Wikipedia

Talk:No Vacancy Lounge/Archive 1

< Talk:No Vacancy Lounge
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Another Believer in topic Another source
Archive 1

Coords/map

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved

@Jonesey95: Could I trouble you to assist with coordinates and map for the infobox, please? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

2018 Bar of the year vs 2018 New Bar of the year

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For some reason Another Believer did not like my change. My edit reflects what it said in article, because the original phrasing in prose give an impression of greater significance. "2018 Bar of The Year" list would signify overall best. 2018 Best New Portland Bars" as said in the source is much more conditional which limits them to nomination to best bars for within the categories *new bars*, *within Porltand*. The less specific statement is apt to being misconstrued as more significant than what the source intended.

Graywalls (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, In my opinion, more sources use "Bar of the Year", so I'm trying to find a compromise that follows sourcing but does not skew significance. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
You're talking about other sources, but this source, which is embedded into prose is specific about "new bar of the year", so I am not sure why you feel the need to rephrase it to how other sources more commonly say it. WW might define it somewhere what they mean by "best new bar" somewhere on their page. To explain it and say "focus on newer" is a bit of original research which I think should be avoided. Graywalls (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
"Bar of the Year":
---Another Believer (Talk) 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm talking about the connected reference. Most specifically, the Willamette Week source called "A Survey of the Things WW Has Officially Declared “The Best” In the Past Year" found at the internet URL resource https://www.wweek.com/culture/2018/07/10/a-survey-of-the-things-ww-has-officially-declared-the-best-in-the-past-year/ The resource lists a whole bunch of stuff, but the content of interest is subtitled Best New Portland Bar of the Year which reads "No Vacancy Lounge, which transformed a century-old McCormick & Schmick's restaurant into an ambitious club that "strikes a careful balance between timeless glamor and a futuristic Technicolor utopia." May 22, 2018 " Graywalls (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, Yes, I understand a source says "Best New Portland Bar of the Year". There are more sources using simply "Bar of the Year". ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Then, feel free to report different versions said by the the different sources say. Graywalls (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with the article's current wording. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Reywas92: I've grown so, so tired of interacting with Graywalls, who just removed a chunk of content from this article. Do you mind taking a look to help determine whether or not the content and sourcing are appropriate? For the record, I'm not asking you or anyone to agree with me, but given my frustrations with this editor, I'd rather just ask outside editors for input. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Reywas92 and Graywalls: My apologies, I reviewed the edit summary and diff too quickly, and thought the content was removed. I now see just the number of citations was reduced. Sorry for the confusion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
What perplexes me in the first place is why you insert three different sources with huge chunk of text just to have three sources that repeat the announcement of Will Vinton's event is happening at 235 S.W. 1st Avenue in Portland, starting at 3 p.m. Sunday, Oct. 21. All I have done is removed nonconstructive reference bombing. Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, I was scrambling to collect sources because of the deletion nomination. For the record, the 3 sources were bundled as a single inline citation. I was just collecting as much as possible at the time. I don't mind your trim, so let's please move on. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
And doing something like stacking things up to fluff it up is the very definition of "objectionable" editing that interferes with honest consensus building process. Graywalls (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, I've already said I was just collecting sourcing. I've apologized for the misunderstanding, and agreed to your trim. Can you please stop poking me for every little thing? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I know this was unintentional, Another Believer, but when contents are actually changed, I really wonder if you thoroughly read edit comments and talk comments, and manually evaluate what was removed and why they were removed/changed/added. I mean, how can you complain over "contents removed" and not bother to check what was removed before you start to even think if there's been an issue? Graywalls (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, This is not a constructive discussion. Do you mind if I archive so we can focus on proposed article improvements below? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I do mind. Keep in mind article talk pages are not your user space. You don't have to continue discussing it if you do not wish. It's not really tasteful to shove things under the rug from article's talk page. Graywalls (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, I'm just trying to tidy, but whatever. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hidden comments

