User talk:Chlod/Archive 1

Hi Chlod, sorry if I disrupt your wikibreak. I reverted your edits on Tropical Storm Dujuan since we consider AON as a reliable source for tropical cyclone damage totals. Though as you said the NDRRMC is a very reliable source, we sometimes use AON over government sources. For example the National Centers for Environmental Information has a database with "storm events" that often include tropical cyclones. The NCEI says that Tropical Storm Beta of last year caused only caused a few million dollars in damage. Though, we use AON's estimate which shows $400 million in damage. It is true that NCEI doesn’t include all data. However, it shows that we don’t always use government sources. Again, AON has been used a reliable source for tropical cyclone damage. Thanks for understanding!DachshundLover82 (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DachshundLover82: I never said that Aon was unreliable. I only said that the NDRRMC was a better source over Aon in the lead and infobox. Does Aon's numbers decide the retirement of a storm? Are their numbers grounded on actual data and statistics taken from those actuall affected? If the answer is a clear and definite no, such is the case here, where a reliable on-site source is available, then we use that source. The NCEI "doesn't include all data", as you said yourself, however this is not the NCEI. There is no argument as to why we're supposed to use the data of an insurance company (which estimates insurance losses, not actual damages) over the local disaster agency, unless you're able to prove to me and other editors that the data provided by the NDRRMC is unreliable. Chlod (top • contribs) 23:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chlod:, no company decides the retirement of a storm other than the naming agencies. However, AON's numbers are based on actual data and statistics they report. I would choose the highest estimate or try to find a way to include both at the same time. Such as putting a damagespre in the Infobox, and maybe staying both totals.DachshundLover82 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DachshundLover82: Can you point me to an Aon document which shows a breakdown of information collected from the affected regions which show such "data and statistics"? Or a document which details what they did in order to collect the data they have? In other words, can you prove the verifiability of the claim that damages reached US$10 million? Also, you do know that using "the highest estimate" isn't what we do on Wikipedia, right? We're supposed to use whatever source is best. Not whichever one is highest. Such selective bias can only lead to the misinterpretation of the data presented itself. Chlod (top • contribs) 23:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And no, saying that Aon is used in articles does not automatically make it a better and more verifiable source than the NDRRMC (for this storm, at least). That's not how verifiability works. Chlod (top • contribs) 23:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AON is currently going under website updates so most of the Global Catastrophe recaps are temporarily unavailable, but if you read the short descriptions under each catastrophe, you would see it considers damaged homes and agricultural damages. If you can see NDRRMC only includes infrastructure and agricultural damage and not total economic losses. We use AON for this, so I would considered AON a better source in this situation. Look at other storms that also use this source.DachshundLover82 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I know we don’t use the highest estimate on Wikipedia. However, AON is a reliable source and a trusted estimate in our WikiProject. So verifiability doesn’t apply here.DachshundLover82 (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AON is used in Typhoon Goni's and Vamco's article.DachshundLover82 (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DachshundLover82: I'm perfectly aware that Aon is a reliable source for this project. Again, I'm talking about the quality of the source. Your examples of Goni and Vamco are invalid, as both use a sum of the affected countries and the NDRRMC's data for the infobox and lead. Not Aon. Because I need to say again: Aon does insurance loss estimates, not actual loss from damages. If you think that "insurance loss" fits the definition of "damages" more than "agricultural and infrastructural damage", then there's something clearly wrong there. Chlod (top • contribs) 23:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve made it so that both estimates are taken into consideration in the infobox. I think that should settle this discussion.DachshundLover82 (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DachshundLover82: I have to disagree. That's very much not how we write storm articles since you have to consider the implications of the data you're presenting, and I'm uncomfortable with the usage of Aon over a local agency for the purposes I keep repeating above again and again. Citing your previous examples of Goni and Vamco, both do not use Aon in the lead and infobox. You're exaggerating the damage count by presenting the numbers this way. The WPTC style guide doesn't even specify that two sources for damages are allowed in the lead. So I'll simply apply a standard Wikipedia-based approach: Would an average reader benefit from seeing rough estimates instead of actual data? We write articles, not comprehensive collections of data and thus, it is unreasonable to include both in the lead — what is supposed to be a succint and straightforward section. Chlod (top • contribs) 00:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one of them from the lead to make it easier. There you go!DachshundLover82 (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DachshundLover82: And reintroduced the improper source. Wow. I've restored the previous version, since it respects the WPTC style guide, follows the usual format of other storm articles, and also uses a better source - all of which are policies and guidelines grounded on community consensus. I'm not in the mood to deal with an edit war right now, so I suggest that you don't restore the content without proper consensus from Talk:Tropical Storm Dujuan (2021) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Chlod (top • contribs) 02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s it, I’m done with this edit war! I worked hard on the article days before it hit the PH and it seems like my work means nothing to you. Still have a nice day though.DachshundLover82 (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of the preparations and impact were written by me though, and the meteorological history was mostly copied from the 2021 Pacific typhoon season article, which was also written by me. This whole discussion revolves around less than 100 bytes of changes. When did I ever say that all of "[your] work" means nothing? Calm down. Chlod (top • contribs) 03:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are acting very sarcastic and rude. AON is not an improper source. Plus, most of the early works were written by me. Most of that info is gone now. At this point, I doubt Dujuan will ever make it to GA status. Please stop making it seem like I’m being rude. Being sarcastic wont help this situation.DachshundLover82 (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not that it’s any of my business, but why do you have a wikibreak template on my user page when your editing at the moment?DachshundLover82 (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DachshundLover82: The perceived "rudeness" is only an application of the Golden Rule. Not to mention that I'm not supposed to be on Wikipedia, as you've observed, because I'm clearly not in the mood to edit, but given the talk page message, I spared some time for this, which I don't regret as it's better to deal with this now than later on in the season. And now you're dragging this thing on longer than it should, which is making me increasingly frustrated and tired. Now, comparing the page in its infancy to the current version, not all of the "info is gone now". In fact, not much was there to begin with. The edits of which you put in the most bytes into were all from when the storm was still a depression, and were mostly based or copied from the original meteorological history of the 2021 Pacific typhoon season article, which I had been updating at the time. The "preparations and impact" stemmed from the original bits left over from the season article, but I expanded it after Shadzarie had requested me to - and after seeing that the storm had a bit of possibility that it would be notable enough. 60% of the prose in the article was originally written by me. If I had to put it bluntly: your earlier edits are still there, but they are currently shrouded by the newly-added content. Which is supposed to happen, since no one owns an article and anyone is free to improve it at their own discretion. And like I keep saying again and again, the Aon is not an unreliable source, but it is an improper one for the given context. You have to recognize that some sources take higher priority than others, much like how JMA pressures and movement are used contrary to the JTWC's. If you don't think that the page will never reach GA, go ahead and submit it so we can see if that's really the case or just an opinion. Now if you're calling me out for being "rude", then apologies from brushing off that way, but I am seriously disinterested to keep having to repeatedly cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines, former articles, style guides, and even more pages and documents that clearly indicate that the edits you made use an improper (i.e. not the right one, not meaning unreliable as they're completely different definitions) source for the article. Especially after you restore the incorrect version, brand it as a "fix", and then make this passive-aggressive edit on my talk page. Chlod (top • contribs) 03:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be the last thing I’ll write on this since this is dragging forever. There was nothing wrong with the AON source, you were the only one to really have a problem with it. So technically you dragged this on longer than it had to be, not me. I may have exaggerated a bit with the article, obviously nobody owns an article. Next, why would I submit an incomplete article as a GA after learning from my past mishaps. Sorry if I was being a little hostile earlier but this debate is giving me a headache. Well just have to rely on the input of other editors now.DachshundLover82 (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

