This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cwobeel. 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.
The late-summer smash success of Straight Outta Compton remains the chief talking point of the English-speaking world, interrupted only by the welcome return of a Google Doodle.
First bot-created article generated from Wikidata; the Orange Bar of Doom has finally met its doom; active editor numbers still on the rise; arbitrator to resign; ne templates added in wake of Orangemoody case
This edit of yours doesn't indicate whether the 145,000 was before all of the 30,000 layoffs or before some of them, or after all of them. So I don't see what purpose is served by the edit. If it makes you happy, I'll accept your edit, but not for any other reason.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Layoffs, if you read the other parts of the article, were implemented after the merger (in fact one of the reasons for the merger was to reduce costs by reducing headcount). So all in all, if you take into account that 8,000 jobs were added via other acquisitions... it ended up being a wash. That's is why that material is really not relevant; the ony relevant thing is that she created massive disruption in 30,000 families. - Cwobeel(talk)14:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Is the edit wrong? Do you disagree with the content? I though that it was a very useful edit as it provides the entire picture. I will revert, but please consider re-adding it because it improves the section. In any case, I inted to resume editing tomorrow or day after. - Cwobeel(talk)19:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The text is a bit funny, because it papers over the fact that while the 30,000 jobs lost were US workers, the employee additions during her tenure were mostly overseas and from acquisitions. - Cwobeel(talk)21:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: See for example What Fiorina didn't note is that much of HP's employment growth was through acquisitions. In 2001, HP acquired Compaq, adding 64,000 employees, and in 2008 it added EDS, gaining another 139,000. Whether these acquisitions were wise or successfully integrated is a matter for debate. But a more important issue may be whether HP still matters as a U.S. employer. Many of these jobs are overseas, and more may be heading there. [2] - Cwobeel(talk)21:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The article is never going to be exactly like you want it. Already, the lead says that the new employees included "employees outside the United States". Likewise, the section on layoffs already says that, "the new hires included many employees in countries outside the United States." I don't think it's useful to endlessly re-debate this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Presented to Cwobeel on September 25, 2015 for your tireless persistence in editing with precision and style and defending the difficult articles while encouraging others to do the same. A true wikipedian! -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The last one, OTRS, is the best process to go through to get the copyright holder to release copyright under an acceptable free-use license. However, we'd also require not just the photographer of the work but the creator of the work itself, the artwork created by the artist, to license copyright via a free-use license.
When making RFCs in the past, I often try to split the subsection headers below the RFC into Previously involved participants and Previously uninvolved, respondents to the RFC.
That way, you have one section for those that may, unfortunately, devolve into the same tired parties rehashing circular arguments which drove the need for the RFC in the first place.
And, hopefully, another section for the fresh eyes, the people ideally coming because they saw the RFC itself, who are hopefully previously uninvolved participants.
That section on the incident, which seems to focus on the Mohamed family dealing with the aftermath of it, should also include more of Ahmed and his family's remarks on what happened during the incident once there was talk about if it was a bomb or not and how he felt about being handcuffed, etc., in order to give his side. There have been many remarks from them that have been widely reported, but there's really not much there on that, including, for example, an actual quote from him about it being only a clock and that he never said it was a bomb. I don't have the time right now to add anthing, but it's a suggestion if you would have time. If not I might sometime soon or will suggest on the talk page that a little more gets added. Psalm84 (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Psalm84: There are plenty of sources covering these aspects, but the article now is a mess, with unattributed minority opinions in the lead presented as facts, and undue weight aspects regarding the Mayor's comments. - Cwobeel(talk)02:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It certainly is, but there are a few editors that are trying to keep RS material out of the article for their own reasons. Some of them made some outrageous comments during the AFD. - Cwobeel(talk)01:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories
The Dallas Morning News does a good job at taking apart the various conspiracy theories that have popped up, who knows whether they're motivated by paranoia or prejudice, but the news organization skillfully debunks them pretty well:
Great job on Conspiracy theories sect. I wonder if the so-called "analysis" sect should be merged into the Conspiracy theories sect as well, since most of the sources in the "analysis" sect violate WP:RS (as I see you already observed), and therefore violate WP:BLP and probably wouldn't stand up to intense scrutiny at the noticeboard WP:BLPN, per WP:FRINGE -- curious what you think? — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm just wondering because if you cut out the most obvious sources that fail WP:RS in the "Clock photo analysis" sect, there's not much there of substance. I'm seeing sources like:
TechWorm
Maxim.com
PJ Media
Twitter post itself - obvious primary source, fails WP:NOR
The Daily Caller
Blogs.artvoice.com - blog section of its site
medvr.ict.usc.edu - fine in an article about the guy himself, but use of primary source in this manner in this article fails WP:NOR
I could be wrong, and of course it's open to interpretation, but Wikipedia itself seems to identify The Daily Caller as conservative, and it seems like 99% of the Conspiracy theories are being fomented by people of that ilk. But the more serious matter is WP:RS. These sources, for use in this article, could potentially be discussed individually one-at-a-time, either at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN. Gotta stick to WP:RS, right? — Cirt (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you weigh in on the talk page? Your participation would be more effective that manner. If you want to stay out of it though, I'd understand. - Cwobeel(talk)03:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Pretty well written there. Always remember to keep it short and sweet, but balance that by giving enough context so people can understand the ongoing situation. Key thing is to avoid people glazing over and reacting with TL;DR. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Multiple sources characterizing as conspiracy theories
Sorry if there is an impression that only one source is calling these conspiracy theories.