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Instead of inserting hidden comments, care to share your concerns here please, Graywalls? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm inserting them as hidden comments in source so people reviewing the source can see it in relevant spots. Graywalls (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, Actually, I think your comment is a bit general, and I'd prefer to discuss specific claims and sourcing, but I'm done interacting with you for now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

purged list of calendar events

I got rid of the hidden comment, and I also trimmed the list of people/band/events who have wiki blue link and extent of coverage limited to appearance in a calendar listing that happens to be booked at the venue. I left ones that seems to have some level of notability. This is an event venue. They hold events and airplanes arrive and depart from airports. Although history of events are verifiable on event calendar and flight arrival and departure history are also available form reliable sources, these mere routine happenings are not really inclusion worthy events. Now, if a certain flight or an event receives more than an appearance in a routine calendar, delay, cancellation notices of somewhat notable relevance to the VENUE or the AIRPORT, then those events or FLIGHTS are worth including to the venue or the airport. Comments welcomed. Graywalls (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: The above would be the "talk" discussion you felt was omitted. Graywalls (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, Yes, I saw, and I didn't revert because I thought something was omitted. I reverted because I disagreed with some of your changes to the article. Can you please specifically outline here which events and sources you find problematic, so other editors can review? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, I am not going to edit war with you. I've told you I don't agree with all the changes you've implemented, but you're insisting they be kept. I've asked you to outline your proposed changes above, so other editors can help decide which changes are appropriate, and you're not cooperating. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You're just delaying the changes. I asked you to explain the contentions just as I did in edit comments and here on talk. Instead you're complaining you don't like it demanding I propose the change. Note that you didn't hold yourself to the same standard of proposing addition before you added all the clutter. Graywalls (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Location

Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's in Oldtown, not downtown. https://www.portlandmaps.com/detail/neighborhood/OLD-TOWN-COMMUNITY-ASSOCIATION/57_did/?property_id=R140384 Wweek: From "It's a surprising scene to see at a nightclub on the edge of Old Town" Graywalls (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Old Town is part of downtown. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, you were wrong to remove the Southwest Portland category, because NVL is located in the SW part of Old Town, which spans both sides of Burnside. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I've added mention of the neighborhood, as well as the neighborhood navbox and category. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Another Believer, please refer to https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/59267 Downtown neighborhood association has no overlap with the Old Town Chinatown neighborhood and it is also a part of NWNW, not SWNI. Also, please see the WW article that was cited prior to your reversion, which reads "Edge of Oldtown" which is correct. The definition of neighborhood is not defined by the street address prefix. Feel free to ask for assistance if you have trouble understanding or reading the map. Graywalls (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, Sorry, but I'm quite familiar with PDX geography. Feel free to get a third opinion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Please name a source that indicates "OTCT is a part of DTNA' Graywalls (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, Please find someone who agrees with you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Now this question is a great question for WP oregon Graywalls (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, Sure! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Another Believer:I double checked. It still looks to me that NVL was at SW 1st and SW Oak, on the skidrow side, rather than the downtown side of Oak St. Graywalls (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

reinstatement of editorialized comments without explanatory edit comments

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Another Believer:, you've reverted and reinstated comments using Twinkle script, including contents I've changed and removed with proper edit comments. Your jumped the gun and didn't explain your action. There are issues, such as phrasing contents from the sources which specifically read "according to lawsuit..." as factual statement of events. The source says the owner cites landlord dispute, WW/mercury didn't state "closed DUE TO. You're giving more credibility to owners than given by the source, which is op-eding. Graywalls (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, We can use the talk page to discuss specific changes to specific content, but you're electing to edit war instead. I wish you would revert to status quo and propose changes for me and other editors to review more closely. Editing Wikipedia doesn't have to be like pulling teeth all the time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
You're edit warring by click click bang Twinkle revert edits you don't like, don't offer explanation other than "disagree" "don't like". Graywalls (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe I've expressed the contentions and why I've removed them. Now please explain your side that is not just "don't like it".Graywalls (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with some of your changes, but not all. I'd like to discuss them individually. You seem to interpret this as me delaying your inevitable improvements, which is not true. Regardless, I find collaborating with you extremely frustrating, and I don't appreciate your style of working here at Wikipedia. I'm backing off for now, mostly to avoid the drama and any accusations of edit warring. Please stop targeting me and the articles I've worked on. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me with baseless accusations of targeting you. I work on questionable articles, articles about run of the mill places in area/subject of my interest and well, given that a large proportion of articles meeting that criteria are created by you, it's coincidental. Now, I see that you have a lot of articles far outside of Portland. It would be something if my edits were following YOU, rather than the area and topic of my interest. It's predatory that you spread out articles like a blanket and claim that picking on articles on that "blanket" is targeting you. Graywalls (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Path forward

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been a lot of back and forth here, so I'd like to propose a way forward. I have a few problems with the version Graywalls insists on keeping:

