Talk:Krishnamurti's Notebook

message: Greetings! Are you the same person as User:68.173.76.118 and User:65.88.88.71? I'm not sure this message will reach you if your IP address is changing; you may wish to sign up for an account for ease of communication and to keep your IP addresses private. Anyway, regarding this revert and the similar revert on The First and Last Freedom: As the  documentation points out, when we're citing a saved copy of a web page like on archive.org, we use "archived-url" for the archive.org url and "url" for the original location, even if it's now generating an error. And we use what the original page says for "title" not what e.g. the Wayback Machine says. -- Beland (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the late response, I was not aware of this comment. The citation in question has been an issue before, I believe because of its rarity. What is cited is not an archived page. It is a repository utility page, a calendar view of certain archival data. It is used to support a date claim made in wikitext regarding the existence of an archived page. The title is the one given by the website the utility page (not the archived page) belongs to (the Wayback Machine). Compare it with citing a page of statistics related to a Wikipedia article. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "https://web.archive.org/web/20121115000000*/http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/" etc. is indeed a web page archived at archive.org, the same as millions of other archived web pages Wikipedia cites. The contents of that archived web page are indeed a calendar. It should use the  parameters in the same way as all other such citations. -- Beland (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What is cited is not an archived page. It is a Wayback Machine utility page like talk pages are for Wikipedia articles. In this case it is a series of dates that snapshots were taken by the crawler, presented in calendar form. It has nothing to do with archived pages. Also, it is not about "jkrishnamurti.org" but a specific webpage of a previous iteration of that site. Additionally, the "author" is not "R. Mc" whatever that means. Your edit verifies nothing, and is unrelated to wikitext. On the contrary, it removes verification of a pertinent wikitext claim. The edit must therefore be reverted. 24.193.37.214 (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see what you mean. It was a bit confusing because there are two levels of footnotes. -- Beland (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussed reference was removed, and  was used instead, hopefully providing equivalent proof to wikitext, in this diff. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived citation 