You have reverted my edit about notable Alumna Livia Krisandova in the page about AAU (Anglo-American University)

In the context of this page, the section entitled 'Notable Alumni' is clearly meant to highlight achievements that can be generally regarded as positive or notable contributions of certain Alumni of this university. Such information about these accomplishments should be, first and foremost, referring to two types of such actions. First, highlighting a specific and remarkable achievement that makes someone notable and/or secondly, an up-do-date record about someone's career success that makes such a person worthy of mentioning.

Unfortunately, the current edit about a young lady called Livia Krisandova, which was made in 2020, and informs about her past employment in Cambridge Analytica (a company that had been dissolved in 2018) was clearly submitted by someone who, out of spite, wished to harm this young lady's reputation in public by highlighting her former career affiliation with Cambridge Analytica, a company that received a gargantuan wave of negative publicity.

Moreover, the current edit in question was made in 2020 in present tense, suggesting the present and continuous nature of such information, which was clearly not accurate at the time of that edit, not to mention that Cambridge Analytica had been dissolved in 2018 - that is two years prior to this edit. This, again, I makes such edit suspiciously obsolete in its informative nature, and very likely aimed, in truth, to diminish further this tung lady's reputation rather than highlighting her real and up-to-date accomplishments from neutral POV, as it should have been done, and as I have attempted to do do in my re-edits.

