This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gwen Gale. 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.
Jacyee Lee Dugard
Hi. I don't know you and I know you're trying your damndest to keep the Jacyee Lee Dugard article in a sane format and I think most of what you've done is good and within policy and consensus, but I worry from a read of the talk page that you've started to – unintentionally I'm sure – take ownership of the page. I'm just presenting my own personal outside third party perspective. I know you're the most experienced editor looking at this page, but I'm just getting that feeling from the last two days of watching the page. I'm not trying to make an issue or cause drama, I'm just a little concerned and asking that you keep an eye out for it. --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€00:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
That page is a mess; I applaud Gwen for wading in and keeping an eye on it. Good edits from good editors are being stepped all over. Don't worry...it will clear up in a few days...maybe a week. Frank | talk 02:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, you wiped out my commentary on the Jayvee Dugard talk page. Since refactoring a discussion page like that is highly misleading, and is against WP policy, i am assuming this was a mistake rather than an intentional act of pique. I have restored my comments. Cheers. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, let me be more clear; i'm talking about this diff: [1] where you wiped out my talk page comments and explained the deletion as "reverting." I restored my comments, but i was curious as to what happened, and, as i said above, i was assuming it was a mistake. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Ouch! I'm sorry. One of those few times I thought to ask for a diff but didn't. That was my botch, a mistaken right click rollback, my right ring finger can hover a bit too closely over the mouse button whilst I'm scanning my watchlist. Thanks for letting me know about my clumsiness, both with the mouse and my answer above. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Truth be told, it's not a stray right click, after playing about with this, I've found it happens when I swiftly sweep the cursor across the screen whilst reading (I do that): I made a few dozen careless test sweeps over a page thick with wlinks and lo, my index finger did smunch down unbidden at the far end of a rightwards sweep when the cursor happened to be over a link and zap it went. Guess I'll be more careful about sweepin' the mouse about when I'm looking at my watchlist :) Gwen Gale14:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you un-watchlisted this article yet? Or perhaps you have other things in your life that you feel take precedence over Wikipedia? Frank | talk 16:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Still on my watchlist, but yeah, there are other things in my life that can snag my heed more than Wikipedia and meanwhile, the article is still a mess, but that's true of any article with high traffic editing. Nothing to be done but watch for BLP worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gwen Gale, Here at Wikipedia we define Wikipedia:vandalism as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If people have a dispute against an article or citation they should follow the good-faith guidelines. In these guidelines you will find that when people disagree with someone they should "...explain yourself using talk pages, and give others the opportunity to do the same." If you need help with how to reference these pages politically for others or how to help people civilly discuss a dispute before deleting content I'm free to give advice. In the future To prevent people from seeing your comments as an act of backing up wiki vandalism please try your best to notify others they should not delete pages first by restoring the content deleted. Backing up content deletion goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Thank you and let me know if you come across this situation again and are not sure how to address it. I would be glad to help. --SRobbins (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
By the Wikipedia definition I was not being disruptive (I guess you didn't read the "Dump") I was just asking for help. Sorry to bother you. Take care, JC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyswords (talk • contribs) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow -- you can actually see the hexagonal carbon rings, and the symmetrical white blurs at top and bottom are actually hydrogen atoms. Incredible. I wondered if they'd ever be able to do that someday. Antandrus (talk)13:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I spotted your name on my watchlist just now (I think it was there from an issue relating to the controversial splash on the homepage a couple of months ago).
I spend a fair amount of my time reverting vandalism, including ancillary articles to those on my watchlist which have been serially vandalised by IPs.
Apart from ignorance of the detail of the policy, I've never considered much of what I have written to be of any major significance! It has been an innocent oversight on my part, perhaps due modesty, which will change immediately! leaky_caldron (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You marked the above post as a minor edit, but it wasn't. So I guess on your next edit, you'll follow the policy as to when one doesn't mark edits as minor? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but that was pure habit! The minor edit check box is just above the save page and so, after 3 years and thousands of minor edits, old habits die hard! As you see, I have got this edit to your talk page correct! Trust me, I used to be a DBA :)
Can I use the fact that I'm using Beta as an excuse? It doesn't show the edit icons and in the current version I often use the unsigned sig. icon and get rid of the "--" to formulate my signature. I did forget one the other night as well but I went back and added it. leaky_caldron (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, please wait a tick whilst I now carry on looking over your contribution history, I have a few minutes and it won't take long. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll be careful with it! Ops. nearly checked the minor edit box. I notice you said no major worries – you must have some minor ones! :) leaky_caldron (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. I do not want you to become involved in the issue that has cropped up in one of my current articles of interest (Big Brother 2009 (UK) Talk:Big Brother 2009 (UK)#Cite Episode template but if you believe I am doing anything incorrectly I'd be grateful for you letting me know. I am doing everything I can to follow policy on disputes, and being threatened with 3RR sanction is not of concern to me, but I am being frustrated by a lack of willingness to discuss and resolve. I have invited the most recent contributors to the article to participate. I am now waiting expectantly to be accused of inappropriate canvassing! If you have a few minutes and can see if I'm going wrong in my approach I would be grateful. No worries if you're too busy or you think it would be inappropriate. leaky_caldron (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
First, stop reverting, edit warring won't help anything, it will only stir up harm. I've found that sticking to 1rr, WP:BRD, wontedly brings the happiest and most lasting outcomes and sometimes, with a little luck, more swiftly than one might foresee. From now on, before you revert good faith content a second time, think to yourself if doing so will have any sway on how the article will be in a year (likely not).
Editors have many and sundry notions about citation templates. Although they're easy to copy-paste into an article, I think they make updates harder (not easier), they add unhelpful clutter, they're often put together in a flawed way to begin with, they can be hiding spots for weak citations and can easily further ownership. Moreover, the templates at BB seem to stray a bit from WP:SELF and along with that, carry URLs instead of wikilinks (but either way, links back to Wikipedia text don't belong in citations). Lastly, I don't think they in truth bring much standardization to articles. Taken altogether, I think they're a trap. Mind, that's only what I think about them: Editors can make their citations with templates and even build their own.
Thanks for your time and words of wisdom. I would say in my defense that the first removal of cited material was by another editor to my original edit [3]. Thereafter another editor became involved. My original edit was precisely cited – the second had the wrong date and so needed to be reverted by that has now been overtaken by the template debate. I will see how things develop. regards. leaky_caldron (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Redirecting other-language word to en.wikipedia article
SITUATION: Someone typed random letters into Google ... Google suggested the word "Dumnezeu" ... which they searched for in en.wikipedia (rather than following the link to ro.wikipedia from Google) ... and were curious that they had arrived at "God" (they didn't know about redirects). I've explained to them ...
NOTE: Before it was a redirect, there was a sentence that said "Dumnezeu" is the Romanian word for God. And yes Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so I understand why someone redirected it ... but (at least in this unusual case) the Wikipedia reader was not well served ... yada yada
WIKIPEDIA QUESTION: Is it standard procedure to redirect a "foreign" word in en.wikipedia to the English word (translation via redirect)? Proofreader77 (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
RDs from other languages are helpful. This is mostly because redirects are (so very) cheap. Yes, if someone began mapping a whole Romanian-English dictionary onto en.Wikipedia redirects it might be a worry, but I haven't seen anything like that happen here yet and truth be told, consensus for such a thing could easily happen one day :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. The case of someone not knowing what language a word was, and using "Go" instead of "Search" in en.wikipedia, ending up on a page and wondering what language the word was that got them to that page that does not contain that word ... is probably rare.LOLSo I will probably not rush to make a technical proposal for a REDIRECT option that includes a which-language note for translation redirects—e.g., Redirected from Dumnezeu (Romanian) ... which no one who needed to know would notice anyway.:-) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd say the straight RD with no fuss would be the most helpful, but if foreign language mapping ever does come to en.Wikipedia, it will likely indeed be fussy :D Gwen Gale (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
PS: Is this poll even valid? Is there somewhere such a policy that supports: "After the poll has closed, the majority result will prevail, and the results of the poll will be implemented."? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd already checked the log before answering and it's never been deleted, though it could have been deleted under another title. Meanwhile, the "auditions" do seem to be notable now. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
FIRST: I want to make it plain that I am not looking for your input on the talkpage subject, I am merely using it as an example because it is concrete and I don't understand what is happening. I am not trying to SHOP and I don't want to be misunderstood.
OK, that being said, what is going on over at Talk:Smiley face murder theory? What I understand their argument to be is Gilbertson's comments can't be included because then this wouldn't be a fringe theory anymore. I'm seeing a huge amount of misunderstanding. First off, the theory was not originated by Gilbertson, it was originated by the detectives. Second, WP:Undue has more to do with establishing notability than with individual entries in the article. Third: Since this is not a child of a parent article there is more responsibility to establish the theory than if we had a stand alone article and this were just decrying the theory brought up there. Fourth: there seems to be an air of "How can you not understand this"? Editors are simply dropping by with notes of "Fails WP:UNDUE" and expect others to simply understand and acquiesce. What am I missing about this WP:UNDUE argument that should be painfully obvious? Padillah (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Fringe#Identifying fringe theories is mostly unencyclopedic codswallop, knowingly written as a means to keep unwanted sources out of en.Wikipedia. It looks sloppily written, but in truth it's very heedfully and cleverly built as a framework of muddle from which a skilled editor can draw handy support for removing otherwise verifiable content from the project. Both its scam and flaw is the notion of Mainstream (terminology): Majority has meaning only as to dodgy notions of popularity, it has nothing to do with scholarship, keen insight or anything else the reader of an encyclopedia cares about.
The dirty pith is, if en.Wikipedia didn't narrowly carry the "mainstream" outlook on humanities and political topics, it wouldn't show up in the top 5 of most Google searches and without that, it wouldn't have its mega traffic, which is what it's all about.
WP:Undue indeed has as much sway over swaths of text as it does topic notability. Where the mistakes (and worse) are made, is using undue to exclude content, rather than source and write about it in a neutral, open way. Meanwhile, yep, the face on Mars is but a fun play of light and shadow and the highly worthy and dashing Neil Armstrong did smunch those stolen boots on moon dust (don't blame him and please don't believe otherwise). However, most readers are far smarter than many editors think (which, by the bye, is why lots of stuff is blown off as fringe, hoping to keep them in the fold).
WP:V has sway over Wikipedia:Fringe#Identifying fringe theories. If some outlook, however helpful or however blighted, has gotten coverage, a careful editor can get it into some article, but maybe at overwhelming cost to both their volunteer time and happiness.
WP:Undue can be cited as a means of including sources which some editors mistakenly or otherwise call "fringe."
telegraph.co.uk says this is the oldest web page one can find today on the Internet, last updated in November 1990. It was a page for the first website to show up on the Internet, which happened 6 August 1991 (though it's been moved to another URL since then).
The source code for this page is indeed utterly barren. It would be almost 19 years old, written by Berners-Lee at CERN, most likely on the very NeXT computer shown at right. Funny, I'm also typing this on a Unix machine with a GUI which looks rather like the one he saw on NeXTSTEP, Windowmaker running on X Window (heh, the icons I've got seem much cleaner to me and though they're PNGs now, they're the same size and I do still use that same home icon and a dockapp clone of the date/calandar thingy!). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Methinks it's an x86 box? Could be done, maybe! However, I'd say in 3-5 years most e-readers are more likely to generic commodity gadgets running sundry flavours of Linux or BSDs. What's cool is, they'll more than likely be thin as sheets of paper and I glark, some may be passively reflective, like a sheet of paper, for those who get eyestrain from light being beamed straight into their eyes (happily, I've never been stricken by that bane).
As for NeXT hardware, yes: I was lucky enough to use NeXT machines when I was in high school, was made keenly aware of how much they cost and the machine I'm using today has way beyond an order of magnitude more the RAM and speed and almost 4 orders of magnitude the hard disk space, yet cost only maybe 5% of a NeXT machine back in the day, taking inflation into it. Shows what an industry almost wholly unregulated by governments can do, by the bye :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I have what I see a technical question. How to get a concern answered in a direct way?
Here is the brief history of it.
