User talk:Aeonx/Archive/2021/November
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Are you running an agenda?
You have again made misleading edits on the Mark Willacy page. Just because a Walkley Award is not "major" does not make it "minor". The Walkley Awards are the highest award in Australian journalism. To describe them as "minor" is disingenuous and misleading on your part. And why remove the quote about the book 'Rogue Forces'? It is pertinent to the work of the subject of the page. And if you removed that, why did you not remove the quotes about his other two books? I would suggest you have an agenda that makes your editing biased and misleading.
- Tokyo Oz (talk · contribs), I do not have an agenda. I do not believe my edits are misleading, and you have offered no justification as to why they would be. The Walkley Awards are an annual award which stem from questionable origin having been funded by Australian petroleum company, Ampol, who has been known for using the media to push one-sided viewpoints. The Walkley awards are not internationally notably, there is little if any international reporting on the non-major (aka minor) Walkley awards, nor Australian public knowledge of them; especially given their annual nature. Many nations have similar awards and winning such an award does not meet the General notability guideline. My recent edits to the Mark Willacy article have been made to address the WP:PEACOCK and WP:BLP Sources templates on the page. I am however very concerned that your editing on Wikipedia does not adhere to the WP:NPOV policy, and your single focus editing on the Mark Willacy article leads me to believe you are in some way connected with that individual, maybe as their publisher? Nearly every edit you seem to have made to the page has been Puffery or perhaps Self promotion(?), neither of which is acceptable on Wikipedia.
- Individual reviews about his books are not pertinent to the subject and in this case they raise bias concerns. I have taken your suggestion, and I shall remove the quotes about the other books too.
- Please also sign your posts on talk pages, you can read about there here: WP:FOURTILDES. Aeonx (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. I assume you already have the COVID DS warning, so I'll warn you that persistently refusing to get the point is disruptive; and if you keep acting like this, you're likely to get reported to WP:AE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Take to mediation. It's WP:EW now. I'm trying to get opinions on the talkpage as is the purpose of the tag. You fail to understand that. Aeonx (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- You have gotten opinions and reliable sources aplenty on the talk page. Nobody supports your position. And yet you are adding a tag to the article. That is disruptive, and failing to get the point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- The point, which I have already articulated, is that there is no polled or surveyed evidence to show a majority support for an opinion or belief which would justify the wording of "most" over "many". What do you not understand about that? There is no poll and no survey; so how can anyone claim that they know a majority position exist. Next presidential election, imagine just knowing who is going to be president without voiting. A majority is established through polling and surveys. Aeonx (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- The point which you fail to understand is that such a poll is not relevant nor necessary; because it is not our job to figure out "The Truth". We have plenty of sources which say "Most scientists think X", and WP:VNT applies: you have failed to provide a source which disputes that the majority of scientists think that the virus is indeed of natural origin. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thats rubbish. WP:VNT is an essay, not a policy. When it comes to Wikipedia reporting things in a matter-of-fact manner, facts matter, as does the evidence to justify it. Aeonx (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- WP:V and WP:NOR are policies, and your edits go against both of these, as succinctly summarised at VNT, hence why I am linking to it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. I disagree. That's why we have a talkpage where I started a relevant discussion to gather opinions and reach consensus. And that's the purpose of inserting discuss tags in articles where particular elements are disputed. I ask you restore the tag I place, or I will take to noticeboard. My addition of the disputed tag is as per it's stated purpose. You are stifling the opportunity for discussion by other editors by removing it. Aeonx (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not stifling anything. The discussion is still there on the talk page, and anybody interested can participate. The consensus there is currently 3-1 against you; which indicates that your concerns do not appear to be justified, so I have removed the tag. WP:V and WP:NOR are certainly not "my opinion"; they're well accepted policies, and it should be trivial for you to prove me wrong if I were, by citing a reliable source. Attempting to reverse the burden of proof is not going to get you anywhere, too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- I accept WP:V and WP:NOR are well accepted policy. What I claim is your opinion is that "[my] edits go against both these" policies. It's YOUR opinion my edits go against these policies. I have