For these reasons, I have suggested and written down a new record to replace the previous edit(s), which was undoubtedly composed from a negative POV - a non balanced contribution that should be regarded as a violation of wikipedia rules, and should have been replaced with a content of significantly more balanced information or removed altogether.

Last but not least, the sources cited in this current and negative POV edit from 2020 all point out, in fact, to one and only source - a site opened to public and user contributions with no system of verification of submitted information, and therefore it should not be regarded as a reliable source for wikipedia per se. Besides, wikipedia should not serve as a battleground for persons, using it to deliberatively diminish someone's reputation out of spite or, possibly, other personal reasons.

Taken this altogether, I would kindly ask you to consider my request to replace the current edit (which is obsolete, not up-to-date, written from negative POV, aimed to make only negative associations, grounded in unreliable sources) with my suggested edit(s) with relevant sources. Alternatively, I would also recommend removing the current edit from 2020, taking out all the text with unreliable sources, and replacing it with plain and simple information:

Livia Krisandova - London-based Slovakian accomplished political consultant and campaign manager, AAU International Relations graduate (2012).

Thank you very much for considering my request! Martin M1988 (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Martin! Thanks for taking the time to reach out. Here on Wikipedia, we have a few core policies that determine what content is acceptable, which isn't, and how to remove such content. Let me introduce one of those policies: the policy on the neutral point of view.

On Wikipedia, we take into consideration every single notable detail as long as it is backed by a reliable source, verifiable, and adds due weight to the article. Let's take into consideration the exact line that you're changing in the article:

• Lívia Krišandová - SCL Group and Cambridge Analytica project leader and executive manager, AAU International Relations graduate (2012)

Although "outdated" (in your own words), we can verify that this actually happened with a reliable source (albeit not with the currently-existing source, but with one I just recently replaced it with). Moreover, their position in the project (project leader and executive manager) is definitely notable. You yourself admitted that this happened when you mentioned "her former career affiliation with Cambridge Analytica". Because it fits the criteria of what should be on Wikipedia, it deserves to stay on Wikipedia. Simply being outdated is not a reason to remove it, since it's much more beneficial to just add "former". The problem is: Cambridge Analytics is now defunct, so "former" is no longer needed. Because Cambridge Analytics is defunct, we can simply say that they were the project leader up until the company's dissolution – a sort of "captain who sunk with their ship".

Now, how about removing it? Content is removed from articles if the edit was made in bad faith, if the edit violates a Wikipedia policy or guideline, or if the edit does not improve or maintain Wikipedia. Of all the criteria stated previously (which is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Wikipedia's hundreds of pages about policy), this statement does not violate any. For those reasons, we have to keep the details stated above. Content on Wikipedia like this, whether the person who added it was or was not in favor of the subject or not, should not be removed if it is factual and is important in learning more about the subject itself. Whether or not it ruins her reputation, it happened, it can be sourced, the source is verifiable, and thus it cannot be removed for the reason of so-called "bad PR". Attempting to do so would be censorship of content, which goes against Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

So how about the sentence you gave. Would it fit the guidelines I've referenced above? Let's do a quick check.

• Livia Krisandova - London-based Slovakian accomplished political consultant and campaign manager, AAU International Relations graduate (2012).

"London-based Slovakian" is not notable. Being London-based is not a reason to be put on Wikipedia, nor is being Slovakian. Simply existing is not a reason to be put on Wikipedia. "political consultant and campaign manager" is not notable. If I search for a political consultant and campaign manager in London, will I get Krišandová as a notable result? The answer is no. So we'll have to scrap that too. Lastly, calling someone "accomplished" on Wikipedia without a reference to back it up is disallowed. This is called puffery, and you'll get editors mad if you try to puff a subject up. Since the sentence you gave does not make the subject qualify for notability, they can't even be in the list at all, since list items require notability too.

Given all of the above, the current line cannot be removed, and the line you wish to add cannot be added. Doing either would cause issues and is a likely breach of the Wikipedia policy. Your final option now is to find a consensus from other editors on whether or not to accept your changes - something you can do on Talk:Anglo-American University, however, I doubt that they'll say something different to what I've said.