As you can see here: Talk:Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China/FG poll#Statement against merger I consider that the merge is done against WP:N and WP:V policies. I wish to have this question addressed, but along the endless debates (Is there a talk to death essay or something?) these issues are not addressed directly, but sidetracked. What can I do in cases like this? We tried RfC but nobody addressed this question, it was listed on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, not sure if anyone looked. So this poll might actually prove good, although it was constructed saying "Whilst comments from individual parties are extremely welcome, any threaded discussion will be moved to the talk page." it did not generate any discussion that would answer the challanges from the Wikipedia policy point of view presented here, just yet (but maybe it will at some point). I will try another RfC just in case, but do you have any other suggestion on what can be done in a situation like this? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
"What do you want to happen? Straightforwardly put?" => We are on Wikipedia, so I would simply like the RfC to be answered in a straigtforward manner, and see that wiki-justice is upheld. If that happens, I think it should be easy to reach consensus on fixing the problem. As for the essay, thank you, but the poll is a proof that the debate has not ended. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) Thank you for pointing out WP:BURO. So how much is that the policies "should be taken seriously" and how much is it that "they can be misused" based on consensus. Where is the line? How much can that line be affected by a group of people with a certain POV? I guess this is a classical question on Wikipedia, and it relies on the fate that the healthy community is bigger, am I right? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
If I am to understand absolutely what you say on "There's no line to speak of", then it could be done either way, even worse then a WP:CIRCUS. Regarding "I don't believe "RfC to be answered in a straigtforward manner" is all you want", that's fine, it was a nice chat anyway and I do want to understand how things work. In case that you have some time and interest please keep an eye on these pages, and you will find your own answers. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it should not be. Regarding the RfC, it seems that I need to point out more precisely how the source is not SPS, even after Notability was approved. I'll start with this [4] and this [5] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't template experienced users, mostly, since it can easily be taken as uncivil. Instead, leave a friendly note. This said, editors whose PoV has come out ahead in a poll may not be too likely to go along with the notion that content polls are meaningless, so tread softly and don't blindly cite the guideline but rather, say why you think it has something to do with the topic at hand. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. "Instead, leave a friendly note." => OK, I guess the alert box, might have been too much. Could you please elaborate on what you mean about "template" above? And regarding "say why you think it has something to do with the topic at hand." should I do more then cite the sources and remind that WP:Notability should be considered? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about this. Don't slap up text boxes with graphic warning signs only to quote policy, it'll more often than not be taken wrong. You can cite the link again, but if you do so, post in a friendly, plain way. The pith of the guideline is, on en. Wikipedia, one policy abiding, thoroughly thought-out and straightforward little paragraph can overcome a dozen or more ivotes in a content poll which might not even be asking for input on a meaningful question. Given what's happened so far, please take some time to understand the guideline (and what I'm getting at) before rushing over there to put into play what you only think I've told you, this isn't Cyrano. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no worries, I already told him I'm neutral (only trying to help him understand how things get done here). I nudged him to tell me if there has been a loss of sourced content, but that doesn't seem to have happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
"nudged him to tell me if there has been a loss of sourced content" OK, I'll look for that after the merge (which is a bit harder),
"please take some time to understand the guideline (and what I'm getting at)", sure that is what I'm trying to do, although I like things that are more simple/clear, and straightforward, but I guess I'll get to that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It's only simple and straightforward if you think about it, read the policy, think some more, then say what you want to happen and why you think it's ok for the encyclopedia in your own words. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Just as the news trucks have Walnut Street in Antioch to go on to other breaking stories, contributions to this page seem to have fallen off. As a newbie, I'm not sure what the process is here, perhaps request for review? I'm messaging several of the experienced editors who have contributed to this page and asking you to drop by. Some of the outstanding issues are (as discussed) are, but are not limited to: 1. How's the edit? Someone should review the newbie's work, yes? 2. Can we remove the tags now? Or does the page still need work? Being specific and constructive would be awesome. 3. How are we doing on BLP? In my edit, I removed quite a bit of private information and controversial/unreferenced materials, following guidelines. Too much? Should more be cut? (e.g. There is a Garrido rape case mentioned, for which he was not convicted. Does BLP require that it be cut?) All this and more... This is my first significant contribution: feedback appreciated (both on the edit, and the process). Nrehnby (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
There are still worries (WP:BLP stuff here and there too), the tag should stay up, but given time, the article will most likely heal through open editing. I'm still watching it. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Chamar
I see that you have deleted demographic information of the Chamar populations by stating that demographic information is not relevant for Wikipedia.
However, I see that adding demographic information regarding an ethnic/social group is very common practice in Wikipedia. Below are a few wiki pages of some caste groups that contain demographic information (by state, by region or by country)
Jat people#DemographicsRajput#DemographicsArora#DemographicsSaini#Geographic distribution and relative population sizeIrish people
I request that demographic population numbers be allowed since this is very relevant to the description of social/ethnic group that is spread across many states.
Bal537 (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)bal537
I had listed a reliable source which are PDF's from the official government of India – Department of Census publications for the year 2001 (http://censusindia.gov.in/). There is no more reliable source of demographic information regarding social groups in India than the the department of census.
For example: http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/dh_sc_chandigarh.pd
So my table of Chamar statistics is from a reliable source that has been used by many other wiki pages and they are also using the same statistics that I am.
Bal537 (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)bal537
Those thoroughly sourced articles are demographics topics, not the same thing. Dumping raw data into Chamar, without encyclopedic context or secondary sourcing to back any interpretations, would most likely be original research, as I've told you. You'll need to find reliably secondary sources, not primary data.
Before going on, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You must be wary about citing other Wikipedia articles to support how another article might be handled. They all could be flawed and likely are, at least a little.
This said, on Talk:Chamar, you might use something like Jat people#Demographics as a proposed outline for what you want to do but please mind, whatever you do will need to be supported by something more than raw stats (although those can be put in if there is support from secondary sources as to their interpretation, so as not to mislead readers or mistakenly carry your own OR). Gwen Gale (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hate to bug you about him again (already) but he's continuing to throw around false accusations and hysteronics at List of Dragon Ball episodes (series). He made some edits – some good, some not. I removed his addition of a sentence about the theme song sourced from a fan blog – noting so – and now he's claiming I reverted his edit and won't let him do anything and making borderline personal attacks on the talk page[6] and on my talk page[7] He has also blatantly stated he will revert and edit war again.[8] claiming I am causing trouble. Getting really tired of this kid. *sigh* -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 01:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
First off, I am not throwing around false accusations. You did revert my edits. The sentence about theme music was good because it is a reliable source – not an opinion, etc. FUNimation trusts them enough to send them DVDs to review and promote, so why can't it be used on Wikipedia? They mentioned dubbing the music (which is relevant because the JP music is there, also). You did revert my edit – you removed some things, you combined the paragraphs I split, and changed back to the way you wanted it to be. Also, I didn't personally attack you, I asked you to leave me alone because everything I do you revert. Gwen, isn't this odd: Collectonian hasn't been on the page for a while and once I make an edit she appears to revert. I should be the one whose getting tired – because you never leave me alone. All you do is revert, so I have a reason to say I'm tired of you. If you're so tired of me, then stop appearing on pages I've been to and don't revert my edits. DBZfan29 (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You do realize that I created that list, right? So obviously it will be on my watch list, along with most of the DB articles because I am actively involved in dealing with those articles. Just because I hadn't edited in awhile does not mean I don't notice and review ALL edits (not just yours). I work on thousands of articles, so no I don't edit all of them every single day. I've been focusing more on other places, including as you are well aware, the DB Z list and the main DB page. Again, no one reverted anything. I removed a non-reliable source statement and, quite honestly, I didn't even notice you HAD split the paragraphs, I thought I'd forgotten to combine them when I made the list. You'll also note that I did not revert you when you resplit the paragraph (after claiming you weren't going to do anymore reverting). I'm not going to stop working with the Dragon Ball articles because you continue to refuse to read WP:RS and want to complain when you bad edits are reverted. 03:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Why do you keep thinking you didn't revert? You combined the paragraphs after I split them to be better understood – that's a revert. Also, I did claim not to revert. You originally had the Harmony Gold paragraph separate from the FUNimation dub paragraph. I fixed your own error. They are two completely different dubs and I think you noticed that, too, originally. And, huh! You just said "when your bad edits are reverted," not "when you think your bad edits are reverted." That wasn't a bad edit and you just admited to reverting. DBZfan29 (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
No, again, I did not revert and no I did not "admit" to reverting, I was referring to your other edits. Obviously no point in arguing with you. I deliberately combined the two dub paragraphs as they are all about the English release and this is how the information is covered in featured list. I removed your invalidly sourced addition, but did not revert your entire edit. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you did admit to it because we're not talking about my other edits. I've already been blocked for them and there is no reason to keep discussing them (I was unfairly blocked for edit warring and breaking a rule I didn't and even Gwen said I didn't). And you did revert – remember how you said my IP address edit was a revert? Well, I added other information to the page, too, but you still claimed it was a revert. The beauty of this all is that I'm using things you said against you and you can't accept I'm right! DBZfan29 (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but I did try to talk it out with her but she removed it from her page. Instead of trying to resolve that she did infact revert my edit, she goes to an administrator for help. DBZfan29 (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I posted here as she was about the only person DBZfan29 seemed to listen to at all, and he continues to remove any attempts I make to talk to him on his talk page (and only posts hostile messages on mine). And apologies to Gwen...I guess I should have expected him to follow me here. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 03:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
(EC) "I've already been blocked for them and there is no reason to keep discussing them" so why do you keep bringing it up? You are the one who keeps claiming people are reverting you, and that you were "unfairly" blocked – although everyone has reviewed it has told you that the block was fair and correct. And fine, if you want to call removing your improperly sourced sentence as a partial revert, I don't really car. It is, in the end, irrelevant and not the issue here at all. The issue is your way of starting the discussion, your false claims that you were wholly reverted when only one part of your edit was removed, and your continued hostility after the fact. As soon as your block was undone, you began attacking me again, even adding your little vent to your user page. You were also warned to stop trying to add invalid sources to articles, but you continue to do so, totally spurning all efforts to get you to actually read AND understand WP:RS and WP:OR. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 03:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not claiming that people revert my edits because it's always you. Also, I'm saying that Gwen saw that I didn't edit war or break the 33R. I said I was unfairly blocked, not continued to be unfairly blocked. I get the fact that I was disruptive but I accomplished proving that I was unfairly blocked – when Gwen said it. Another thing, I began saying all those things because I was so frustrated that you reverted. Sorry if I personally attacked but I'm really getting annoyed, not just you. I did read the page on sources. It says a blog/personal site can be used if... well, I don't know how to explain what it said but I understood that they can be used. DBZfan29 (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
If you believe that, then you did not read the page well. No, a blog or personal site cannot be used except in very very rare cases when it is a noted experts blog or personal site and then only for noting their opinion on a work (for example, Roger Ebert talking about a movie in his blog would be a reliable source for his opinion of that film in the film article – and only when clearly noted). You cannot, however, just use any old blog or fansite to try to validate factual claims. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 04:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not like they're lying about the dubbed songs being included. You are saying in one instance that there weren't any reliable sources and then that the edit was irrelevant. Once these releases actually hit stores, we won't be able to put up the info about the themes because no official source is going to mention it. DBZfan29 (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Not really...at least that wasn't my intention, just what he seems to want to focus on. My issue is with his post to the talk page, his user page, and my talk page. But yeah, obviously pointless to even respond to his posts at this point. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 03:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Collectonian, DBZfan29, when I first looked into this, reviewing DBZfan29's block, I thought you both had been edit warring, still do. I also didn't think things had strayed over the threshold of 3rr, but it had gotten close.
DBZfan29 had been blocked for edit warring, so I emailed the blocking editor and he still thought DBZfan29 had been edit warring in a blockable way, but said he'd be ok about it if I unblocked, if I was willing to deal with DBZfan29. Looking into it further, whilst talking with DBZfan29, it seemed to me DBZfan29 had been disruptive, citing wholly dodgy sources and straying into his own original research, then editing tendentiously over it. Moreover, DBZfan29 still wasn't acknowledging the woeful weakness of his edits, so I didn't unblock him, saying that although I wouldn't have blocked him 48 hours for edit warring, I likely would have done for 24 hours owing to disruption. Hence I don't think DBZfan29 was blocked unfairly, I only think DBZfan29 was blocked a bit too long and with a reason showing in the block log which didn't quite fit. However, it was all close enough and the block stopped DBZfan29's disruption for two days.
In the aftermath, I thought about warning Collectonian for edit warring but didn't, because disruptive editing can easily stir up this kind of back and forth and Collectonian has deep experience here (even if Collectonian has shown a weakness for falling into edit wars).
DBZfan29, I know you're trying to make the article more helpful to readers, but you're making mistakes in both sourcing and how you're dealing with Collectonian. The two of you made this spin out of bounds, but DBZfan29, your sources and what you drew from them weren't encyclopedic. Very ok for one's own website or a blog, I guess, but not here.
I've seen Collectonian's edits for years and I think she'll settle down and find a way to deal with this. DBZfan29, you need to think long and hard about reliable sources. As for using entertainment videos and their trailers as sources in articles about themselves, aside from text planted in them for the credits and the most straightforward plotlines, one cannot cite them if another editor doesn't agree. It's too easy to stray into original research. Anime gets chopped up every which way in international distribution. They do this because cartoons are expensive to produce, are often culturally narrowed (this is one of the things that can make them cool) and most don't draw big revenue so they'll do whatever it takes in trying to sell them into each market. Even plots can (and do) get changed through dubbing and editing. It's way easy to make a mistake about what has happened by looking at sales pages, credits or the editing of episodes. The only steadfast way to deal with this is to cite a secondary source.