no issue with the policies themselves. I strongly support both of them. I disagree that my edits go against them. Aeonx (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. I'm not reversing it. You are. Aeonx (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Rubbish. I have provided sources which say explicitly what is in the article. As far as WP:V is concerned, that's all that's necessary. If you dispute those sources, then you have to find sources to the contrary. If you cannot find such sources, then one must conclude that your opinion is WP:OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not stifling anything. The discussion is still there on the talk page, and anybody interested can participate. The consensus there is currently 3-1 against you; which indicates that your concerns do not appear to be justified, so I have removed the tag. WP:V and WP:NOR are certainly not "my opinion"; they're well accepted policies, and it should be trivial for you to prove me wrong if I were, by citing a reliable source. Attempting to reverse the burden of proof is not going to get you anywhere, too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. I disagree. That's why we have a talkpage where I started a relevant discussion to gather opinions and reach consensus. And that's the purpose of inserting discuss tags in articles where particular elements are disputed. I ask you restore the tag I place, or I will take to noticeboard. My addition of the disputed tag is as per it's stated purpose. You are stifling the opportunity for discussion by other editors by removing it. Aeonx (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- WP:V and WP:NOR are policies, and your edits go against both of these, as succinctly summarised at VNT, hence why I am linking to it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- And for the record, I'm not saying it's wikipedia's job to do the poll or survey; just to verify by referencing one with inline citations. Aeonx (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, what you are doing is disputing material which is quoted verbatim from multiple reliable sources. "Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source." You have failed to provide a single source which substantiates your concerns, or credibly criticises the existing reliable sources in any way, so until you do that, your comments are nothing more than personal opinion, and do not contribute to improving the article, merely being expressions of your discontent with established policies. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- 1. I disagree the sources are reliable for this specific claim.
- 2. I am not adding content, I'm restoring it to what it was originally "many" (not "most"), and I believe that better reflects the intention and meaning of the sources (which I add may be subject to issues with currency). Aeonx (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- 1) Nature is reliable, certainly; the relevant scientific journals are certainly reliable; the recent Scientific American piece is also probably reliable (I haven't fully checked the author's credential; and I've only skimmed through the article in question; but the publisher is reputable) 2) if you insist that there has been a change since March/May, then you need to cite sources which prove, or at the very least say, so. Given the recent (August) review paper by Holmes et al. does not appear to show any such change, such a notion appears dubious; but hey, find a good source and I'll shut up. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't question Nature and Scientific American are generally reliable, I agree they are. But this particular statement has been cherry-picked from becuase of it's precise wording and use of language. The cited references do not include any polling or survey to establish evidence of a majority opinion, nor as secondary sources, do they reference any sort of meta analysis or primary studies. There simply is no evidence to verify or validate the claim made by the authors to justify "most" instead of "many". Aeonx (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- From a personal attempt at doing so, I can certainly tell you I found (when I conducted that exercise - I've been semi-regularly looking for new papers since then) no evidence that there is support for any idea but a natural origin. In the lack of compelling contradictory evidence (you have provided none whatsoever), I say that Nature, Scientific American et al. are good enough to support the claim currently in the article. Scientific opinion is not a popularity contest, anyway, and given the lack of credible scientific sources which argue the opposite, it's rather unambiguous that there indeed is a majority position, and we don't need to undermine it or put it into false balance with something promoted by a group of internet activists by qualifying it with the word "many" (instead of "most") when it is in all likelihood the consensus position. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have a higher standards of evidence than some editors on Wikipedia, and I accept these higher standards can not always be met, as in this case. You, and other editors, may be satisified that the references cited as sufficient, and I disagree. I am happy to accept consensus if/when it is reached as per WP:5P. That said, I have no interest in pursuing this because I know there are several individuals who routinely WP:PUSH; and like you have, will also spam policies and essays as justification, few/none of which being validly applied and distract my time because I have to re-reveiw them each time (a point that WP policies change often). Frankly, I don't want to get baited further whilst Wikipedia imposes draconian DS that are zealously applied. Aeonx (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- From a personal attempt at doing so, I can certainly tell you I found (when I conducted that exercise - I've been semi-regularly looking for new papers since then) no evidence that there is support for any idea but a natural origin. In the lack of compelling contradictory evidence (you have provided none whatsoever), I say that Nature, Scientific American et al. are good enough to support the claim currently in the article. Scientific opinion is not a popularity contest, anyway, and given the lack of credible scientific sources which argue the opposite, it's rather unambiguous that there indeed is a majority position, and we don't need to undermine it or put it into false balance with something promoted by a group of internet activists by qualifying it with the word "many" (instead of "most") when it is in all likelihood the consensus position. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't question Nature and Scientific American are generally reliable, I agree they are. But this particular statement has been cherry-picked from becuase of it's precise wording and use of language. The cited references do not include any polling or survey to establish evidence of a majority opinion, nor as secondary sources, do they reference any sort of meta analysis or primary studies. There simply is no evidence to verify or validate the claim made by the authors to justify "most" instead of "many". Aeonx (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- 1) Nature is reliable, certainly; the relevant scientific journals are certainly reliable; the recent Scientific American piece is also probably reliable (I haven't fully checked the author's credential; and I've only skimmed through the article in question; but the publisher is reputable) 2) if you insist that there has been a change since March/May, then you need to cite sources which prove, or at the very least say, so. Given the recent (August) review paper by Holmes et al. does not appear to show any such change, such a notion appears dubious; but hey, find a good source and I'll shut up. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, what you are doing is disputing material which is quoted verbatim from multiple reliable sources. "Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source." You have failed to provide a single source which substantiates your concerns, or credibly criticises the existing reliable sources in any way, so until you do that, your comments are nothing more than personal opinion, and do not contribute to improving the article, merely being expressions of your discontent with established policies. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thats rubbish. WP:VNT is an essay, not a policy. When it comes to Wikipedia reporting things in a matter-of-fact manner, facts matter, as does the evidence to justify it. Aeonx (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- The point which you fail to understand is that such a poll is not relevant nor necessary; because it is not our job to figure out "The Truth". We have plenty of sources which say "Most scientists think X", and WP:VNT applies: you have failed to provide a source which disputes that the majority of scientists think that the virus is indeed of natural origin. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- The point, which I have already articulated, is that there is no polled or surveyed evidence to show a majority support for an opinion or belief which would justify the wording of "most" over "many". What do you not understand about that? There is no poll and no survey; so how can anyone claim that they know a majority position exist. Next presidential election, imagine just knowing who is going to be president without voiting. A majority is established through polling and surveys. Aeonx (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- You have gotten opinions and reliable sources aplenty on the talk page. Nobody supports your position. And yet you are adding a tag to the article. That is disruptive, and failing to get the point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Biased, inaccurate editing
I note that you have now stripped longstanding quotes from the Mark Willacy page regarding his books. These quotes are from legitimate and certified publications and reflect independent assessments by these publications of these works. You did this after stripping quotes from one book citation in particular and being questioned regarding why you did this, whilst not removing independent quotes from other book citations. A person's work is directly related to that person and their Wikipedia entry. It is legitimate information and you are censoring it. You are editing this page according to pre-existing biases. Your other edits regarding awards have been shown to be inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyo Oz (talk • contribs) 08:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I stripped the quotes about the books because they were irrelevant fluff aimed and grandstanding without imparting any real encyclopaedic information. I started with one because it was most obvious and most recent. Then I applied it to all of them because on review they were just cherry-picked reviews. I can see how you might think my edits are biased you seem to think one-sided opinion pieces aren't. I disagree. Wikipedia is not a forum for publishers to promote books or authors. Your accusations of "pre-existing biases" are unfounded. I read one of the Mark Willacy's book and thoroughly enjoyed it, I personally think he's a great journalist and author but my personal opinion doesn't matter in this forum. Aeonx (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Third opinion