Lastly, I'm slightly concerned by your persistent interest in Krišandová's public image. If you happen to be paid to edit (either by the AAU or Krišandová herself), you are required to disclose this due to Wikipedia's Terms of Service. If you are not paid, but share close relations with the AAU or Krišandová, I suggest that you avoid conflict-of-interest editing as this can lead to even more scrutiny on the edits you make due to the possibility of bias in neutrality. I hope this makes things clearer. Chlod (top • contribs) 14:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 'Chlod',

Let me thank you for taking time to react on my post on your talk page and explaining me further some of wikipedia's editorial rules, regulations and your decisions regarding your reverted edits about Livia Krisandova in AAU's page. First of all, let me state that I am not paid to do PR for either side you have mentioned, and I am not in the COI, as it is described in wikipedia policy.

My sole concern is that the original, the past versions and, unfortunately, even the current edit have not been fair, just, accurate, proportional in terms of its informative content and in accordance with wikipedia's standards - plus, avoiding an application of double standards. I do not wish to disrespect you or other editors and I do not intend dipping my hands, so to speak, in a futile ping-pong editing, so I will rather present my following arguments to you in a rather gentlemanly debate over this subject:

Objection n. 1) The current edit is disproportionate and oozes 'cherry picking'

Working for any of London's High Street PR consultancy agencies within the upper ranks (project managers certainly fulfill such criteria) is undoubtedly a reason to be included as a notable graduate, especially so in the case of some little, private and relatively unknown university. In this context, it is certainly fitting to mention Livia Krisandova's past positions at Cambridge Analytica, but it would be appropriate to mention her next affiliation with a well-known company Chelgate as a client services manager to provide the reader with full and complete account, instead of a fragment, as it stands now, which tends only to feature her past work for CA, thus highlighting only something with arguably negative connotations, which is, quite frankly, a very selective approach how to represent a character or rather, as it is in this case, to assassinate this character.

Objection n. 2)

My addition of 'Slovak/Slovakian' is relevant and should be included

The very page and its section feature two other notable alumni, Klara Polackova and Oz Karahan, describing them as 'Czech' and 'Cypriot' respectively, and it seems to be fit for wikipedia, and therefore the same standard should be applied in case of Livia Krisandova, adding 'Slovak/Slovakian' to the edit, like here, taken directly from AAU's page on wikipedia:

'Klára Poláčková - The first Czech woman to climb Mount Everest.[19]Alexandra Udženija - Deputy Leader of the Civic Democratic Party (2014–present).[20][21]Oz Karahan - Cypriot political activist, President of the Union of Cypriots.[22]'

Moreover, 'Slovak' is even more relevant in this case because, to my knowledge, there are certainly not hundreds or thousands of Slovak women, originally graduating in Prague, and making it into the upper career ranks of the Hight Street London PR consultancy agencies like Chelgate has been or Cambridge Analytica, in its heyday, had been. Quite a feat, If I may say so, a feat worthy of emphasising one's nationality, even more so if someone is from a small Central European country.

Not to mention the fact that wikipedia is full examples when a person is partially characterised by being English, Spanish or American and so forth and so on. Like here, for instance, in a case of David Beckham:

'(...) is an English former professional footballer, the current president & co-owner of Inter Miami CF and co-owner of Salford City.[6] He played for Manchester United, Preston North End, Real Madrid, Milan, LA Galaxy, Paris Saint-Germain and the England national team, for which he held the appearance record for an outfield player until 2016.'

Objection n. 3) The current edit, referring to her affiliation with Cambridge Analytica without a word 'former' or the use of past tense diverges from wikipedia's standards and tends to be (deliberately) a misinformation or misleading in its incompleteness.

Her Cambridge Analytica career should be clearly framed by either a use of the a word 'former' or by suing past tense e.g 'worked' as it has been standard on wikipedia and is widely used, for instance in case of another CA's former employee, Brittany Kaiser, as it can be seen here, if we wish to stay in the waters of Cambridge Analytica:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany_Kaiser

Venturing outside of CA's realm, the use of past tense (played) or 'former' can also nicely illustrated by wikipedia's page about David Beckham:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Beckham

It should be fair and just to use the same way of referring to past career affiliations in case of Livia Krisandova too, if such a standard could be and can be applied in case of Brittany Kaiser, David Beckham or others.

Objection n. 4) Isolating her Cambridge Analytica career past as the only reason for her being notable is not accurate and grounded in questionable evidence.

In this case, leaving the current edit only with CA's career records has very questionable encyclopaedic purpose, as most of these mentions on Internet, including the use of newspapers articles, you have recently used as citations from the original edits, are largely based on the leaked email correspondence, published by former CA employee Brittany Kaiser.