This may be a helpful time to remind editors that all articles should be cited to reliable sources (it's ok to let clearly verifiable content slide a bit in non BLPs). Experts in a field need not ever assert their own uncited knowledge in an en.Wikipedia article, because as experts, they'll very likely know the sources inside and out and can cite circles around less knowledgeable editors. That is, if they're willing to spend the time: Many get driven away, or don't edit too much in their own fields of professional expertise, because so much time is wasted here on eager but less keen editors who don't understand or won't abide by the already highly fit policies. Hence, en.Wikipedia is written mostly by hobbyists, many of whom are gifted. The happiness is, even with all its many and sundry flaws, it's already the most widely read and maybe even the most helpful encyclopedia there ever was and meanwhile, I do so remember being told once I got out of grammar school, "You can't cite an encyclopedia!" Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to bother you with this again. Firefly322 has started making personal attacks against myself and others at the rather messy AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots, where he also makes attacks against OrangeMarlin and my "support" of him here (FireFly was banned in that instance, not OM or I), and he has even awarded another editor a barnstar for a gross personal attack against me here. Some sort of intervention and reminder might be in order (to both editors, maybe). Anyway, I hope you're well! Verbalchat17:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I have a worry that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are no longer supported by consensus, or at least, evenly so. I may be wrong, but in good faith and for now, I must ask you to take this to WP:ANI, WP:WQT or another admin, as you think fit. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Gwen and Verbal, I agree. (I think we have reached a crisis point in Wikipedia's community, that few others recognize. I have started drafting some thoughts off-wiki.) Consensus seems to be that CIVIL and NPA, and even AGF, are now no longer enforceable, and there is a recent (two days ago) dramatic event to illustrate this. Attempts to do so are now potentially fatal to the enforcer. Not sure how to proceed; shall we propose to 1) mark NPA/CIVIL historical; 2) suggest codifying what is actually the case -- that there is a category of editors above policy, unblockable, and free to be as abusive as they see fit; 3) aggressively attempt to recapture the lost ground. The third option requires someone interested in fighting, politics, and arbitration. Good luck to all; frankly I'm as pessimistic about the future of Wikipedia as I've ever been. I see a death of integrity, and dearth of courage, a growth of apathy, and a profound leadership vacuum, a situation which historically results in calamity. Cheers, Antandrus (talk)00:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
William Chaloner
Hi Gwen, Can you give me any advice? please. I created a William Chaloner page on Sept 5th but the 'View History' | 'Page view statistics' show zero from the moment it was created. There have been several failed inquiries per day for 2 years until Sept 4, then nothing. Obviously there been many editors, both me and DYK. Do you have any idea what is going on? Is there some old redirect? Can I fix it? Regards. Autodidactyl (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (PS. I have left a message with Hendrick, but I hope that you may know what's wrong.)
Ooooooops, I'm blind. I just noticed that all stats died at the moment I created the page. Perhaps my little edit was the straw that broke the camel's back. William Chaloner takes his revenge from beyond the grave... spooky ... or is it? Sorry to waste your time. Autodidactyl (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec and pardon me for butting in; I just happened to be watching). Stats.grok.se hasn't updated any of their data since September 4 -- e.g. [9]. I guess I take him at his word: "This is very much a beta service and may vanish at any time." Cheers, Antandrus (talk)21:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you're asking, I can say that WP:CONSENSUS doesn't support quick polls like that. Moreover, the bounds of the poll seem to be coming from someone who has a strong PoV on the topic, which is not on. Lastly, no content poll is binding, see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. A source or outcome put forth by a single editor, if it fits with policy and is encyclopedic, can overcome the outlooks of a dozen other editors, but this can take time and much care to make happen. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I hate to cut in on the discussion here, but the "poll" Happy is talking about is actually the fifth or sixth time that discussion has occurred on the issue. The vast majority of editors from all walks of Wiki have indicated that a merger is appropriate but there are two select Falun Gong supporters (Single-purpose accounts, no less) who constantly filibuster "consensus" and then report to admins like yourself who are relatively unfamiliar with the issue to gain more credibility to their crumbling case. This game has gone on for two years now and two other SPAs were recently banned from editing. OhConfucius' poll formalizes the decision so that it is visible to the wiki world that consensus has been reached with the exception of a very few Falun Gong adherents with a strong conflict-of-interest. Colipon+(Talk) 19:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Was your comment regarding my PoV related to Charlie Sheen, sourcing, or 9/11? I have a feeling I know which one, but I didn't think it was affecting my editing THAT much... Soxwon (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I figured the 9/11, but what about sourcing? I didn't think Prison Planet was reliable. Was it that one or a different one (for future reference)? Soxwon (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The pith is, you blankedverifiable content from the article and then misleadingly wrote at WP:BLP/N, Page is under attack from Truthers trying to turn him into a martyr. The page wasn't under attack, Truthers is a wholly deprecating, polemic term which should be avoided other than in topics about the term itself (never mind throwing it about at BLP/N) and martyr was utterly beyond the pale PoV. As with any source, editors can talk about whether PrisonPlanet is a reliable source for any given shred of text but whether one likes it or not, it's a high traffic, verifiable website which is at the very least a reliable source about who has been on a guest on the Alex Jones talk show and moreover, a highly reliable and verifiable source as to the thinking and outlooks and publishing events found in that topic area. Hence, it was easily verifiable that Sheen had written the article, there was nothing demeaning or defamatory about how the edit which you blanked was written and it wasn't a BLP violation. Along with things like P-I and global warming, this is one of the most controversial and emotion stirring topic areas on en.Wikipedia. Editors of whatever PoV must deal with it heedfully and always keep in mind, en.Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. All this said, there indeed may be some WP:UNDUE worries with the text, which also needs a thorough cleanup. Thanks again for undoing your edits, which could lead to these things being dealt with more easily. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I see the reviews on that German website but otherwise can't find a thing on her, nothing. Guess I'll post this at the AfD as a comment. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
What do you think?
How to approach an anon editor who "signs" a name and date but hasn't responded to gentle nudging from Sinebot and me about getting an account so that real sigs can be applied? What policy applies...or is this a case of "leave it alone, Frank"? Frank | talk 16:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Signatures is a guideline and signing with 4 tildes is mostly a civility thing, always hoped for. If the edits are helpful and there is no bickering, it's likely easier on everyone to let the IP do as he likes (along with letting Sinebot carry on doing what it does, lots of IPs get worn down by that and take the hint). However, you might remind him that editing from a raw IP and typing in what looks like a true name could be opening him up to later privacy worries he isn't aware of yet.
If the IP ever does get into a strong dispute or edit warring, an admin, in settling things down, can put forth as a first step that the IP either sign with 4 tildes or get an account. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Was your comment regarding my PoV related to Charlie Sheen, sourcing, or 9/11? I have a feeling I know which one, but I didn't think it was affecting my editing THAT much... Soxwon (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I figured the 9/11, but what about sourcing? I didn't think Prison Planet was reliable. Was it that one or a different one (for future reference)? Soxwon (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The pith is, you blankedverifiable content from the article and then misleadingly wrote at WP:BLP/N, Page is under attack from Truthers trying to turn him into a martyr. The page wasn't under attack, Truthers is a wholly deprecating, polemic term which should be avoided other than in topics about the term itself (never mind throwing it about at BLP/N) and martyr was utterly beyond the pale PoV. As with any source, editors can talk about whether PrisonPlanet is a reliable source for any given shred of text but whether one likes it or not, it's a high traffic, verifiable website which is at the very least a reliable source about who has been on a guest on the Alex Jones talk show and moreover, a highly reliable and verifiable source as to the thinking and outlooks and publishing events found in that topic area. Hence, it was easily verifiable that Sheen had written the article, there was nothing demeaning or defamatory about how the edit which you blanked was written and it wasn't a BLP violation. Along with things like P-I and global warming, this is one of the most controversial and emotion stirring topic areas on en.Wikipedia. Editors of whatever PoV must deal with it heedfully and always keep in mind, en.Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. All this said, there indeed may be some WP:UNDUE worries with the text, which also needs a thorough cleanup. Thanks again for undoing your edits, which could lead to these things being dealt with more easily. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I see the reviews on that German website but otherwise can't find a thing on her, nothing. Guess I'll post this at the AfD as a comment. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll look at this. If you can give me some diffs to the PAs and the bit about "voting," it will help me get to the pith more quickly. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal attack diff: [12] (This attack followed upon a personal attack on an editor not present: [13].)
Ouch. I've blocked 48 hours owing to the PAs and when I have some time later, will read the thread and put in my 2 pence about policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I was merely expected you to look into the issue of personal attacks and voting, not to hit a more fundamental nail on the head. None-the-less, I'm glad that you have done so. I hope that you some day find time to generate one or more persisting essays on one or more of the points that you've raised.
In a sense, I'm sure that that's true. But, in the context of that past discussion and of subsequent events, I'm sure that refutations and explosions will ultimately be ignored. Some of the same parties who offered the refuted and exploded arguments will not only seek new formulæ to get them to their old conclusions; failing that, they will simply revive the old formulæ as if they'd never been exploded. —SlamDiego←T10:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW, though I have my disagreements with them, I am very convinced that some of the editors who seemed to be on the “mainstream” side are truly good-faith editors. And I think that it's evident that some are not. Of course, some of the people pushing what they think to be the Austrian School side are also not editing in good faith. —SlamDiego←T18:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, I think some of them are editing in good faith, that they truly believe they're helping the encyclopedia, from an outlook that the only meaningful lack is a bit of "fuzziness" as to policy. However, the policy is not fuzzy at all and what some good faith editors wholly miss is, en.wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability.
Hopefully, I was able to leave some hints about sourcing policies, weighting and PoV which editors who care to can bring up as needed. The pith is, there is zero support in en.wikipedia policy that articles put forth a "mainstream" narrative or that the goal of writing them is to aliken articles to textbooks. Meanwhile, WP:FRINGEis not policy and is often cited as a means to mistakenly or misleadingly skirt WP:V and WP:NPOV. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are a number of problems with that article, which I could labor or belabor. But, yes, there is a deep CoI problem with any science where there are significant policy implications and difficulty effecting clear and objective tests. —SlamDiego←T06:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, the article is all opinion, but either way it's a strong and verifiable hint that talking about the COI of "mainstream" economists is in no way beyond the pale. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello-I left a comment on economists' COI at this discussion. I don't know that this needs further discussion, although we can if you or others want. I just kinda wanted to put the comment in for the sake of precedent-not letting your COI assertion pass as if others agreed. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I took User:Gwen Gale/CSD and added an almost ad verbatim copy to my userspace User:NuclearWarfare/Speedy. I have credited you at the bottom of the page, but I wanted to leave you a little note saying that I have done so. If you have any issue with this, please let me know and I'll delete it straight off. Regards, NW(Talk)17:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, I just had what seems to me 'a strange experience'. I have done some general work cleaning up Florence Hartmann, who is hot news this week. I'm guessing that because she is a hate figure for some Serbs then she is a heroine of some Croats (mine enemy's enemy etc), but ... I have just received a Gmail (in Croatian) apparently welcoming me to Croatian Wiki. And, curiouser and curiouser, I went to the English FloHart page, followed the link to the Croat page, and it had a banner telling me I had new messages! Any thoughts? Autodidactyl (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to have to get you into this, but I don't want to do anything stupid. Please read the "Episode Titles" discussion at List of Dragon Ball Kai episodes and see who is right at the moment. Collectonian has changed translated (not dubbed) titles so they will match the English dub of the show. There is no dub, and they are English translations... not English titles. Please read, I don't want to get into trouble with her again. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Please also read my response as I have corrected D4c3nt3n0 incorrect assumption. The names of the characters were corrected to match their official English spellings per Wikipedia's guidelines for naming conventions and the anime/manga projects guidelines regarding names. However, it appears that some articles are using the official English anime spellings, and some the manga, so a discussion has been started at the character list talk page about resolving this. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 01:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Your post
Hello Madam or Sir,
I know my edit was not perfectly done. Like I know user Skomorokh is not correct to say that the claim in the GNU section of Stallman's bio is well sourced. The point is that to use Drepper and Raymond as sources to make such a general statements in a biographical page clearly violates NPOV. Drepper and Raymond themselves have well documented issues that would make them qualify for that description of "difficult to work with". So their claims should be taken with care and skepticism and not as the definitive and ultimate source.--Grandscribe (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I will follow your advice. Thank you for your efforts to help improve the article and make it comply with Wikipedia policies.--Grandscribe (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Next time something like that happens, rs it with something in the edit summary like, "Did you remove this by mistake?" Looks like the editor could have been removing their own original research, a good faith thing to do (though editors who have been here a long time would tend to <s>strike</s> something like that out if an answer has already shown up, as one did there). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the “original research” in this case concerned the character and motives of another editor. I did explain to the author that the proper way to withdraw sucha remark, after a reply had been made to it, was to strike through it. —SlamDiego←T00:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Then, say they were withdrawing a personal attack drawn from original research. Looks more hopeful than harmful, but feel free to let me know if more worries get stirred up. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it may have been an attempt at withdrawal. As to “original research” in the remaining content, that is one valid way of categorizing it. (Fundamentally, the editor began by confusing the equation of exchange with the quantity theory of money; after that, there are multiple possible interpretations of what (s)he has been doing, but each could legitimately be said to involve “original research”.) I acknowledhe that no immediate administrative action is necessary; but I am less hopeful about the future. TNX. —SlamDiego←T02:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
They only have a dozen or so contributions, bears watching but it's way too soon to tell. Lots of helpful editors here had kinda rough/glitchy beginnings, until they understood how things are done. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
ding
Hello, Gwen Gale. You have new messages at Sifind's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ArbCom
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#RS and Fringe Noticeboard and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks. Almost every editor here has a conflict of interest of some kind, which is one reason why WP:COI has never been made a policy. Blatant COI only becomes meaningful when other policies are being broken. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Keep in mind, an encyclopedia will tend to lag, sometimes way behind, owing to the sources it must follow. We do what we can. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of us are doing what they can on behalf of purposes different from that of empowering the reader within the context of policy. —SlamDiego←T06:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You left me a message saying the picture is from a publication and you deleted it? I want to inform you it is a picture that Chan Tai San had taken of himself on his own camera and then gave to me! Why would you delete it? Especially with no discussion?