  • mention of Old Town Chinatown in the lead, but not the article body
  • the inline citation for Old Town in the lead, when this should be moved to the article body
  • saying "Best New Portland Bar of the Year" instead of "2018 Bar of the Year", which is not the phrase used more often in sourcing
    • (I should also note, another editor here agreed with keeping "2018 Bar of the Year", so "Best New Portland Bar of the Year" goes against consensus.)
  • removal of "downtown Portland", when the Old Town Chinatown neighborhood is located within downtown Portland
  • removal of mention of Will Vinton being Billy Vinton's father
  • the incomplete sentence "A Gatsby-themed New Year's Eve celebration", following some sloppy trimming
  • removal of Template:Old Town Chinatown, Portland, Oregon

Therefore, I propose restoring this version of the article, then removing the AfD banner, so I can submit a request for a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors and we can discuss the specific claims Graywalls removed from the "Events" subsection:

  1. a "420 Celebration" with "electro soul-funk" music[1]
  2. a local sushi restaurant's tenth anniversary celebration benefitting The Nature Conservancy,[2]
  3. Later in the year, the venue hosted the sixteenth annual Bollywood Halloween dance party,[3][4] a concert featuring local hip-hop artists,[5][6]
  4. In 2019, NVL held "Love Sucks: An Emo Valentine's Day", a Valentine's Day dance event featuring "pop, punk, alternative, and emo classics".[7]

References

  1. ^ Singer, Matthew (April 17, 2018). "A Guide to 420 Events in Portland". Willamette Week. Retrieved April 7, 2019.
  2. ^ "The Portland Book Festival, a Holigay Market and 9 Other Things to Do and See in Portland Nov. 7–11". Willamette Week. November 6, 2018. Retrieved April 6, 2019.
  3. ^ "Haunted Houses and Spooky Dance Parties to Plan Your Halloween Around". Willamette Week. October 23, 2018. Retrieved April 6, 2019.
  4. ^ "The 38 Best Things to Do in Portland This Weekend: Oct 26–28". The Portland Mercury. October 25, 2018. Retrieved April 6, 2019.
  5. ^ Moore, Jenni (December 21, 2018). "EOY Hip-Hop Happenings: Six Local Shows Worth Stepping Out For". The Portland Mercury. Retrieved April 6, 2019.
  6. ^ "The 22 Best Things to Do in Portland This Weekend: Dec 28–30". The Portland Mercury. December 27, 2018. Retrieved April 6, 2019.
  7. ^ "The 13 Best Things to Do This Valentine's Day!". February 11, 2019. Retrieved April 6, 2019.

I am not opposed to trimming some of the events content, if editors deem particular sources inappropriate. When the article was nominated for deletion, I had to scramble to expand the entry as soon as possible to demonstrate sufficient coverage. In doing so, I may have added some unnecessary detail, or less than ideal sources. I don't have a problem admitting this. Graywalls seems to have a very strict approach w/r/t sourcing, and that's fine, but I'm not sure all editors would have a problem with using some of these sources to provide an overview of NVL's activities and events. There are 4 claims and 7 source above -- getting editors to decide which to keep or remove should not take long, and we can trim the article once consensus has been reached.

@Graywalls: I am always willing to discuss specific claims and sourcing, and I want Wikipedia articles to be their best. You and I seem to struggle working together, so we should probably get some third opinions here. I know restoring this version is not ideal for you, but I'd like for us to use this as a base (for the reasons outlined above) and then discuss proposed changes one at a time. Otherwise we're just going back and forth. Does this seem like an appropriate way forward? You made a few other minor wording changes, which I'm also open to discussing, but I think I highlighted the major difference above. I know discussing these changes one at a time can be tedious and time-consuming, but sometimes this process is necessary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

So, why exactly are you not holding yourself to the same standard on adding things? I have already explained my edits and there's nothing left to explain as I had already done so. I ask that you specifically spell out your contentions, thank you. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, Can we agree to reverting to the version I propose and discussing changes? Before going back and forth over specific claims and sourcing, I want us to agree on a process for moving forward. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I have created a section down below to specifically address your points, one by one. Would you mind creating a 3O request, using neutral language? If you prefer me to do it, then give me a day or tow and I'll get around to submitting it. - done. Graywalls (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, I'm willing to reply to your comments below, but not until we decide on a process for moving forward. I've outlined how the current article is problematic. If you're confident in your proposed changes, then you should feel comfortable reverting and then discussing them with me and other editors below. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Another Believer, am I hearing you right? you're wanting my changes reverted until consensus is obtained, yet you're expecting your un-discussed additions that occurred in these points to stay. If so, I believe that's highly one sided. If you'd like to roll it back to the point immediately prior to the AfD and go forward, I'm more apt to consider it. Graywalls (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, I spent time drafting an article because you came by and nominated for deletion. You dispute some of the content I've added. I'm disagreeing with some of your changes, and we've reached a standstill. I am trying to find a reasonable way forward, and I've outlined my concerns with the current article. Your unwillingness to commit to this process says a lot. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