So, one can argue that these mentions are leaning more towards notoriety rather than notability in case of Livia Krisandova, as such a leak and its contents published by Kaiser, can be, again, very selective, purposeful, possibly bias, and therefore very disproportionate as to CA's work in general and, more importantly, Livia Krisandova's full career picture to avoid quite evident attempt to stigmatise her, which was, undeniably, a focus of the original edits added evidently in bad faith, as it can be seen in the history of edits of AAU's page. You yourself mentioned a case of mandatory disclosure if someone is paid or in COI, making edits. What if someone got paid to make the original edits with such an obvious negative connotation (please, see the history) - a wilfulness to cause detriment. If I am not mistaken, a clear violation of wikipedia rules.

All in all, if her career is to be mentioned as notable, which arguably in the context of AAU's page has been, later (2018-->) affiliation with Chelgate as a client services manager should be mentioned as well. Plus, it is not standard on wikipedia to isolate one moment in someone's career and discard the rest, especially when such a career as a whole fits into a specific context of being notable as a person, a graduate, Slovak woman. Naturally, an example of Livia Krisandova through and through.

Objection n. 5) Putting an emphasis exclusively on her Cambridge Analytica career past would be misrepresentation of facts.

As it was discussed earlier, the level of her notoriety and number of mentions is stemming from Brittany Kaiser's email leaks, but, in reality, as it can be verified in public records, Livia Krisandova has never been a person with significant control, a director or a managing partner. This being the case, encyclopaedia should not be using subjective, ideologically infused or speculative pieces as a basis for any records, and even less so in a case of living people.

Objection n.6)

I have a certain suspicion, judging by the edit made by AAU's editor Jdcooper, taking his personal wikipedia page into context, that his Liberal views and political alignment may have been a reason why he did not insisted on providing an edit in accordance with wider wikipedia standards, as I have argued, and decided to leave there a fragment, which is rather weird incomplete, disproportionate and with underlying negative connotation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jdcooper&action=view

Be this as it may, I believe that, the edit should not be removed and CA's part should remain there, but to make it well-balanced, accurate and in accordance with wikipedia standards used elsewhere, it should be adjusted into the following form:

1) Adding the word 'former' or framing Livia Krisandova's career at Cambridge Analytica by the use of past tense and or an exact time period. It is standardised and widely used on wikipedia and should be used in her record too.

2) Adding 'Slovak' / 'Slovakian' to emphasise her nationality - an important component in the context of her notability. It is standardised and widely used on wikipedia and should be used in her record as well.

3) Adding her next career position, as a client services manager at Chelgate, as an ongoing part of her career, no less important in terms of being notable in the context of AAU's notable graduates section.

4) I agree with you, a word 'accomplished' doest not need to be there and my intention was not to engage in puffery, but it was merely a rhetorical figure - a linguistic embellishment in the tone of its section in the page, to put it differently. Besides, being notable often signals that one must be accomplished to be perceived as a notable person.

I sincerely believe that adjusting this edit in accordance with wikipedia's standards would also avoid an application of double-standards in case of this wikipedia rules and policies regarding this record about Livia Krisandova.

Thank you very much for the consideration of my request.

Martin M1988 (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I've taken into consideration your recommendations and have applied only the first. You keep mentioning "rules and policies" without actually presenting to me any rule or policy backing up your claims. I have no choice but to assume that you haven't even tried reading them. Working in a famous company does not guarantee notability. Notability of a person is grounded in the general notability guideline. Simply working at Chelgate as a "client services manager" (not even CEO or similar, which would have been a more noteworthy position) does not guarantee notability. To emphasize, notability requires recognition from reliable and independent sources, of which you have provided zero. Her position in Cambridge Analytics, whatever method it was discovered, has been reported on by multiple sources which have been considered as generally reliable by community discussion on Wikipedia. If I were to search for Livia Krisandova's current position, will I find such sources? No, I will not. I know because I tried and I got two results from Google, of which both are primary sources and are therefore avoided. For this reason, your proposal (3) is denied. Your proposal (2) is denied for similar although not the same reasons: There is no source stating Krisandova's nationality. The fact that you are aware of this fact but the greater internet does not only feeds to my suspicion of conflict-of-interest, especially given your unyielding enthusiasm in trying to improve some person's trivial mention on a Wikipedia page. Lastly, your proposal (4) is denied for still being puffery. Trying to embellish an article's content is not encyclopedic. We are an encyclopedia, not a resume.

Unless you're able to prove to me that your other suggestions are grounded on Wikipedia policy (which I've provided you with a handy box below so that you may learn them), then you are advised not to reinsert the content you added previously.