Nysanda (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The image I deleted was scanned from an old magazine or a book. Copyright is a big deal here. If you can verify your ownership of the image through WP:OTRS, it can be restored. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but that is NOT CORRECT. We had a passport size photo and scanned it to save the image / touch it up. How would you suggest we verify ownership? How about you prove it was from a copyrighted source? Nysanda (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Now it's a passport (sized) photo? I don't need to prove it's from a copyrighted source, you must prove you own it. You will need to do this through WP:OTRS. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's see if perhaps we can avoid mis-understanding here and avoid sounding sarcastic. You made the claim the picture is "scanned from an old magazine or a book." This is NOT CORRECT. It was scanned from an original picture that Chan Tai San gave us, which was taken on his camera. The copy he gave us was (1) small (passport sized, which does NOT equal "passport photo") and (2) damaged and thus after scanning it we touched it up with software. Again, how does one establish that a photo they took is there on here? that is a legit question, ie what process? Explain it and I'll do it Nysanda (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
After having carefully looked at the image in a graphics program, I agree that it looks like a scan of an older passport sized photo, am willing to take you at your word that you own it and have restored the file. Since you have released it to the public domain, you may want to upload it to Wikimedia commons instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Your valued opinion?
Gwen: it's the old N & V thing again.
The Sara Page article has been recreated after being deleted. I kept a copy of the original version. Alas she was born too soon for a MySpace page so struggles for N & V but she is publicly exhibited decades after her death. Is that not a bit notable? Your thoughts? Lame Name (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think this lawyer is notable enough to be cited in the lead, which already puts straightforwardly that there are meaningful questions about what happened and how the government behaved in the aftermath. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. So I suppose it's traditional. Funny how real life issues can get played out here – those two can really go at it. I do think they'll respect the policies sufficiently to leave things as you've put them though. They've always both been very cordial to me (once they realized I had no stake in the dispute). JohnInDC (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Politeness is also very Chinese :) Thanks for giving me the rundown on the talk page. They're welcome to bring up any botches I've made, along with any other thoughts. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am HORRIFIED by all the changes you made. The reference to him training the Fut San military forces was referenced and you removed it. You removed the links to his demonstrations and the pictures of him teaching? You have rendered Choy Lay Fut in Mandarin which is NOT how we use it in our tradition! Chan Tai San was from Guangdong and spoke Guangdonghua (Cantonese). Please, there has to be some logic to this butchery? Nysanda (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, let's avoid mis-understanding and sarcasm. My conerns are indeed legitimate. Chan Tai San spoke Guangdonghua and used it in his organiztion, CHoy Lay Fut was how he spelled what he taught and his entry should be allowed to keep the usage he preferred. Additionally, you removed a sourced reference. Finally, you removed links to pictures and video of Chan Tai San for no apparent reason. None of those observations are personal attacks are they? Nysanda (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Calling good faith edits "butchery" is a scathing personal attack. I don't care that it was targeted at me, as an admin I'm used to getting flamed, but I worry that you might talk this way to other editors. Please go the article talk page, list the vocabulary items in a civil way and we can fix them straight off, ok? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe it is acceptable for an admin to instantly block a user (and therefore stop them from responding or creating an account) and revert all edits without bothering to look at them?
I was about to ask what the hell "bedtime_at_the_right_extreme_of_Eurasia" – and now it seems you are in support of Welsh place names being put on English locations despite numerous reverts by different editors. Helpful and fitting? Hmm – they have no relevance, except to Welsh speakers and you have no right to try and quash any attempt to discuss the matter just because you have decided to help the editor in question.
It might be block evasion, but I can't see any legitimate reason for Welsh place names on towns with no particular connection to Wales, and if this is all it was blocked for than it should never have been blocked in the first place. We don't list French placenames for upstate New York just because it happens to be near Quebec, or Scots Gaelic placenames for the north of England; you may not agree with the IP's edits, but there's no possible way you can construe it as "vandalism". – iridescent22:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Update: I shan't keep tagging after these until I see a more straightforward consensus as to naming English towns near Wales and even then, semi-protection of a slew of articles might be the only way to stop it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi -- I didn't realize that discussion was archived when I posted to it -- there was some lag between when I loaded the page and when I hit Edit. I removed my comment and your response -- if you would prefer to move them instead of removing them, that's fine too.
But I'm not sure I asked the question properly. What I was getting at was that his tools were removed/resigned the first time for unbanning Moulton, if I'm reading properly. Given that there's a current discussion about his unblock of CoM, that would seem to indicate a pattern, regardless of the propriety of re-RFAing without disclosing the previous account. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey. Following what Risker had to say about it, my understanding is that it's the same de-sysoping, now put to Law (given the earlier de-sysoping wasn't disclosed at Law's RfA), who has also been blocked for socking. It seems there was some bickering between Law and others on IRC yesterday and the outcome was, someone told arbcom he was The undertow. Meanwhile The undertow's block auto-lifted in March and that account is still unblocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
My quandary is this. I moved a Wikipedia contributor's paragraph about an anti- Glenn Beck spoof website from Beck's blp (oops! actually it was removed by somebody else, while the matter was pending discussion on the talkpage; but anyway...) to its own article space, here: "Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck." Yet, my problem is, that's an awful name! I don't want to repeat the website's name as the name of the article for obvious reasons (for BLP problems, that is). But the name I came up is simply lacking. Would you happen to have an opinion as to whether a better name for it might even be "Beck v. Eiland-Hall"? As this, after all, as is the name of the case receiving an overview at the realiable source of Harvard Law School's Citizen Media Law Project, perthe link here.↜Just M E here , now11:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
However, there are overwhelming BLP worries here (and I'm no fan of Mr Beck's work). Celebrities get hit with all kinds and sundry smears, most of which are non-encyclopedic noise. Unless that website and the dispute have gotten very wide coverage from editorial news sources, Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism and praise/WP:UNDUE have overwhelming sway. Moreover, the article could be taken as having many hints of WP:Coatrack. I can't see how this has anything meaningful to do with his biography or his career. If it were tagged CSD G10, I would speedy delete it straight off because the parody is clearly meant to give grip to an underlying and seemingly wholly unsourced smear. I may speedy delete it anyway as a blatant and harmful BLP violation which so far has no notability as an encyclopedic topic.
Fantastically informed input, Gwen. I'll post a notice to BLPN straightaway. I would almost certainly have moved its title to "Glenn Beck (Eiland-Hall dispute)" right away, after your excellent suggestion, but have decided to let ppl at its AFD discussion and BLPN posting chime in about its name too. The reference to the CSD G10 speedy deletion criteria is very illuminating too. (If the page poofs I'll know why, eh?) Wow, thanks so very much!↜Just M E here , now15:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
So long as they're blinded by their own COI, I guess. Anyway, mainstream is a meaningless term and besides, didn't some fringe Austrian crackpot, erm, FA Hayek I think it was, win one of those Nobel prize thingies? Give it say, five years, when en.Wikipedia will either be a USENET-like wasteland of bygone flame wars (with banner ads), a locked-down "content-partner" with Google/Bing (with "contextual" ads) or, shivers, an open encyclopedia which has somehow stumbled into following it's own rather fit policies. By then, $100 might buy a cup of coffee, or would that be 10 1 Ameros after a big 10 100 for 1 trade-in, movin' the decimal point over like the French did back in the day? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I really doubt that it's going to be forgot. This same editor has been after the same thing for over a year. (I'm not really sure when he began his campaign; it first appeared on my radar just over a year ago.) —SlamDiego←T03:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Remember to cite WP:Consensus, which is never a vote, ever. A single editor "should" be able to gather consensus for something through citing policy even when a flurry of "ivotes" would still overwhelmingly go the other way. It comes down to how much time (and skill) one is willing to put into it. This may need mediation. Again, WP:RS doesn't in any way say an article should be given a "mainstream" narrative but rather, citations become reliable when they've shown up in "mainstream discourse," not at all the same things and this can have to do with many and sundry PoVs. Also, one must always bear in mind that WP:FRINGE is not policy, only a fuzzy, sloppily written guideline widely (and mistakenly) cited by PoV warriors. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
My moving towards Mediation (basically asking who wanted to be included in it) seems to have got one bloc of problematic editors to calm-down a bit. (Thought also there was a move to hijack the Mediation!) Then User:Vision Thing trumped that bloc by finding that policy itself opposes restatements of policy. This wasn't how I was expecting or hoping for things to proceed, as I believe that the eventual Arbitration is now just further postponed. But the policy really does trash the defense of the disputed propositions as simple restatements of policy. And it would be telling if those who defended the propositions as simple restatements of policy now declared that they were no such thing.
There are some good faith editors who want guidelines, and guidelines truly intended to be NPoV. I had made some suggestions towards such about a year ago, but I no longer have any confidence that the effort to produce such won't be hijacked for the “mainstream” PoV. —SlamDiego←T06:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I certainly don't blame you. Well, for such purposes as keeping policy consistent, WP:PG declares “Policies should not be redundant with other policies, or within themselves. Do not summarize, copy, or extract text. Avoid needless reminders.”. Vision Thing further notes a footnote which declares “Perhaps Wikipedia:Verifiability is ‘summarized’ and reworded (non-substantively, of course!) in a guideline, so that editors don't have to check the longer (official, carefully-worded, more-rigorously maintained) version. All of this is scope creep. Keep policies to themselves.” —SlamDiego←T08:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Scope creep? Next time anyone lays something like that on you, remind them that WP:V trumps all and if need be, follow up with WP:Wikilawyer. Mediation may help, but it could take time. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
He's not citing policy to try to get around WP:V, and he is just citing policy. There's a lot in policy that I wouldn't have put there, but I don't see this policy as sufficiently problematic that I would oppose it.