You're not giving me a good reason why my changes should have to go through discussion while yours are expected to stick without discussion. So starting back at the point prior to AfD would be a good fresh start, then discuss changes from there. Graywalls (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, I'm really disappointed (but not surprised) by your unwillingness to move forward the way I've proposed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Responding to editor Another Beleiver's contentions

Latest comment: 5 years ago21 comments3 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • 1 mention of Old Town Chinatown in the lead, but not the article body
Adding OTCT mention into body would be fine. Removal from lede seems highly questionable given that you consistently use blah blah blah, in the blah blah blah neighborhood of Porltand, Oregon, the United States of America...
  • 2 the inline citation for Old Town in the lead, when this should be moved to the article body
that was put there to ensure its cited. relocating the footnote location would be fine.
  • 3 saying "Best New Portland Bar of the Year" instead of "2018 Bar of the Year", which is not the phrase used more often in sourcing
Since we're at odds with how to phrase it, I am transferring it as phrased in the source, as you do on a lot your snip and paste reception comments. We're not talking about what other sources are doing, I am inserting what the specific reference conveys into the prose.
  • 4 (I should also note, another editor here agreed with keeping "2018 Bar of the Year", so "Best New Portland Bar of the Year" goes against consensus.)
We've had discussions regarding refereeing your own game. That is, self appointing yourself to declare consensus on a dispute you're a part of. I'm going to refer you back to WP:CONSENSUS and its supplement WP:DEFINECONSENSUS with an emphasis to read the part about quality of argument. Additionally, I've also notified you of a 3PO comment suggestion regarding the use of Wiki Projects over content/editorial disagreement.
  • 5 removal of "downtown Portland", when the Old Town Chinatown neighborhood is located within downtown Portland
going to refer you to http://portlanddowntownna.com/about/bylawss/, the official city recognized neighborhood association charter document. This is actually the official page, not a commercial page. One of the cited article also states that this venue is at "the edge of OT". There are travel guides that casually mentions OT is a part of downtown. If you insist, we can state that sources disagree.
  • 6 removal of mention of Will Vinton being Billy Vinton's father
This is very trivial and seems rather irrelevant to the venue.
  • 7 the incomplete sentence "A Gatsby-themed New Year's Eve celebration", following some sloppy trimming
Before, after and proposed phrasing would be useful here. Would you mind posting?
hmm, say what?
Thanks, ;-) Graywalls (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Point 2: I removed events that followed the pattern Event A(ref: calendar A), Event B(ref: calendar B)..... Event n (Calendar n). I believe this comment will augment what I am saying to help you understand what I am saying. Graywalls (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, This comment suggests not all the sources help demonstrate notability, but not necessarily that the sources cannot be used whatsoever. I'd rather let User:Reywas92 speak for themself, though. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Events at the airport include AA 7508 arrived from Medford 05:00 April 10, ref flightstats, another flight ref, then another flight.. Would you consider this appropriate for a small airport that have little to talk about? I doubt it. Ok, the type of event that cites just the calendar is analogous to this.Graywalls (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, The airport thing again, ok. Do you mind numbering these bullets so we can address them one by one after you reply in the above section. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
What I am telling you is that all those routine events and flight records are both verifiable but that doesn't mean they should be included. Graywalls (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, Yes, I understand your argument. We need other editors to weigh in on specific claims and sources. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
And that needs to happen in a neutral way. This doesn't mean approaching projects of your choice in a biased voice like HERE Graywalls (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Graywalls, That's fine. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