Hi Aeonx, and thank you for seeking a third opinion. I am declining your request, as the issue has not been "thoroughly discussed on the article talk page", as recommended by the 3O guidelines. For what it's worth, I agree with you that discussion on this issue belongs on the article talk page. If discussion comes to a standstill, and no other editors join in, please feel free to relist at the 3O page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
From Tokyo Oz. An independent review of a book is not a promotion. Feel free to add more critical reviews. I cannot find any in the case of this particular book. Independent reviews of books are included on other author sites and are accepted as legitimate input that reflect a subject's body of work or a particular work as reviewed by independent arbiters. Again, please include more critical reviews if they are available. I note that you included a citation from a Michael Smith article that was attached to Willacy's birth year and birth place. This article did not contain this information and only contained an attack from an anonymous and unverifiable source. I have also cleaned up some terminology to remove tautology and to make the article more accurate. Thank you for your other input which I have not edited as it is accurate. I note that your request for a third opinion was declined. I am more than happy to gain consensus if you are happy to explain convincingly how my edits are inaccurate in any way. Tokyo Oz (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Book reviews are either promotional or opinion, neither of which has a place in Wikipedia as an encyclopedia other than to be considered as supporting sources in articles about books as per [1], in your case the book reviews are being used alongside MOS:PUFFERY to inflate the importance of the article, which is a WP:BIAS issue. I do not believe it is appropriate to add book reviews in this case because it's not notable encyclopedic information relevant to the article. For all further discussion on this article, I insist that you write on the article talkpage, and DO NOT post further on my talkpage, this is not the place for discussing articles. Aeonx (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo on a "Biographies" 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 08:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Reporting of alleged war crimes involving Australian special forces
@aeonx Do you have an agenda? To erode the credibility of media reporting on war crimes allegations against Australian Special Forces? Your assiduous editing of this journalist’s page suggests this. There has been a pattern of attacking media and whistleblowers involved in bringing such allegations to light in the UK and the US. Your editing raises concerns you are bringing an element of politically-motivated bias to these matters. You need to show more balance, precision and objectivity in evaluating the credibility of sources to back your claim you’re interested in seeing unvarnished facts on these pages. TruthAndContext (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- @TruthAndContext, this is the same baseless accusation that was made earlier and to which I've already responded: [2]. Whilst I accept that you may perceive I have some bias I would suggest that actually the majority of your edits have been to promote a single POV on a single article, and that indicates a clear bias which I attempting to balance, please see my userpage on these issues. I will also state, I do not have any interest or personal bias against Willacy, the ABC, or the particular topic. I'm a completely independent editor who so happened to become interested in the article after I read Willacy's 3rd book and read into the reporting some more. My edits to the page began before the most recent controversy so you should also consider that I'm not pursuing biased point of view based on recent reporting. It's also ironic that you demand that I need to show more balance when my edits have principally been to flag the lack of balance, insist on discussion on the talkpage, and to re-focus the article, Mark Willacy, on facts and relevant information as it pertains to WP:GNG, rather than to promote WP:OR, accusations and puffery. If you believe there are "unvarnished facts", please discuss on the relevant article talkpage, not here. Aeonx (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I’m obliged to correct your misreading of the Defence Department documents, and your propensity to put the same stock of credibility in social media posts by a person who was responsible for a platoon whose communications around the time of alleged war crimes have been withheld by the department because they are part of an active criminal probe by an investigating body, and a reputable, publicly accountable public broadcaster. Russell’s POV must be carefully assessed as he has a personal stake in the matter. TruthAndContext (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)