It's just that I think that the more problematic members of the bloc whom he trumped will now seek another “last best” device for imposing their “mainstream” PoV. Since I see Arbitration as inevitable (unless we allow that “mainstream” PoV), I'd like to see the Arbitration sooner, rather than later. Now it's further deferred. *shrug*
I don't know what to think of Vision Thing, because I haven't been much involved in the articles where the disputes arise. I maintain some of the articles on marginal(ist) concepts and on basic monetary theory, and don't much look at other econ articles because there's just too much Bad Stuff to them (and I need to write real econ papers for the “real world”). It's when nonsense flairs-up on the WikiProject page, and things start to look dire that I get involved in the disputes. —SlamDiego←T10:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, It would be fine if Mediation helped (and I've been through one before, which indeed took time but resolved things well), but I don't expect that it will. The really problematic editor is fixated on advancing what he asserts to be mainstream economics, and evidently feels very licensed in his attempts. —SlamDiego←T10:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean now. The reason I brought up WP:Wikilawyer is, that kind of talk can quickly get caught in meaningless loops of muddle which only slow things down (whatever the hoped for outcome). Arbcom is more or less meant as a very last go at behaviour worries, so this would have to go through mediation first, either way. As for the editor who's still fixated on notions of "mainstream," as ever, there is nothing in en.Wikipedia policy that says articles are meant or need to put forth a "mainstream" outlook. What some editors don't grock is, keen readers (often the kind who check out what WP has to say on a topic) aren't fooled for long by articles with oddly narrow outlooks and sourcing but rather, more often than not, it only stirs them up to look elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
A request for Mediation was filed by Lawrencekhoo, and all twelve disputants whom he named (including me) have agreed. I'm now hoping that we get a Mediator, and one who insists that discussion proceed in an orderly fashion. (There will otherwise be problems from some editors on each side of each issue.) —SlamDiego←T00:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you contributed to this in the past, declining a speedy
Gwen, I understand that you are a supporter of the Austrian school. That is not a problem, I myself am a utilitarian and a Georgist, and have contributed to those pages. But I ask that you put aside any bias you may have, and view it through the lens of a Wikipedia admin, given the trust of the community. The policy rules are clear about how pages describing minority viewpoints should read. I ask that you please put aside any personal feelings you may have, and help me enforce the community rules here. Thank you, LK (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Only because you've brought it up here, what I've said is drawn wholly from policy. You may be aware that I don't edit those articles. However, you do edit them, sometimes on the edge of tendentiously so and as I have told you many times now, please see WP:COI and Wikipedia:Expert editors/New draft, think carefully about your own blatant PoV and conflict of interest and please stop trying to claim that articles on en.Wikipedia are meant to carry a "mainstream" (meaningless word) PoV which, following how you put things, also happens to be the PoV towards which you edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, as someone who edits economics articles I've become increasingly concerned about the direction of these articles on Wikipedia. I have no strong POV about economics, but I'm familiar with the field. Put bluntly: many articles have become an anti-encyclopedic disgrace. The only POV I've ever seen Lawrence pushing is decidedly NPOV (I have not reviewed all his edits). An actual economist who attempts to remove pseudo-economics from an article about economics is not running up against a WP:COI. This is no different than a scientist removing something that's not actually science from articles about science. Economics articles on Wikipedia have such a severe WP:FRINGE problem that very few real economists would be interested in contributing here. We need to work to cultivate and support the experts we have (currently we are instead supporting embarrassing fringe POVs) and not accuse actual economists of COI and POV for attempting to edit economics articles. We can basically rest assured that no expert will have anything to do with us, if Lawrence is continually threatened this way and we can rest assured that our encyclopedia will never be respected except by the fringes that are currently winning the day. --JayHenry (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
If I may contribute a comment – it appears that the economics "profession" is tearing itself apart and that there is (currently) no generally accepted, respected "mainstream" view. This is confirmed even from within the mainstream itself. So it's a little rich deploring the state of "fringe" positions on WP when the mainstream itself is deploring the state of the mainstream itself. When there is a CLEAR community consensus as to what economics should be, perhaps we can then identify and remove "pseudo-economics". Right now, it looks like a small bunch of temple "doctors" are trying to preserve their power, against the threat of alternative medicine. Perhaps we should wait to see which patient dies before we decide who the "doctors" really are. In the meantime a little more tolerance of fringe views on fringe pages would be better than erring on the side of Lenin and base censorship. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.54.163 (talk • contribs)
Hopefully the logical flaw here is obvious? At the professorial level economists have extremely heated POV disputes (and Lawrence, to my knowledge, is not pushing a POV in these areas). Economics cannot predict the future, nor do economists agree on the appropriate public policy response to every economic event. The conclusion that therefore all theories are equally valid is, of course, completely ridiculous. Apply this to any other line of thought and see how absurd that is -- meteorologists cannot predict the November 2009 weather, so should we therefore include astrology or tea-leaf reading in our weather articles? Nobody that I can see is saying that Wikipedia should favor Krugman over Fama, Harvard over Chicago, etc. These are areas where we should be concerned about expert POV pushing. There are, however, things that are established among economists and there are challenges to these viewpoints that are established. I am adamantly in support of including all significant views, such as those of both "saltwater" and "freshwater" economists. What I am opposed to, because it is a clear violation of Wikipedia's non-negotiable NPOV policy, is continuing to present the views of a single Texas doctor who sits on a legislature as par -- or even more important than -- all other economics. --JayHenry (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Beating up straw men may entertain some, but WP shouldn't allow such activity to go on for long. JH's analogy is skewed to fit his prejudice. To use his analogy more accurately: What if the meteorologist's PRIMARY task was to warn of and predict damaging storms. A month, a week, even a day before the storm, the meteorologist is confidently predicting no storms, or – in the highly unlikely event that a "mild storm" may occur, it will be "CONTAINED". He strongly recommends that no action be taken and children should be allowed to play outside. A "rejected" non-meteorologist using a form of prediction scorned by the mainstream (but NOT analogous to tea-leaf reading) has been screaming for a month that a storm is brewing and the children should stay inside. A week before the storm – more warnings. A day before – more warnings still. A storm comes. It kills all the children in a massive flood. The meteorologist turns around in disbelief and later says it could not have been predicted, whilst AT THE SAME TIME still scorning and ignoring the non-meteorologist and his methodology. Doctors eventually take the "meteorologist" away in a small unmarked white van, and the "non-meteorologist" is asked by the emergency services dept to call them next time his "strange" methodology gives off another storm warning. What should we do with mainstream economists, whose job is primarily to predict financial crises (at least those working at the Fed), who did not predict this crisis, who did not warn the populace about debt and excessive leverage, who stated the problem was contained when it appeared, who now cannot understand the chaos around them, and whose remedies have not (yet?) done anything to alleviate the pain? At the very least we should NOT allow them to come onto the "fringe" pages and start deleting stuff they don't like or don't understand. OK, I'm not (yet) suggesting that they be taken away in a small unmarked white van (perhaps it's an idea to be considered after the "stimulus" is shown to have done nothing but increase the national debt). Let them by all means edit Keynesian economics or mainstream economics to their hearts' content. But why should Austrian School be edited by these "experts" and some sections deleted or criticisms retained IN THE INTRO??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.54.141 (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd tell the emergency services not to be so stupid, and they should review their practices, asses the meteo's skills, and work on making sure their kids don't play in a park where they get killed by storms – but they'll have at least 9 months to fix that. Verbalchat13:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You've done much harm, no help, to the article and its neutrality. If you truly believe what you're saying, stay away altogether and let those who can peacefully edit this privately owned, open-content, volunteer project handle it within policy, to which you have not abided. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Haha! Yes, I would strongly think so. I know many helpful and knowledgeable editors who happen to behave like... helpful and knowledgeable admins. I'd say, if you display it, make a note (worded however you think fit) that you're not an admin, only to skirt any misunderstandings. Also keep in mind, one of the most oft-said things at a successful RfA is, "I thought you were already an admin!" Gwen Gale (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I know we now have WP:VETTING, but I'm actually contemplating a straw poll: invite everyone who commented on my last RfA (yup, everyone) to say whether or not they think I have met the requirements that they had issues with, or believe that I still meet them. With a few people pushing me to go through it again, I'd hate to fail it. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I can say, RfA can be one of the most blistering, wrenching episodes an editor goes through on en.Wikipedia. Editors tend to think about whether someone has learned from bygone kerfluffles and is willing to shift how they deal with things by following consensus, even a consensus they don't agree with (and which they don't think follows policy, which itself is meant as a take on consensus), that's a big slice of the "trust" folks talk about as to admins. When the time comes to run again, you'll likely know it without having to ask too much. I do think you'll wind up an admin if you keep editing here. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
A few users, notably User:Peregrine Fisher, have begun a process to move the very visible and somewhat contentious Abraham Lincoln article back toward A-class review and eventual FAC. In the past, you and I have sparred on sources and fringe additions to this page, but I wanted to call your attention to this thread. You have long withheld fire on this subject, though you make general comments from time to time about the page. I invite you to bring any issues you see to this thread so that we may be able to improve the article and reduce any pro-US bias in page coverage. User has raised the very serious issue of completeness. The page might not pass A-class review without your valuable and seasoned input. There would be some small symmetry in you and I cooperating on improving this important pagespace. Bring your fresh eyes over. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for asking. I haven't had that article on my watchlist in two years. I see that until lately the article has been as ever, a bloated and unhelpful hagiography. It now reads like a somewhat trimmed, unhelpful hagiography. There are plenty of reliable and verifiable American sources which show Mr Lincoln, clever lawyer from Illinois, dragged the states into war wholly over the financial interests of those northern industrialists who put him in office (the feared loss of tariffs from the southern states were a big slice of this, since they were the US federal government's biggest source of income confiscated wealth and production back then). Slavery was used as a propaganda ploy, much as WMD, terrorism, drugs, global warming and other topics are used today. The utterly evil institution of chattel slavery faded away elsewhere in most of the world, without violence, throughout the 19th century. Most southerners didn't own slaves, the latter being (mistakenly thought of as) a cheap labour force for what we would call "big agriculture" today. Lincoln was quite willing to support slavery in the southern states so long as they didn't secede, but secede they did, not over slavery, but states' rights, brought to a head by tariffs. This need not be the article's narrative, but it should be put forth as a verifiable outlook. This is bound to happen sooner or later. Has the time come? I haven't a clue. Trying to fix this too early could stir up all kinds and sundry kerfluffles, with which I'll have nothing to do. For now my thinking is this: If the external link to King Lincoln is at last put back as a show of good faith, I'm willing to help out in a neutral, encyclopedic way. Please let me have your thoughts, if you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Update. Thanks for trying. So far, all I see is the same wanton ownership, what I take to be unencyclopedic, very emotional name calling and personal attacks on published authors, wholly mistaken citing of the sloppy guideline WP:FRINGE and what I read as meaningless talk about what might be "acceptable" criticism (along the highly paraphrased lines of "he was only human, after all, so he must have made some itsy bitsy, teensy weensy mistakes here and there but bringing them up might make the article too long"). I'll not go near it until en.Wikipedia's core verifiability policy is given sway there. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
98.100.198.100
Gwen, you blocked 98.100.198.100(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) about a month ago for vandalism to Jimbo's userpage. Looking at the previous contribs before the sudden vandalism, there seems to have been some good faith edits in there, which leaves me to believe that the IP the vandal was on has probably been reassigned by now, especially after about three weeks of the current block. I'd be willing to unblock if this has occurred. What do you think? MuZemike18:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Thinking of blocks, how's this appeal? No, I'm not suggesting that you act on it -- indeed, it's clear that you shouldn't, precisely because I was the blocqueur and am bringing it to your attention -- but there's something remarkable, I think, about an appeal that is no more than a quotation from Jonathan Swift but, uh, manages to be (a) gruesomely mangled and (b) attributed to a misspelled Swift. -- Hoary (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I once dropped by a showbiz office in Century City which had what they called a "dunce desk," a tawdry little thing on wheels where the lazy, heedless and/or clueless were banished for one last go at redeeming themselves. By the bye, I was told only men ever wound up there (I glark not because women can't be dunces, but rather more likely because nobody ever had the guts to send one there :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk page guidelines
Hello. As I understand it, WP:BLP asks us to remove potentially libellous or problematic material about a person from anywhere, but not to remove comments about an article itself from the talk page (which is what it's for). Also, it's best to ignore trolls rather than encourage them by reverting, isn't it? Shreevatsa (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but WP:RBI is about vandalism, and that comment was a legitimate (if paranoid) comment about the article-writing process; there was nothing there that could be construed as libellous about the living person in question (RMS). I'd imagine that reverting will only increase the paranoia. Shreevatsa (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh, yes — but with an "also", to clarify that it is a general question and disclaim any direct bearing on the current issue. ;-) My question is, is it ok to just remove complaining comments like this one from talk pages just because they are on articles about people? It would make things a whole lot easier, but somehow it doesn't seem right. (On the other hand, I guess this comment could be considered a "personal attack" on other editors. I still don't see the BLP connection, though, since the "cult followers" are unnamed and vague.) Shreevatsa (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Look, I hope I'm not annoying you, but that is exactly what I'm asking. Has that happened here? Was there "unsourced negative content" about RMS in that comment? I don't see it, but if you think so, then yes, it should be removed (but should the rest of the comment be removed as well?) Shreevatsa (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I was looking to re-create this article, but thought I'd check with you first.
My guess is that the article you deleted was little more than a trivial mention of the match, with at most the scoreline, the two teams and the lineups, and therefore was correctly deleted. Provided it is properly sourced and substantial enough, I believe it is notable enough to have an article, as evidenced by equivalent matches linked to from this template. I also believe that if I start the article, I will add enough to it for it to be meaningful- this and this are examples of articles I've created. I'm planning on starting work on it in my Sandbox over the next day or so, but just thought it best to notify you before putting it onto the mainspace. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The deleted article had no text, only some categories and a transclusion. Ten months ago, an editor tagged it and I did the speedy. If you think an article can be had there, please do as you think fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem like a neutral pov type of editor, if history is an indication. Right now a sign up team from here, and some others are ganging up on me here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incorrigibly disruptive editor and also here. This seems like a strange way to try to solve a perceived problem. A request for comment about an article being over sourced in my opinion Sustainability, to a not neutral political pov would be a better approach. Also a user is taking material from blog/forums (Lawrence Kwhoo) to use as demeaning or attacking material, one who seems to have a personal vendetta about mainstream having weight, he is linking material like this stuff This seems very wrong to me, and it is noted that skip sievert is an avatar name. He has also negatively canvased people also in other venues in my opinion here
I am not a perfect editor, but I try to follow policy and guidelines. Right now this is not working in regard to trying to deal with numbers of the editing team that want my voice removed from an article. My interests and what I edit on Wikipedia is broad. I feel like one little group is targeting me currently with this situation. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
You're being "tag teamed" at ANI by editors with a PoV other than your own and there has been some untowards canvassing. Most admins should see through this but if by some fluke an admin tries to topic ban you, let me know. Unless you get blocked and then promise to stay away from a given topic for a time, as a swap for the only way of getting unblocked, or the topic is under some arbcom sanction, it's unlikely such a topic ban would be within policy. However, they could get further asking for a WP:Disruption block. So I think you should say forthwith, as a sign of good faith, you'll "step back" from editing the article for at least a few weeks and stick to its talk page. There's lots of systemic/selection bias on en.Wikipedia and you can't fix it by editing/bickering back and forth. Although LK's notions of "mainstream" are mistaken, the only way to go forward on something like this is to give a source for every wee edit you want to make. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I just made this entry on the Ani... As a sign of good faith, I will 'step back' from editing the article for at least a few weeks and stick to its talk page. The issue of neutral point of view editing on the article is not being addressed in my view and obscured with information that is not connected to that issue. Here is the edit of that [20]
And made this comment on the Sustainability discussion page
Wikipedia:Etiquette has to do with probably not making fake claims about socks ^ like the above. Both G.T. and Geronimo are claiming that AdenR and I are related. Not true. Never true. Not connected. Shown to not be true also here, and another example of Wikipedia:Assume bad faith that also obscures the point of the thread. Which is that the sign up team here does not approve of the neutral pov version of the lead which I did, and which was endorsed by two other editors as better but rejected as against consensus. As a sign of good faith, I will "step back" from editing the article for at least a few weeks and stick to its talk page.End
That'll help. One more thing, outside of an RfC try not to say anything more about other editors, stick to sources, spend your time on those. Meanwhile it can take scads of time to draw true consensus on some topics, rather than ivotes. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Note: Lawrence Khoo continues to stir the pot in what is in my opinion a very negative way here with another member of the sign up team on the Sustainability article OhanaU. who also has a history of trashing me, similar to on the current Ani... it looks like I am being targeted relentlessly by the sign up team and their tandem friends. skip sievert (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they wouldn't say a thing about your behaviour (which has its weaknesses) if they agreed with your PoV and sourcing. Please keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source drawn mostly from the most widely cited secondaries, so it lags behind on some topics in a big way. Stay away from the article for now and only (carefully) cite sources on the talk page, don't even comment on other editors. As you know, a swath of this is already in mediation and as I said, most admins will grok what's happening, don't keep going on about it, let their posts speak louder than. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually I, for one, find Skip's overall POV (technocracy) a worthwhile perspective for the article, so that isn't the whole story here. The reason for the ANI submission was behavioral, rather than content based. As far as Skip "stepping back" that seems to me to be a sham as long as AdenR continues on the article talk page.[21]Sunray (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is that persecuting or crusading against people, especially someone like a relatively new editor like AdenR, to Wikipedia, is not good. Your editing teams agenda of doing that here is a net negative in my opinion, such as calling people puppets or sock puppets, for what I think are just editing differences. There is no ovall POV in the article on technocracy. There never was one. It is/was totally content based as to the Ani in my opinion. Neutral presentation vs. a polical pov. - skip sievert (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Page on Sri Nithyananda
Gale, if feel it was unfair closing of this article in my view. Actually, there are so many articles in Wikipedia of unknown origin, or no followers, of various religions, with various sorts of claims. Why only this article is targeted? Shouldn't there be a vote on the article? If a person is part of the group of leaders of a large community, e.g. hindus, who is validated by other leaders, isn't he valid? Please do not use prejudices to exclude something. Edit or tag it as inappropriate. Curiously, I am researching for school, and this guy has a huge following in India. I am lead to think the editors had some biased prejudice? I have just read the following pages, that contain even more so called promotional material (with no appropriate references, or citing single books): Jesus, Islam, John Paul II, Anglicanism. There are even more. Instead of deleting could you mark sections that need to be improved? At least leave some information for my sake, as I would rather trust wikipedia, than an organization's page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.242.188 (talk • contribs)
Then please also deleted all other oriental spiritual masters wiki entries. The number of followers in India for all of them is more or less the same... Of course, Jesus is important in the West and not so much in the East. I am just complaining because I am supposed to write a research paper on various "spiritual leaders", and where am I supposed to find neutral information if Wikipedia doesn't even have an entry? Anyway, for now I will just write up based on the biography information provided elsewhere. But I am wary of wikipedia standards for deleting articles. Also please delete Boltzmann's article, as his biography information is controversial and incorrect as presented in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.242.188 (talk • contribs)
User:Daedalus969 has left a total of eight heavy-handed messages on my talk page within six hours after I have warned him repeatedly to stop. He continues to do so even though I have threatened to report his behavior to WP authorities. This conflict started over an edit I made to Where the Wild Things Are (film). However, Daedalus969 keeps posting messages on my talk page even after I agreed to leave the edit off of the article until I could improve it with additional citations. This now feels like cyberstalking.