That is inaccurate.
Multiple sources characterizing as conspiracy theories:
Mitchell, Jim (September 23, 2015). "You need a scorecard to follow the Ahmed conspiracy theories". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved September 24, 2015. I woke up this morning thinking Ahmed Mohamed's few days of fame had expired, and the world would move on to other issues. But after reading about the conspiracy theories now swirling social media, I have one question. What ever happened to facts?
Drago, Mike (September 24, 2015). "The Ahmed Mohamed affair". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on September 27, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015. Then, when kids are kids and adults over-react and the rest of us go bonkers, people like Van Duyne can point fingers, say people are overly sensitive and condone stupid conspiracy theories.
Briquelet, Kate (September 21, 2015). "Nerds Rage Over Ahmed Mohamed's Clock". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on September 23, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015. It's been enough for conservative websites like Breitbart to all but fuel conspiracy theories on Mohamed's meteoric rise and his father's history as an anti-Islamophobia gadfly who twice ran for president of Sudan.
Francis, Matthew R. (September 25, 2015). "Why is Richard Dawkins such a jerk?". Slate. Archived from the original on September 27, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015. Dawkins even links to a piece at the right-wing hate-monger site Breitbart, thereby spreading a conspiracy theory the paranoid author espouses.
Again, Words to Avoid generally include "allegations" and "claims"... Maybe just reverse sect title, not "Hoax allegations and conspiracy theories" but Conspiracy theories and hoax claims or just simply Conspiracy theories, keep it simple? — Cirt (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Cirt, but I think the AFD concluded that the article is about the incident and not about the person. I guess that if he becomes more notable and additional such meetings and coverage emerges, we could create a BLP for the person. - Cwobeel(talk)00:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
He gave a speech beforehand about the incident. He also went to Maker Faire and spoke about it there link. And he gave the introduction at the UN Social Good Summit link. And he met Queen Rania of Jordan link. This will get more coverage in sources, presumably. — Cirt (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
That's up to you, but for now if he's making speeches at international gatherings about the incident, could that go in the article about the incident? — Cirt (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Mind you, that's a quote from his statement before the Friday dinner. As for the introduction at the UN Social Good Summit link there's this source so far, but probably hopefully other better sources tomorrow that will report on that event. Eg link and link. That seems to be a major new development, don't you think? — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Impact of T-shirt on public perception of NASA culture
Seemangal, Robin (September 28, 2015). "NASA Is the Unlikeliest 'Design Firm' in Human History". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on September 28, 2015. Retrieved September 28, 2015. Earlier this month, a young maker named Ahmed Mohamed was arrested while wearing a NASA t-shirt after bringing a homemade clock to his high school. Photographs of Ahmed in handcuffs circulated around the globe along with the space agency's logo creating a new context for its design and purpose. ...Ahmed, and the NASA logo, have catapulted the topic of STEM education in America back into the spotlight. And now, children will be inspired to study STEM thanks to Ahmed's continued interest in it beyond all odds.
Relevant portion of article quoted, above.
Though there's a bit more context in the article that's also relevant on the impact.
I mean if taken to WP:RSN or WP:BLPN, clearly lots of sources used in this page would be outright rejected and users warned, for edits like DIFF and DIFF.
Maybe it's time to evaluate individual sources on a specific case-by-case basis at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN -- with specific examples of problematic editing like above DIFFs ?
"Irving Teen Arrested for Clock Visits NYC City Hall". KXAS-TV. NBC DFW; NBC Universal Media, LLC. September 28, 2015. Archived from the original on September 29, 2015. Retrieved September 29, 2015. Fourteen-year-old Ahmed Mohamed toured the building Monday as part of a visit put together by the NYPD Muslim Officers Society. ... Mohamed said de Blasio told him to 'keep doing what you're doing.'
By "OP" I meant the first message in the section. I was just trying to get the discussion off the side issue regarding the wording of the first message in the section, which you have apparently gotten past. Good. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