So, why are you continuing to use the forum of your choice where you already "know people" and dismiss suggestion from the 3O who suggested Wiki Projects are not the best place to voice editorial conflicts or contents issues? Again, I see you're soliciting in WP Oregon, not 3O or RfC. Why is this? Graywalls (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Graywalls, Please stop. I'll agree to not seeking outside input here if you'll agree to my proposed path forward above. If we can agree to above, we can then start discussing specific content disputes, and I'll lead you take charge of soliciting outside opinions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Oof, this is your 3O request? Not what I had in mind, but ok. I was hoping to get outside input on specific things, not 'come take a look at the talk page and help resolve this'. If you'll agree to the path forward above, I will start addressing the concerns you've number above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Third opinion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bradv (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Another Believer
@Bradv: I've outlined why I'd like to revert to a previous version of the article above, in the "Path forward" section. I believe I've proposed a reasonable way to move forward, but Graywalls seems unwilling to revert by request and work through specific editorial disputes. In my opinion, reverting to a previous version and discussing the changes one at a time seems fair, instead of edit warring back and forth. If Graywalls is confident their proposed changes will be implemented, then they should be willing to try this process. I have more changes I'd like to make to this article, but I'm not willing to spend more time and energy here if another editor is being disruptive. Again, I've outlined specific issues I have with the article, and if Graywalls feels strongly about his preferred content, then we should discuss further. I was hoping to get third opinions on very specific things like certain claims and sources, not a general ask for help resolving this mess, but I appreciate you for taking some time to review. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Update: I'm fine with User:Bradv focusing specifically on this article, and not all the other drama, but because this ongoing discussion at the admin noticeboard mentions this article, I feel a need to share: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Graywalls. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Viewpoint by (Graywalls)
@Bradv:, I am ready when you are. I have nominated this article for AfD as I believed it did not satisfy the combination of WP:NORG that is an extension of WP:GNG expected of articles about organizations. Although I don't really have the diff sitting around, Another Believer admitted stuffing a bunch of sources to save it from deletion; which has resulted in AfD participants suggesting "keep" on the ground "there are xx sources". In my opinion, adding all the fluff disrupted the AfD by creating additional burden on the AfD process as it takes time to look at references and what they really represent. A large number of sources he added are fluff, made up of event announcements and routine calendar announcement that is verifiable; which I likened it to historical flight arrivals/departures list on an airport article which is verifiable but not encyclopedic. AB insists Rev Another Believer be restored and "discuss in talk" and make changes from there, which means he's favoring for inclusion of changes he's made without discussion. I believe that is one sided and disagreed, but I may possibly consider going back to the point where the dispute stated here; and progress with discussion. Rev Graywalls(current) This is the latest version. Verifiability is a non-negotiable requirement; however our policy WP:VNOTSUFF says verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and the inserting party has the burden of proof to justify it; therefore, my proposed compromise is more in line with our rules and it is the fairest option since it is proposing to start working from where problems started. Comments, such as I'll agree to not seeking outside input here if you'll agree to my proposed path forward above he's left comes at me as manipulative, coercive and threatening that is trying to intimidate me into succumb to his way, because he specifically says he won't seek outside help if I agree to cave in. For the record, I am the one who thought the 3PO. The opposing editor AB has often taken editorial disputes to Oregon Wikiprojects with charged language as well as hand picking which editors to bring attention to the concern by pinging people he has hand selected and once he gets them to agree, AB would appoint himself as the referee and declares "consensus has been reached unilaterally on matters in which he's involved asserting "more vote count in favor of AB than GW". It ignores the quality element of inputs emphasized in WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DEFINECONSENSUS and arbitrating/refereeing the as an involved player is fundamentally biased. It has been very frustrating working with this editor. This entire talk is a general picture of what goes on between us. Graywalls (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Third opinion by Bradv
I've left this alone for a bit to see if the ANI discussion would provide some clarity, but I'm not sure it has. Requests for third opinions are most useful when there are two good-faith editors with different perspectives on a single issue, and you just need a third to break the tie or suggest a compromise. This looks like a complex issue with some personal problems mixed in, and I'm really not sure how to answer any of this here. If there's a way to express the disagreement simply, preferably without requiring the respondent to read the entire talk page or delve through the history of the page, I might be able to help. If not, another venue may be more appropriate. – bradv🍁 03:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, The other editor has been banned from interacting with me. If you don't mind, I'd like to continue working on this article as planned before interruption, and archive some of the above discussions. For the record, the closing admin has given me permission to archive appropriately. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Another Believer, given the outcome of the ANI discussion, I'd say the request for a third opinion no longer applies. Feel free to archive this. – bradv🍁 17:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, Will do, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another source

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

...if the purpose is for establishing notability, it adds nothing. It's a local guide that routinely talks about venues. Graywalls (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've added as an external link for now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Møthership: Planet LGBTQA"

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For the record, here are two sources re: "Møthership: Planet LGBTQA", which have been removed, in case they are helpful in the future:

Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Will Vinton

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For the record, here are sources mentioning the 'celebration of life' for Will Vinton:

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No_Vacancy_Lounge/Archive_1&oldid=918242342"