I want to report him to WP authorities but I really don't know where to go with such a complaint. Can you point me in the right direction? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
First, you should carefully read en.Wikipedia's policy on original research (it's not allowed). Second, Daedalus can come on a bit too strong sometimes is all, you're not being cyberstalked. The talk page of a registered account is more or less handled as the editor behind that account sees fit, so long as this is done within the user page policy. You can remove almost anything from your own talk page as you please (but it's often more helpful not to do this, even if something there makes you wince). It looks to me like this will likely settle down fast on its own. If it stirs up again, you can let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Daedalus969 left several messages again today on my talk page. He even reverted me after I removed his comments despite the fact you told me I can remove anything I like. Keep in mind these comments have nothing to do with an edit but rather the contents of my talk page.
I've been meaning to dig-up and pass-along this passage to you:
If subjectivist logic is followed to the point of becoming convinced that there is nothing for the economist to do but to understand certain (praxiological) concepts, then the only problem that remains is that of subjugating one's conscience long enough to draw one's salary in exchange for imparting this piece of wisdom. One could, of course, having got into this state of mind, spend a good deal of time and energy in trying to convince those who engage in macroeconomics, econometric model building, mathematical economics, general equilibrium theory and so on, of the folly of their wats. But, that task accomplished, there would be nothing left but for the whole profession to shut up shop.
It's from Keynesianism: The Search for First Principles (page 61), a posthumous work by Alan Coddington.
Now, unsurprisingly, I'd have no trouble collecting a paycheck for telling what I believed to be the truth; Coddington apparently saw that as somehow a moral failing. But, in any case, the point would remain that there'd be fewer and typically smaller paychecks for economists if we all agreed to the proposition that things were unpredictable. In person, I was once told by a professor, speaking in all sincerity, that the Austrian School must be wrong because we'd be out of jobs if they were right. (I replied that I didn't think that economics were somehow vindicated by the provision of jobs to economists.)
Of course, a number of people around here don't get the difference between having a conflict of interest and succumbing to one. One huge problem is that, in that confusion, they make it easier for some of them to in fact succumb. —SlamDiego←T16:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Conflict of interest is ok, en.Wikipedia would grind to a halt if CoI were banned. The pith is, any path to neutrality is found only by first groking one's own conflict of interest.
Meanwhile, the other day I was chatting with some mathematician and scientist friends about software/AI systems meant to have meaningful foresight in the modeling/simulation of complex systems. Very lately, algorithms have been thought up which may indeed be fit for modeling the nettlesome loops of variables stirred up by unknowns, not the least of which those having to do with individuals who do all kinds and sundry things stirred by subjective behaviour, even when thinking lots of objective thoughts. I later told another scientist/pal of mine, when they do switch on a software system with true foresight, which will likely be much sooner than later, it'll show its fitness for the task by gauging such high margins of error/time, the only helpful output on wider management/social questions will be along the lines of "Sorry, haven't a clue, this kind of thing can't be centrally planned much less foreseen as to outcome." The worry is, the short term foresight of such a system is likely to have some strengths, which could stir up both much help and much harm (as with any tool). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, there are some unresolved yet fundamental issues of decision theory that are being ignored by most of the AI folk. In the case of “weak” AI, those issues may not be especially important, but weak AI isn't going to keep pushing development of predictive devices that keep asking for data that is intrinsically unavailable until such point as the devices themselves declare it to be intrinsically unavailable; rather, the researchers will before that time have recognized the problem and abandoned the programme. In theory, “strong” AI might eventually produce devices that recognize such subtleties, but I don't expect them any time soon.
The issues to which I refer involve questions such as just what a probability truly is, and whether quantifications can always be applied to priorities and to possibilities. Interestingly enough, both Keynes and v. Mises were skeptical of the presumption that probabilities were quantifiable. Keynes, in fact, didn't even believe that they were always totally ordered. (Not sure where v. Mises stood on that question.) —SlamDiego←T00:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
As you know, the worries are ever in the unknown "variables." Mises had the insight that only free markets could deal with these (and more or less seamlessly). Keynes had straightforward goals as to outcome and hence, other stuff on his mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank You Very Much
Daedalus969 has become a true pest for me. Thank you for blocking him. I appreciate it. If I can ever help you in any way, please let me know. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here; this is only one of several exchanges I've had with this totally annoying editor. No sooner is he unblocked, he's following me around making contentious edits – only a few, granted, but the subtext is quite clear: he hasn't cooled down yet. I'm asking for his block to be reinstated. Radiopathy•talk•01:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Which of my edits are contentious? You can't just make accusations without evidence on wikipedia. All I did is change USA to United States. I did that per the Manual of Style. There's nothing contentious about it.— DædαlusContribs01:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Gwen's page is on my watchlist, it has been for a long time. Go on, check the history and archives, you'll easily see that I have posted here before.— DædαlusContribs01:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Daedalus, I know you want to help but you're all too often over the top with incivility, templating and bite, which totters on the very edge of harassment half the time. Drop the warnings to good faith editors. Forthwith. If you have worries, ask what's up, or leave a friendly post as to what you have in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
This user isn't a good faith editor. He's edit warred, used twinkle for edit warring, baselessly accused me of trolling or making contentious edits as above. I have not been incivil or unfriendly since yesterday, if you yourself are going to accuse me of being incivil, please cite a diff or two.— DædαlusContribs01:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)He single handedly put together the report which got me on the Twinkle blacklist; there were no other complaints – that is wikihounding.
I want him to steer clear of my edits and my talk page. He also needs to be, as he says, less "bitey". I still feel a block is in order. Radiopathy•talk•01:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Where are your diffs that I am being bitey? Secondly, WP:BITE only applies to new users. You aren't new. Thirdly, reporting a user who is using twinkle wrongly is not wikihounding. Twinkle is not supposed to be used the way you were using it, and it was rightly removed.— DædαlusContribs02:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We've had this discussion before. Why should I be blocked, because I'm making an edit you disagree with? Here, let me quote MOS for you:The spaced U. S. is never used, nor is the archaic U.S. of A., except in quoted materials. U.S.A. and USA are not used unless quoted or as part of a proper name (Team USA).. Editing per MOS is no reason to block.— DædαlusContribs02:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Daedalus, this is your last warning, stay away from Radiopathy altogether. Both of you, let other editors deal with the acronym now, the two of you have canny botched it, falling into such a pithless back and forth. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
How is this user good-faith? And as I said above, he is not new. He has been here for some time, so WP:BITE doesn't apply. He should know the rules and guidelines. As to his good-faithness, AGF has it's limits. I've calmly explained WP:MOS several times to this editor, but he refuses to discuss and edit wars, and calls good-faith edits vandalism. How is it good-faith when he edit wars after being told that the edit goes against MOS? That doesn't sound look good-faith to me. Good-faith would fall under WP:BRD. This user refuses to discuss.— DædαlusContribs02:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
What a baseless accusation. I have tried continuously to discuss, but he has failed to do so. Secondly, please answer my other questions.— DædαlusContribs02:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Really? Where? Where did you answer how Radiopathy is a good-faith editor, in light of his past conduct and abuse of twinkle, not to mention his failure to discuss. All you said is AGF. That isn't an answer. Please describe how it he is.— DædαlusContribs02:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are you warning me again? I have neither reverted him or been in contact with him since you told me to do so at 2:39. That aside, if you are not going to answer me, just say so instead of rudely ignoring me.— DædαlusContribs03:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Please explain how I am bitey. Secondly, please answer my questions. You want me to chill? Stop blatantly ignoring me. Please address the questions I have raised above instead of continuing to ignore them as you have been.— DædαlusContribs23:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't hostile, it was blunt. I asked you several questions. You have yet to answer any of them, and, as you continue to post, still have yet to answer any of them, despite the fact that my questions remain in the air. Is there a particular reason you're so evasive about answering those questions?— DædαlusContribs07:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
A user RfC may be coming your way, if another admin doesn't block you first. Please think carefully before posting here again. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't help it if you don't like the answers you've gotten. Can't you see, you've only switched from badgering Moby-Dick3000, to Radiopathy, to me? Go away. Begone. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
As I value your opinion, could you comment on the article above in regards to the last threads on the talk page? As a note, I am posting this thread to several other users who's opinion I value.— DædαlusContribs08:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Encyclopædia Britannica, like en.Wikipedia, is not a reliable source (it's a reference which may carry citations to reliable sources). There are many and sundry takes on marriage in the world, legal and otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I may have phrased that badly. What I meant was, would it be possible for you to comment on the talk page of the article on the lower threads concerning the lead?— DædαlusContribs08:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh, some PoVs on the Marriage article could make stuff like Macedonia seem to be about happy bunny rabbits hopping in the green grass under blue skies and puffy white clouds. You can cite there, what I wrote here. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to say, what you were getting at there is true: Votes have no sway as to content, thorough consensus can be had for something which, if it were taken to a vote, would get all but one. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Main economics article
I am having a real problem with Lawrence Khoo, John Quiggin, and Cretog8, and possibly some others that are reverting because of their perception of weight and fringe... which does not apply anyway in this context of removing information that is sourced and reliably sourced, and pertinent in regard to economics and energy in the Economics article see this revert/diff here and here. These self identified experts are removing this sourced material. They have an editing block that reverts information they consider fringe or less than weighty. This is a recurring problem. This information is hardly fringe... example of the source I gave which they removed.
I also find L.K. going from place to place following my edits in a very unfriendly way such as here.
Here is an example of a discussion with this group concerning this on the Econo Project page, I have tried to edit constructively with those people, and will continue to, but their pov is getting in the way of neutral presentation, in my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
He just removed sourced information again here, and gave an edit summary of edit warring, which I did not do. There is no reasoning or stopping this person as to editing out any thing he considers un-mainstream. skip sievert (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It appears that L.K. and J.Q. are just about to chop up or otherwise make alterations to this article also which they site over and over as being a fringe branch of economics, and therefore should be removed from Wikipedia as information in other articles also, though this information is well cited and very much mainstream now as in being discussed on all fronts such as here in the N.Y.Times. It seems like an all out effort to mess up information here to a neo classic c.o.i. in my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Now a member of this group J.Q. is going from article to article related to apparently things he does not like and redirecting them without discussion and in one case citing a false consensus for doing so in his edit summary. This looks to be purely connected with the threesome mentioned above tandem editing negatively against certain information in my opinion. This edit by John Quiggin was reverted he is doing other redirects without discussion also such as here Urbanateshere – (another page redirect without discussion) on related topics. This user it is noted is wikihounding information related to these article subjects elsewhere also... note here on that subject from Economics project page. - skip sievert (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You are not behaving like an unbiased admin. This is the second time you have left an unwarranted warning on my talk page. You still have not retracted your first mistaken accusation, when I have pointed out to you how you were mistaken. This is an issue that you obviously have a personal stake in.
