the clearest possible example of a scenario envisioned in WP:BLPGROUP where a small group is functionally indistinguishable from an individual, so BLP applies to the material.
Since BLP applies, a self-published source such as The InSneider can't be used per WP:BLPSPS. A local consensus at a WikiProject task force can't override a clear rule at BLP. If the material is cited to non-SPSs, that's fine and The InSneider can simply be replaced. For example, in the edit in question, the nearby THR source basically confirms that Mr. Terrific, a black character, would be cast with Gunn teasing him over and over, but I wasn't able to find a replacement for the Blitz bit, so I removed it.
As for whether The InSneider is reliable enough for non-BLP stuff (my take is that he's mostly correct, but his content often falls into WP:RUMOR territory, and he gets too many stories wrong to be used as a RS on Wikipedia), that's being discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [5] if you want to join in.
I'm a casual watcher of these superhero films and don't follow the scoop culture that Sneider seems embedded in. I only got involved with these edits because of the RSN describing obvious BLP violations, so I probably won't be seriously contributing to this area in the future. Happy holidays to you as well. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, because clearly James Gunn looking for non-white people to be in his films is this big, shocking, provocative and bold thing to be writing on Wikipedia about him. That's not any violation of BLP by any stretch. If we were discussing the man's twitter history (which if you weren't aware it was so horrible that Disney fired him for 2 years as a result of his old tweets coming up) we should NOT use Jeff Sneider or any self published source.
I just don't get it. Casting processes are done by people. So what? Since breathing is done by people, does every sentence in that article HAVE to hold to scrutiny by BLP? Thanks for pointing me to Sneider discussion on RS. BarntToust 12:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we disagree as to what extent and the contexts that the BLP policy should be applied, I'm thankful we could discuss about this here. Happy holidays, may you enjoy good times with friends and family! BarntToust 13:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make it 100% clear, I think it's a good thing that superhero films are casting more non-white superheroes, so I would ask you to strike the comments that imply I'm some sort of crypto-racist. WP:BLPSPS is not about if the underlying material is harmful or not and says: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.
Since InSneider is self-published source and the very small group of people making casting decisions for the Superman film are still alive, BLPSPS bars its use. If the statement being sourced to InSneider was "James Gunn is a film director" it would still be barred by BLPSPS, though obviously in that case non-SPSs would exist and be used.
It's not the mere fact that people do them that implicates BLP, but the very small size of the people doing so. WP:BLPGROUP says: when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group.
To use your breathing example, the entire human population that breathes is far too large of a group for any general statement about it to be identifiable to anyone in particular, so BLP would not be implicated. However, if there's a sentence in the article that says "The University of X Sleep Research Laboratory discovered Y" and the lab only has two or three researchers, than BLP would apply (though in that case, WP:MEDRS would apply as well, which would also disallow self-published sources). As I said in my RSN posts, I think even things like filming schedules and episode count decisions probably don't invoke BLP since the group of factors/decision makers is too big. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we're not talking about the people themselves, we are talking about a casting process that really just so happens to be ran by people. talking about names being listed on a cast sheet is not by any means related to describing a living person.
We are talking about a casting process. Not the life and times of a subject of a biography. You are clearly not a Krypto racist, and I enjoy knowing there are admins here who enjoy progressive ideals. However, we cannot be looking at the words "Asian", "Latina" and "Black" and misappropriate policy about living people. I hardly see why or how noting a demographical casting preference concerns writing a biography. When I get back on my PC, I may well strike what you've requested.
I think a lot of Sneider's bold-as-all-hell outta-the-blue claims should warrant explicit attribution or a consideration of dueness to question the value of inclusion. But mundane technical info? Sure, he is very well connected in the industry and he would know about the technical parts. BarntToust 17:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Sneider said that Gunn was pissed about the Cleveland media leaking half his movie during principal photography and was threatening to sue Cleveland.com et. al over the ordeal, that would be within the threshold of BLPSPS to exclude. Definitely not the casting demographics, that's not a risqué enough statement. I'm concerned that you see the casting demographics of people of color and assume it is on the level of the above hypothetical example. BarntToust 18:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the subject of such a claim would primarily be a person (not a demographic on a casting sheet) and the claim that the chairman of a major American production studio levying a lawsuit over a prominent local media company would be bold as all hell would let out (unlike a routine assertion that there was a certain demographic in mind for a character on a casting sheet). BarntToust 18:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of WP:BLP makes it clear that it isn't limited to biographical articles: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts. (emphasis original). As I've discussed above, WP:BLPGROUP makes it clear that it can apply to small groups of people even if no one is explicitly named and WP:BLPSPS bars the use of any self-published source for any material, not just negative/controversial stuff, when BLP is implicated. If this was sourced to say a non-self published, reliable publication like Variety, Deadline, THR, etc. than BLPSPS would not apply.
I have never asserted that casting people of color is "risqué" or at the same level of controversy as someone threatening a lawsuit against an established newspaper. You are putting words in my mouth. Once again, I'm going to ask you to strike your comments accusing me of racism. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
y'know what? I have no idea what exactly anybody is contesting this about anymore. Took a nice drink of Christmas cheer for me to realise that this has been a battle of parameters and applicability. Struck the first offending comment insinuating racial... something on your behalf.
I notice the implicit and the whatever IDK I had too much to eat at Christmas dinner so I'll make this wrap-up quick. I just don't get the game. I made the article
    Jeff Sneider
which you may enjoy checking out. I realised this InSneider guy is actually the one who is racially insensitive, judging by a 2016 tweet and news story of his, and that he made a joke about driving his car into a tree when he didn't get to publish a story on time? IDK why I ever tried to play devil's advocate for this jackass provocateur. Sorry for wringing you around the bend on your talk page about this. BarntToust 00:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The article is well-researched and is definitely quite revealing. Definitely did not know about all of these controversies before. Since I think we've come to an understanding here, I think any further details can be discussed at the RSN thread. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh cool, MEDRS would require a peer review process, a reputable scientific journal / publisher to publish the info. BarntToust 17:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panendeism

Some years ago you deleted this after an RFD to that effect, one where I too voted delete. In the intervening years, I’ve seen more books and like sources mentioning the term, usually in the context of a variation on Pandeism. Think now it should be restored and pointed there. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Patar_knight&oldid=1265536077"