message: To recap:
:
This is a book of 387 pages (full text edition, hardcover). The excerpt is a single paragraph of about 280 words.
:
The article word count (what the reader sees), excluding the infobox, is 3231. The excerpt, including the associated footnote, is 327, about one tenth.
:
This is one of the few extant diary entries that illustrates the tone of the work, the peculiar usage of common terms and provides some context for the article’s descriptions. This is a book information article.
:
*MOS:QUOTE, "Briief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."
:
*WP:NFCCEG#Text
:
*WP:NOFULLTEXT#Fair use of copyrighted primary sources
:
*WP:NFC#CS
69.193.135.254 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT: to provide some context, the quote was originally inserted in this diff, on 3 January 2011. Almost 11 years ago. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I appreciate you think the section is appropriate. But again, everyone else who has commented so far disagrees with your interpretation. Your next step, if you want to retain a standalone excerpt section, is to pursue an RfC rather than continuing to revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, start an RfC, that will be fun! The claims made by the 3 people who suddenly dropped here are either inapplicable or ignore policy and guidelines. Whether such ignorance is maintained by 3 or 3000 is of no consequence. What alerted you to this article in the first place? 71.247.146.98 (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw an article with an obvious problem. The others who have commented agree with me that it is a problem. You are not simply able to ignore that and continue to edit-war your preferred version in. If you want to keep the section, it's on you to start an RfC to get consensus for it. At the moment you simply do not have that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is imaginary. As the 1st post of this section makes clear there is nothing that forbids the quote. Whether some people don't agree for purely cosmetic reasons is hardly a reason to remove info with semantic value. If you feel otherwise, by all means start an RfC. 50.74.109.2 (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already established you feel there is no issue, but at the moment you haven't achieved consensus for your viewpoint, and as already explained it's on you to do so. Continuing to restore this content without that is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What has been established is that there is no basis for the removal. There can be no "consensus" of 3 people or 3000 people against policy and guidelines. You can start an RfC to change them in order to make the quote untenable. Until then, the article will follow existing policy & guidelines. 50.74.109.2 (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: DanCherek, NJD-DE, and I agree that it does not. Until you get consensus otherwise, you need to stop edit-warring this back in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I invite you to re-read the 1st post of this "Recap" section. What you need to know is there. And btw you may find that you need to stop edit-warring the quote out. 71.247.146.98 (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read it, and disagree with your interpretation. And as already noted, the onus for getting consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ONUS is satisfied by the 1st post of this section, and other posts proving the inclusion. Maybe you did not read them carefully? 69.203.140.37 (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I read them. I've read every justification you've put forward to edit-war to retain the section, to dismiss the concerns of every other person in this discussion, to decline to raise an RfC or take any other step to attempt to gain consensus for inclusion, and even to decline to have a tag on the article drawing attention to this dispute. However, given that there is no policy or guideline that specifically states "The excerpt section on the article Krishnamurti's Notebook is appropriate", it's up to participants here to interpret our policies and guidelines and how to apply them here. You claim the quote is brief; others find it to be excessive. You claim it establishes context; others feel that having a standalone excerpt rather extracts it from context. You claim it is necessary to have this section in its present form to understand the work; others feel a different approach would work as well or better, and that the present approach seems decorative. What I haven't seen is any justification for your attitude that your personal interpretation is the only true version, and everyone else's read of these policies and guidelines is invalid. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, if you read the appropriate guidelines and policy then point out where the non-compliance is. Which of the 10 points of WP:NFCCP is the quote violating and why? Why is WP:NFCCEG#Text non-applicable here? Why is WP:NFC#CS non-applicable? And why shouldn't MOS:QUOTE qualify such a quote? I don't claim it is brief, it is. The quote is 280 words out of a 390 page book. It is also a tenth of the visible to readers article (less if you add the invisible to readers stuff). The quote has been there for 10+ years and after over 50000 views total, nobody has remarked it excessive. This is definitely not "every other person". Lately, you, and then 2 others "discovered" a non-existent problem and refuse to follow the right procedure per WP:BRD. But there is more than this article: I am preparing a list of GAs that you 3 will find far more insulting to your taste, per your arguments. Since you guys seem so intent to fix this Wikipedia area, you will have a lot of work to do. And unlike here, it will be justifiable. 65.88.88.57 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: BRD is an essay rather than a "right procedure", and not one that supports your actions besides. Similarly problems that may exist on other articles are not justification for keeping the section here. At the moment, every other person who has expressed an opinion disagrees with you on your interpretation of NFCC: the same encyclopedic purpose could be served without the present Excerpt section, the section is longer than would be needed if properly integrated and explained, and as currently presented it does not support contextual significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if BRD is an essay or not. WP administrators have used essays with far less weight as justification of their actions. Similar "problems", and in a larger scale, do exist in other articles, FAs & GAs with many, many more views than this one. Yet no-one has thought to raise the "issues" that you raise here. Why is that? Maybe you should rectify this, because otherwise one may think that you are singling this article for reasons that have nothing to do with the so-called "issues". I do not "interpret" NFCC, I ask you to show where inclusion of the quote constitutes a violation of the policy. The section in question is properly integrated with the one preceding it and provides the proper context for uncommon use of terms related to a subjective experience. You can try, and fail, to "explain" them in many ways (some idea of the difficulty is summarized by the previous section), and you still will need a comprehensive quote to provide context and tone. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  is your interpretation. But it's not one shared by anyone who has so far chosen to comment. Unless and until that changes, you cannot continue to claim you have consensus for including the disputed section. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

text:  There are clear cut policies involved here, listed in several posts, which 3 editors, and now you, overlook. All concerns raised have been answered. Neither is a quote from a book, in an article about said book, "minutiae". As WP:CONSENSUS clearly states, consensus does not override policy. How did you WP:DETCON here anyway? By taking votes? 50.74.21.22 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

text: It is entirely possible that you are right and everyone else is wrong. I do thank you for the correction. (At the heart of this is that you claim policy dictates you are right; I don't see that and neither does anyone else. You are welcome to challenge this--you can do so at ANI, I suppose.) Drmies (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, a nice start would be to address my questions. You see, the editor involved did not ask for a 3rd opinion at the proper forum, or engage in proper dispute resolution. He came to you, personally. So I have to assume that he knows you as some sort of an expert on the subject. I also assume that you read the entire discussion above and followed all the links the various parties used to support their positions. It should therefore be very easy to point out 1. where I have not answered the concerns raised. 2. where the inclusion of the quote violates policy (one of the charges). 3. where it is "too long" (another charge). 4. where it does not add to the understanding of the subject & lacks context (a 3rd charge). I know you can point these out as these must be what swayed your decision. It was certainly not a head-count, was it? 71.105.141.131 (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Or they knew me as a fair and levelheaded administrator. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  And who might "they" be? Are they exempt from normal DR procedure? As for your record as admin, that is not an issue, except you seem eager to make it so. If you insist, it can be examined later. But you have not answered the questions again. Can we do that first? The least one would expect from a fair and levelheaded admin. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Recap

message: See Talk:The First and Last Freedom#Typographic edits. -- Beland (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML entities