What is happening at the economics article is that one extremely tenacious editor is constantly inserting a fringe theory against the consensus of the members of the economics wikiproject. I am merely removing (as other project member have done) this insertion against consensus, that is essentially an edit war by this one editor against consensus.
And now you walk in and leave a warning on my page, and leave no warning on Skip's talk page, when he has reintroduced this exact same material several times in a row (many more times than I have removed it), against the consensus of several other people from the ECON wikiproject. And then, you enable him by reverting to his inclusion of a fringe theory on the main Economics talk page.
How is the even remotely justified? I am interested in how you can justify your actions.
LK, please take careful heed, I've never used the admin bit on this and haven't planned on it, my comments should be taken as those of a watching editor who happens to be an admin, who has been asked to speak up about this now and then. I understand my own CoI on this topic but as I've said many times, I don't think you understand your own. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I should say again, WP:Fringe is not policy, it's but a guideline (and a sloppy one at that, often cited mistakenly or worse). Meanwhile, WP:Consensus is not a WP:Vote and project teams are only social groupings covered by guidelines. They are not meant as gatherings for tag-team edit wars or "content patrols," though they can and do rot into such behaviour. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
As admin you don't get to choose which policies and guidelines to enforce and which to ignore. You have the faith of the community because you are supposed to enforce all policies and guidelines fairly and impartially. Just because you don't agree with a guideline does not mean that community consensus that it is a guideline is negated. Fringe is a guideline, and I'm acting by it. Your opinion that it is not a good guideline does not give you leave to ignore it and the fact that I am obeying it.
Also, If you want to interact as a non-admin, don't leave admin-like warnings like "please stop edit warring" on other's talk pages. Or make it clear that you are acting as non-admin, by prefacing you warnings with, "speaking as a non-admin". LK (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to note, the last two people to comment on this talk page before me, SpamGuard and Confersan, have as their first (and only) edits, the comments they left on this page, and are likely sockpuppets. LK (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I asked you to stop edit warring. Anyone can do that, even an admin. As for WP:Fringe, as I've told you many times, it's not policy. Lastly, as I've also told you, I've not used the admin bit on this and haven't yet made plans to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:Fringe is a guideline. From WP:POLICY, "... editors are expected to abide by the principles laid down in policies and guidelines, ..."
'Haven't made plans to use admin powers' is a very different from 'warning as user to user'. So just to clarify, the warnings you have left me are just 'user to user'? LK (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Policies and guidelines are not the same things. I asked you to stop edit warring. I didn't think of it as a warning, but I guess you can take it that way if you like. Edit warring isn't allowed. The pith is, since you asked, I think you're wikilawyering, gaming and edit warring, skirting consensus and verifiability towards your own PoV, behind which you have a conflict of interest, hoping for something which, from the outlook of WP:NPOV, would spin up into an unencyclopedic outcome outside the policies of this website. Time will out, but if editors keep asking me about this I'll keep saying what I think about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
So, to sum up, you left a message on my talk page that said that I am edit warring, a message that I can take as a warning. Also, you believe that I am also guilty of various other infractions. Additionally, you feel that it is necessary to observe policy, but not guidelines. You also don't feel that it is neccesary to separate your actions into 'admin' vs 'non-admin', since I have asked several times if your actions are as admin or not, and you have not answered. Am I correct in this summary of your position? LK (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you clarify? I would just like to be clear what your position is. What my 'take-away' from this conversation should be. LK (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother doing that since you'll be mistaken. The truth is, I think you've understood what I've said and are only trying to box me in with wikilawyering. In itself, I don't think that's a worry but I won't be drawn into it. If you'll kindly at least think about what I've said, that'll be cool, if you can heed some of it, wonderful. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It would also be cool and good if you would also consider the source of some of your feelings in this matter. Why are you essentially aiding and abetting a notorious POV pusher who has done much to waste the time and efforts of other editors, and who essentially has started a fight with the whole of Wikiproject Econ? Why do you have such negative feelings about me, when I've done nothing to even warrant a posting at ANI?
I'm here to improve economics articles. By improve them, I mean the same thing as what a Britannica editor would, which is to make them reflect (with appropriate weight) reliable sources from academia and beyond as appropriate. This is my POV. I fully and unapologetically admit to this. If I were here to promote my viewpoint and interests, I would insert blurbs about georgism into every article I edit, and reinterpret everything as related to georgist thought. As far as I know, I have not done this even once. LK (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll here inject a specific point of logic, a general empirical point, and then a specific empirical datum:
There is a difference between not injecting all aspects of one's point of view and not injecting any aspects of one's point of view.
Few if any people inject all aspects of their point of view into any specific act of expression.
apart from some presentational issues, his contributions to Economic Thought have just not been that significant. His observation that a tax on land is in many senses the 'best' tax, is an application of standard economic theory, not an extension of it. Likewise, his observation about monopolies, and the profits and concentration of wealth that accrue from such. His argument that business cycles are brought on by fluctuations in land prices is contradicted by modern experience.
Henry George was a great man, and in his own terms, a great economist. ... I say all this as a supporter of Henry George, who largely agrees with his positions, and who would love to see most taxes replaced by a land and natural resource use tax. I think he was right about many things
I left that out because Lawrencekhoo had plainly stipulated that he were a Georgist, towards the end of arguing that his edits to Wikipedia articles did not reflect his PoV. The quotation that I present shows that, when it comes to actual economics, what he regards as “mainstream” is quite in harmony with his particular variety of Georgism. (More traditional Georgism, which still has it followers, uses pre-marginalist economics.) Pushing a “mainstream” PoV is neither neutral nor somehow in conflict with his Georgism. —SlamDiego←T16:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I might add that all egotists and sociopaths believe THEIR version of "reality" IS reality. LK is (I hate to say this) the closest thing to a human weasel I have witnessed on WP (aside from Zenwhat). He openly, scornfully, dismissively denigrates Austrianism on his own talk page here, then theatrically issues an apology for his own obvious, ignorant bias here, but keeps aggressively editing and accusing OTHERS of POV pushing and trying to ban them! It's like watching a spoilt child slowly (ever so slowly) trying to grow up (seeing disdain slowly turn to a limited amateurish admiration for a school he previously knew NOTHING ABOUT), all the while editing away in complete ignorance of his arrogance and his illiteracy in the areas he chooses to graffiti. It's a bit rich to be complaining about an admin's "bias" after what LK has done on AS – OPENLY denigrating the School, and yet repeatedly attacking other editors and editing the page again and again – like he is some kind of authority! This is maddening when real editors like skip, vision thing, dickclarke, misessus and others have been brushed aside by this guy's clumsy editing, whilst he quickly and pathetically tries to self-educate himself on stuff these guys ALREADY know backwards. It's like watching him slowly become a social pariah in the deep pools he tries to swim in, bumping up against more talented editors, resenting the fact that they are showing him up, and then trying to get them banned to "get back" at them for their insolence against an "Ivy Leaguer". A PhD in a narrow field of mainstream economics is now (1) a distinctly bad career move (who else other than a second-rate university would want you now?) (2) no guarantee of expertise in ANY heterodox field (actually it's a strong sign they should edit very judiciously in these areas) (3) an indicator that you should stick with editing mainstream economics pages (which ironically NONE of the mainstreamers have done – neo-Keynesian economics is still a pathetic joke, as is new Keynesianism, monetarism, mainstream economics, business cycles and many other pages). I can't live long enough to have these arrogant idiots grow up. Neither can Skip, neither could the now-departed Misessus. That WP tolerates these idiots shows the dead heart of mainstream economics, the power of cliques over talent and the inability to circumvent the relentless determination of absolute *ssholes. - ParasitesKillTheirHosts (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what article you're referring to, but yeah, that's how wikipedia works. We rely on reliable sources to validate our articles. If you have a problem with what's considered a reliable source, you can go to the reliable sources noticeboard and make a case there. Dayewalker (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, I caution you about letting strangers know where you get off, as they might then be there at the station, waiting. —SlamDiego←T22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I must say, I saw this (and the block) coming. My watchlist overlaps onto only a few economics articles, until lately I was unaware of Skip's long edit history at Technocracy. What I called tag-teaming was but a slice of a much wider, longstanding kerfluffle he'd stirred up. Although I can't agree with how many editors have handled this, many of the root worries seem to stem from Ss's behaviour. Unless he can pull way back on the PoV flogging forthwith in a meaningful way, a hard ban is likely. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
As I've said, I've not much seen Skip's article edits. But, given how he presents himself rhetorically, he's doomed, regardless of whether he PoV-pushed in the first place or agrees to stop doing so. He doesn't keep things in appropriate compartments. He doesn't focus upon reaching the immediately important conclusion in an efficient manner. His presentation doesn't distinguish evidence from interpretation. Whatever merit is had by his position is disasterously obscured. —SlamDiego←T20:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, these are the very kinds of things spun off by wanton PoV flogging. Moreover, neutrality on en.Wikipedia has to do with understanding that sourced outlooks other than one's own (and with which one doesn't agree) give much meaning: If one believes a given set of sources are indeed closer to truth, so far as anyone might ever hope to understand it, than some other set of sources, let the latter speak loudly never mind how flawed because sooner or later the latter'll wind up speaking for the former. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
You did indeed! I can still remember my "interview". It may not be as bad as it looks. I have followed the correct process as far as articles are concerned. All of the article "m"s are correct, they are rollback or other undos of inappropriate content where I felt a better edit summary was needed, linking source citations, general copy editing, etc.
Where I have contributed new or changed content such as EDL, Lee Jasper & Alan Johnson they have been correctly not marked as minor. However, I have contributed to Talk pages and see from WP:Minor that I have been incorrectly marking those as minor. I will rectify immediately! Leaky Caldron13:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You instituted it for six months, but shortly after he was blocked for violating your rule, he vanished for three of those six months. As it stands, he has about four weeks to go before he's free to revert. You wondered if he could edit constructively and stop contentiously reverting, and the three-month disappearance answers you, doesn't it? Sluggo | Talk20:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Amazing. While I was on a short wikibreak, you made a number of posts disparaging me -- including one on my talk page saying I was a bad faith editor. Yet several days after I reappear, actively editing, you seek to roil the waters. BTW, it is common for WP to slow down during vacation months, and to infer anything from that is rather odd. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Put it this way, if Collect happens to abide 0rr through not editing at all there's no worry, the pith is that he abides. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The point of the 0rr was to see if he could edit constructively and stop contentiously reverting. Was the "edit constructively" requirement met? Sluggo | Talk19:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
As the admin who had earlier in good faith and trust unblocked Collect following his apology, only to learn much later that he had carried on with edit warring and other unhelpful behaviour, in closing his RFC I put Collect under 0rr on political topics to protect the project, which is the leading purpose and goal of any sanction or block. Then lo, last July, I blocked him for a day because he'd breached that. While we indeed hope that blocks and sanctions will stir up a bit of "clue" within the thoughts of those who have made what are taken as wayward, encyclopedia-harming edits on this openly edited website, admins are not "thought police," we do what we do only following worrisome, policy breaching behaviour. It isn't against policy to stop editing altogether for awhile (indeed, this often happens when someone is blocked or sanctioned and truth be told, I think this sometimes can be the keen-headed thing to do). I'm aware of neither any policy nor any sanction breaching edits made by Collect since that last block, so I know of no call to do anything. Collect's 0rr sanction on political topics will be up at the end of the month. Meanwhile, giving him a window to gain back some trust on his own is the more helpful path. If he goes back to his old ways, reverting good faith edits, wikilawyering over it and so on, I or someone else will most likely (and swiftly) block him, which would indeed be followed by a thread at ANI asking for some kind of fitting, community-driven block, ban or lasting sanction. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
That begs a question that I've asked more than once. Collect has proven, time and time again, that he will misuse every policy he can find to push his partisan viewpoint. His return, and the inevitable thousand fights that have accompanied it, ought to answer WP:AGF. He once claimed that fewer than a dozen edits a day constitutes a "wikibreak" for him. Then he vanished for half his restriction. So I wonder. Let's say he immediately vanished the second you imposed the 0rr and reappeared the second it expired. Would that show you that your restriction accomplished nothing? You're talking about his problematic wikilawyering when he wikilawyered in this very thread. Sluggo | Talk05:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Sluggo, I understand your thinking on this but if someone stops editing when a sanction begins and starts up again only when it ends, they've abided by the sanction. We can't (and don't) tell volunteer editors they "must" edit.
tFD, looks to me like Collect followed you to XfD pages for a short time. This would be on the ragged and slippery edge of WP:Wikihounding. If it carries on, say for a week or two, let me know.
Collect, since you're likely reading this, please don't follow tFD, even in short gasps, you've lost a lot of trust here which at the very least makes it look like borderline harassment.
