User talk:ActivelyDisinterested

Thank you

Thank you @ActivelyDisinterested for improving Gatu

by any chance do you know how to fix the image to show the main image instead of the autograph. When searched it shows his autograph instead of his picture DanielHicksAss (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately that one is beyond me, I suggest asking at the Village Pump which has a section for technical questions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Guidance Barnstar
	Hello from Pakistan! Your consistent help at WP:RSN is invaluable. Awarding you a barnstar with huge thanks for all your reliable source wisdom! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Would an RfC be the way to go for this RS?

Greetings AD! I know you are active on the RS noticeboard, so I was wondering if you could provide the steps you would take in this situation.

Looking through the older archives, there are several discussions related to The Associated Press and it's reliability. However, I could only find one brief discussion with two editors regarding AP and it's celebrity birthday section. [1]

The issue is that I've noticed a considerable amount of errors with the lists that the AP provides, and want to do an RfC regarding it. Would you do a discussion first as an RFCBEFORE to possibly prevent needing an RfC, or go straight for the RfC since there are several discussions regarding AP already in a separate context?

Considering it is a widely used source for birthdays of BLP subjects, I wanted to go about this the right way. And I figured I would ask the resident RS expert :D lol.

Thanks in advance for any advice! Awshort (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It's always best to go for discussion first. The idea is to try and avoid bureaucracy, and RFCs are the most bureaucratic method for building consensus. By having a discussion first it's sometimes possible to completely avoid an RFC.

The best RSN posts are clear and to the point. You want to show a clear tendency to the dates being wrong. So AP says X and another absolutely reliable source says Y and show Y is correct, repeat. It would also help immensely if you can show other sources questioning APs reliability on birth dates.

Remember a source being wrong sometimes doesn't make it unreliable, you need to show it's a clear issue with APs birth dates and that these issues aren't being corrected. A newspaper that publishes incorrect information, but later retracts and corrects themselves are seen as more reliable for doing so.

If discussion doesn't provide satisfaction, then a RFC could be warranted. Here the discussion is again useful, as it can be referred to for details during the RFC.

I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I have spent a lot of my editing time looking at referencing and trying to match it to Wikipedia's policies. I noticed many of the minor questions at RSN going unanswered, which is how I ended up so active there ('help where you can, because you can'). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

RSN - a small thank you

Just wanted to say thank you for your comments at RSN. I don't disagree. I'm going to add a reply with a brief explanation, which also highlights some of the issues that I see with arguments presented earlier in the discussion. But first wanted to say that your comments were genuinely appreciated. Thank you for being the tsukkomi to my boke; the Abbott to my Costello. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've remained outside of the RSN discussion until now, as it has had good attendance and there were other threads to be answered. But I fear that unless it's brought to a conclusion it will just wander on endlessly. It seems the issue has moved from Lockley's work, so I'm going to make a suggest that it's closed and archived. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Greatly appreciated. I agree that it would be preferable for the discussion to be brought to an end.

For clarity, is the suggestion that it be closed with a particular consensus as to the use of the source at the core of the discussion? If so, what would you suggest that consensus should be? If no particular consensus, perhaps just archived without formal closure would be better. Rotary Engine ^talk 16:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A formal close would need to be requested, I'm certainly don't have the skill to close something as confused and longwinded as this. I'm suggesting to just archive it, if instead a close is desired it can be requested at WP:Closure requests. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm not overly opposed to just archiving it. I do worry that the dispute on reliability of the source will linger. But, if so, that can be addressed by making a closure request in the future. Rotary Engine ^talk 18:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You have my sincere apologies that the discussion continues on and on, without sign of abatement. FWIW, I have tried to keep clear of it. Rotary Engine ^talk 02:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking of starting a RFC on the matter on the Yasuke talk page, that way it can be a definitive answer rather than going over the same points endlessly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Not opposed to a new RFC, specifically focused on the reliability of L&G's book. But, without some careful admin curation, I foresee that it's likely to end up a repeat of the same arguments. In which case it will need an experienced closer to cut through the chaff.

In other news, I fear I may have to bring the topic back to RSN, for a broader discussion of the use of Twitter as a source for statements of fact. Rotary Engine ^talk 20:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The use of Twitter, other social media and self-published sources are covered by WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:SPS. Basically they can be reliable when the comments are about themselves (somewhat unlikely in this case), or if the poster is a subject matter expert that has been previously published in independent reliable sources. Such uses are best used with attribution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Armenian literature, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but my activity in the area has generally been correcting technical issues with referencing rather content. So I don't think I would be able to help much. If you do come across any technical issues or errors I would always be willing to help in anyway I can. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)