As I said, if Collect slips back into his old, reverting, wikilawyering ways after the end of the month, a block will be coming his way, along with an ANI thread asking for some further kind of community review and sanction. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
No hounding on my part -- and since I have commented on several hundred XfDs, the claim that I am hounding anyone is absurd. Meanwhile, Sluggo has repeatedly posted on my talk page after being told not to. Would posting a WQA on him run afoul of you? Collect (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
One, there's little dispute at this point that the approaching deadline is going to bring about catastrophe. Collect's various interactions with tFD show that he is willing to, as you put it, work on the "ragged and slippery" edge, just stopping short of what will get him blocked. It's a little creepy. Can we get a promise from you that, should his tendency towards the overhang become too obvious for too many people, you'll stop assuming good faith and throw the hammer?
Two, and I don't mean to beg the question, but under absolutely no circumstances will I avoid him should I encounter more of his "leafy outskirts" wrecking on Wikipedia. Your "stay away from each other" comment reveals a pretty big lack of AGF towards me. Do you think have a lot to gain in all this? Sluggo | Talk08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I meant no lack of GF. Very good faith editors get pulled into kerfluffles and stir-ups all the time here. This said, I've not been talking about good faith, but behaviour. I've already said (now it's thrice), Collect will get himself blocked if he backslides. By saying "stay away from each other" I meant don't post on each other's talk pages and don't comment about each other, please stick to talking about sources and how to echo them in article text. If worries carry on, let me or another admin know about it, with diffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Doubt
Good morning, Gwen. I have a doubt and I was wondering if you could kindly clear it for me. I would like to know if there are any sanctions to users that repeatedly use false information on articles with sources that does not have such information. For example, an user X says that a room is green according to a book Z. However, the book Z does not have such information (and sometimes it could even say that the room was blue instead of green). Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. When an editor says "false information," I reach for WP:V. I would need some diffs to answer this, which I'll be happy to do, if you give them to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I had some hard time with an user called Opinoso on the article about Brazil. I don´t want to take neither your time or mine telling what he did as fortunately things are getting OK now as I got help from other editors. What really bothered me was the fact that he used as a source for a history section a sociology book written by a radical communist called Darcy Ribeiro. This author (who is already dead) was mainly active during the the 60s in Brazil and his book used by Opinoso is nothing more than political propaganda (that is, Capitalism is evil, Communism is good). What is worse is that the information that Opinoso wrote in that section was proved to be all false after I found an online copy of that book ("O Povo Brasileiro" or The Brazilian People).
Gwen, I could (hardly) tolerate him accusing me of bad faith and even racism (Anytime I disagreed with him, he would insinuate that I had something against Afro-Brazilians, something that I still do not know how it could be related to the historical discussion). But faking information was too much for me. Because that not only demoralizes other serious editor's efforts but also Wikipedia's image as a reliable enciclopedia. Even before all that happened, I sent him a private message trying to conciliate and be friendly, but he simply ignored me and began attacking me on the article's discussion page. I had never had trouble with any other editor so far on Wikipedia (you can check it, if you want to) and because of him I got an warning of "war editing" when I was trying to stop him from putting fake information. He also antagonized other editors claiming that only Brazilians could write in the article about Brazil (that is, only him), in what was clearly a desire of owning the article for himself. Well, I spoke too much and I hope you don't mind, but I thank you for your help and patience. Regards - --Lecen (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Heaven't you heard? Communism and fascism are both wonderful, so long as we never call them that but rather, bleat on as we're told about social justice through quantitative easing and green legislation.
Anyway, cheap thrills aside, I see someone has already said Opinoso is mistaken about who can edit a given topic. Meanwhile, please give me diffs, if any, wherein he has lately personally attacked you or called you a racist.
Also, please don't call seemingly mistaken edits "false information," call them something more neutral, like "edits unsupported by the cited source." This helps tamp down kerfluffles and will draw much more heed from experienced editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Although they were surely not "seemingly mistaken edits", I 'll promise that I'll take it easier next time and I'll call them "edits unsupported by the cited source", don't worry. About insulting me, he has stopped since another editor (Debresser, a very, very helpfull and righteous person, by the way) complained about it. I just wanted to let you know about this user called Opinoso, in case he does something again. For the moment, I prefer to let everything cool down, if you don't mind. Once again, thank you for your time. Kind regards, - --Lecen (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, is there any chance you could give me rollback permissions? Having some trouble with anonymous users doing multiple edits, blanking sections, especially on Geraint Thomas, so difficult to revert. I'm an admin on Welsh Wikipedia so I am familiar with this function already. Thanks Thaf (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
From your administrative view as an admin, does D.G. Hart need a notability tag?
From the edit history, doesn't it appear timewise that Hrafn is editing this article because of me [32] asking you to stop him from WP:wikihounding me? (actually, this is one of things that resulting in me bringing this to your attention, but still he continues with tendentious points and takes interest in this article only because I do)
I think this topic could tumble on either side of academic notability, going by the article text alone, it's on the very edge. He's published some books but unless at least one or two have been independently reviewed in meaningful ways and/or they've been widely cited, they won't lend much notability as to en.Wikipedia. He doesn't seem to have held any notable positions in academia.
Unless another editor has been following you to lots of articles and is clearly trying to nettle you, most admins wouldn't see it as wikihounding. Most likely, the more helpful thing to do would be not say anything at all about the other editor and comment only on the content and sources.
As for that source, bio blurbs on employer websites are not all that strong as sources, but the edit does seem to be supported by the source, such as it is. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Apollo 11 semi protect?
Hi Gwen, is semi protection for Apollo 11 an idea whose time has come? It seems that at least the last 4 days worth of edits have consisted of little more than vandalism followed by reverts. Lissajous (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it'll start up again when the semi-protection is up in a few months but, you know, I've never indef semied an article, since there's always hope, however faint :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Users have been inserting bogus sources which don't point to NY Times or Seattle Times but rather to Wikipedia pages (with no mention of Dan Fefferman). The article has been proposed for deletion. FYI.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Gwen, the "sources" are bogus. They don't check out. Click on them; they don't point anywhere. Show me links within them that point to something solid.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You're mistaken. Again, they cite dated, verifiable publications, they're not at all "bogus." You're muddling the wikilinks within the citations, which do not cite Wikipedia articles. Citations need not carry live URLs, they only need to be verifiable (whether or not they have indeed been verified). Moreover, other editors have also told you this. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I went over the "sources". None checked out (except for one with a Eugene newspaper -- perhaps that's the only one worthy of keeping.) I did an independent search. It's bogus. Can you, yourself, independently confirm any of them? And, the few "sources" which point to something other than a Wikipedia page are not impartial, but either cultish, unidentified. Bogus references are a clear violation of Wikipedia's rules which ask for WP:VERIFY. I couldn't verify them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The citations note dates and page numbers. Did you go to a library (or an online source) which carries back issues of those publications and verify them? If your "independent search" was an attempt to find live URLs in the article citations, or Google up the articles themselves, which may not be freely available online, yes, such a search would fail. It does not mean the cites are "bogus." Yet again: Citations need not carry live URLs, they only need to be verifiable (whether or not they have indeed been verified). WP:VERIFY does not mean sources must be verifiable online. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You should know by now, an unsourced assertion that someone is a "nutty conspiracy theorist" isn't allowed, even on a talk page. If you restore it, you'll be in violation of WP:BLP. Please don't. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for closing that discussion about the Beefeater guard. If you hadn't done this I would still be there writing something. I can now concentrate on writing new content. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Doubt, part 2
Good morning, Gwen. Well, it seems that I am back to bother you. There is an editor called Auréola makings edits in the article Brazil. Almost all of them are useless, with information that does not sum in the end on anything to the article itself. And more, he used as one his sources Darcy Ribeiro. Yes, that radical communist author I told you about it that only Opinoso insists on using as source. I created a discussion on the talk page to ask other editors opinions about it. The first one to appear was Opinoso, standing (obviously) on Auréola's side. So far, I could handle, until Auréola himself appeared and wrote:
The article "Tang Dynasty" is longer than "Brazil" but has not any note about its size... Very strange...
Maybe I need to write my words on the settings made in this section. Forgive my English, please... (I'm brazilian, to the discomfort of Lecen.) The User Lecen is concerned about his own ideologies, while I and others (who support me) are concerned with creating a good article. Nowhere in my edits I said what is good or bad on Brazilian politics or Brazilian people, so I do not create any propaganda praising Brazil. Perhaps Lecen is one of those foreign who have horrible visions about Brazil, without even knowing the country ... The user forgets that this is an article about a country and, above all, a colossal country, and deserves to be placed every angle on this same place, as well as the good Wikipedia articles about other cultures and dynasties ...
And:
Finally, I'll let words of my heart: I don't ignore that Brazil is precarious on education and politics, I don't ignore that Brazil is very poor in many areas (perhaps because it was stolen when was colony), I don't ignore that Brazilians can not enjoy a society a little fairer; but, above all, I don't ignore that Brazil has much good things to show, and this is exactly what I did in my edits ... Who has what to show on the bad side of the country, to do it for himself, but try find your material in/on the best sources and not in own ideologies!!!
As you can see, I have darkened some of words to make it easier for you. Well, I have a hunch that his guy is nothing more than Opinoso in disguise. First of all, the use of Darcy Ribeiro as source. Second, the way he writes, using "very strange" to insinuate bad faith of another editor; attacking the editor (and avoiding discussing the matter, that is, the text) accusing him falsely of having ideological motives behind; the accusation that a foreigner couldn't/shoudn't be writing in the article about Brazil. Ow, and the only one who supported him was Opinoso, there aren't any others.
Opinoso did the same with me when the subject was about the history section. Exactly the same. He used "very strange" or "very weird", Darcy Ribeiro as source, accused me of being racist and monarchist; he said that foreigners had taken countrol of the article and only Brazilians should write on it, etc...
So, is there any easy way to you check it out if the Auréola and Opinoso shares the same IP? Thank you very much and kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
However, so far I don't see any overwhelming hints of sockpuppetry. As for alikened bits of English, this can easily happen when editors who didn't grow up speaking English and maybe don't use it much elsewhere start picking up vocabulary and phrases from each other. Also, they may have swapped some emails or whatever, which is very much allowed. Anything like this bears watching but otherwise, I don't see it yet.
Please think about the following:
This looks mostly like a bog-wonted content dispute to me.
It's ok to cite communists. Truth be told, although I think they're much mistaken (or worse) about stuff like central planning and social justice, they often know how to write (since that comes with the polemic gig) and often do say insightful things, however twisted in the telling. It's also ok to cite other outlooks and give readers both takes, it's called WP:NPOV. Let the sources speak louder than, cite everything, readers tend to be much smarter than some editors seem to think.
Almost everyone here edits from some idealogical outlook. Almost everyone here has a conflict of interest. If this wasn't allowed, the site would grind to a halt. The pith is, to put writing an encyclopedia first, get along with other editors and mix the outlooks in a helpful way. Lots of editors miss the notion that dodgy outlooks speak for themselves in many ways and this is helpful to readers. An editor who tries to keep other outlooks out of an article will often harm their own PoV sooner or later, in sundry ways. Besides, there's only one truth, but we'll never know it (in this life anyway), however close we may think we've gotten and since getting anywhere near the suburbs of truth about a slice of something can be so handy, it's easy to get fooled in the thrill of it all. Our brains are put together that way, there's a helpful side to it, so be wary.
en.Wikipedia often falls to its knees in humanities and/or controversial topics, moreover in its core articles therein, owing to both to the unforeseen tyrannies and mistakes of democracy (someimes called iVoting on en.WP) and other stuff that goes on here, never mind all the systemic bias. This is not so much because of flaws with en.Wikipedia, but with the world in which it's written and moreover, the sources to be had. There are some core articles here which are utterly hopeless and could stay that way for years. We don't even know if there'll be an en.Wikipedia in 5 years. If we like writing encyclopedia articles and helping out, wonderful (!), we do what we can, but it's only a website.
I would ask that you please:
Don't bold text. It doesn't help, it almost always makes something harder to read and can easily look like shouting.
If you're saying editors are doing such and such, give diffs which show they're doing it.
When you hit the edit button, ask yourself, "Is there a likelihood what I'm about to do will have any sway in this text or on this website in a year?"
Well, I don't have an issue with communist sources. I was only pointing out the coincidence of using it along with several other similarities that both users share. As I told you before, the problem is not the content, that can, or could be discussed rationaly. What it cannot is an editor like Auréola attack and make insinuations about my motives to disagree with him. I write down that passage A is not correct because of X and Y. He replies saying that I don't like Brazilians and I have ideological reasons behind my disagreement. It's like trying to reason with someone in the street while this person scream at me and insults me. And don't worry, I am not against any kind of modification or addition to the article, but only against users like Opinoso that do not contribute healthly at all. Kind regards, - --Lecen (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hoary's take is rather alikened to my own. If there are sockpuppet worries, see WP:RFCU. For these kinds of mild personal attacks, which are being thrown both ways, see WP:WQA. If there is edit warring, post it at WP:AN3. For some handy tips on dealing with content disputes, have a thorough look at WP:Dispute resolution. If I have to wade into this myself, I'll likely block all of you, on both "sides," for sundry breaches of policy. If I keep out of it, there's at least a waning hope y'all can learn for yourselves how to handle this. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Nothing of that is occuring anymore. Although Opinoso tried to disrupt the discussion, at least six other editors stood by my side and none at his. We have already settled the matter. And no, the attacks were not both ways, because as I told you, is hard to discuss the text and someone falsely accuses you. But don't worry, at the moment, nothing serious is happening. I just wanted to let you know. Anyways, as usual, I truly apreciate your pacience and help. Thank you, Gwen. - --Lecen (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
