After reading the bit on the BLP noticeboard, I have accepted the reason it does not belong in the intro and have moved that quote down to the "complaints of media conspiracy of silence" section, where its relevance is crystal clear (in the context of a discussion of how many reporters and editors were widely aware of the rumors and knew Fitzgerald's name, but never seriously investigated them ... the innuendo in the Post's choice of phrasing was not lost on anyone at the time.
I wish you had cited the BLP noticeboard instead of getting cute in your initial edit summary. I would have understood. There was no need for animosity here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I added two sources to back up that interpretation of the phrase. Daniel Case (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the original Post article, to remove all doubts. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Erection, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I'm guessing this was a bad undo, not intentional vandalism! richi (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Erection. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Another mistaken undo? richi (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If my edits appeared to you to constitute vandalism, then that suggests you weren't looking closely enough. Good day. Nandesuka (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at the diffs from your two edits: [1] and [2]. I guess it should be obvious why they might look like vandalism. However, please note all of my comments above, including the assumption that these were just bad undo, not intentional vandalism ... richi (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oof. I thought I was removing the "Mario fucking gay" comment, not adding it. Looks like it was I who wasn't looking closely enough. My mistake. Nandesuka (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious best solution for this article is a merge. From experience, however, merges tend to be badly done after AFDs, hence my reluctance to advocate it on that page. Furthermore, there's enough to the topic to "technically" warrant a separate article with a bunch of wikilawyering. In the best interest of the encyclopaedia, I'd suggest doing a merge right now, because it would convince a lot of people and save a lot of KB of discussion. My time is limited to a few minutes right now, but I'll contribute to any merge efforts. User:Krator (t c) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nandesuka. I'm sorry I put "factual error" in the edit summary when I reverted the edit in the Maharishi article. (Assume that's why you said to KNOCK IT OFF.) I guess I've been influenced by the sources I've read and have come to think of the detailed versions of Cynthia Lennon and others as factual. And I had thought we had reached consensus on this. But after your revert I reread the discussion and saw that your suggested revision indicated that you didn't see it the same way. My mistake. Anyway, I'm hoping you will discuss this on the Talk page. It's sort of a minor thing, but I'd like to strive for accuracy and to fairly represent a range of sources. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi nandesuka. i realized that you protected the page onto a version that is missing many well-documented information. will you please be careful about what is really going on the page before protecting it. the user heapyfy is adding some information with irrelevant links (not english). the claims he is adding is rejected by the official courts as documented in the current version. he is adding it to the intro section while there is a specific section for controversies. the paragraph is already in the controversies section. thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.144.151 (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read m:The Wrong Version. Kind regards. Nandesuka (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, well, i see, but, i still cannot accept that a person is insisting on his version while all the others (Falcofire, 140.254.95.149, Lambiam, and many others in the history) agree on another. do you really think that it is reasonable to put an NPOV tag on an article just because the location of a paragraph is different? although heapyfy is suggesting edit after discussion, he does not follow what he suggests. all the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.144.151 (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you deleted this article recently and I'm wondering how you determined there was a consensus to delete it? It appeared to me there was no consensus. --Pixelface (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The administrative guidelines for determining consensus can be found here, and make for good reading. It's not uncommon for those who disagree with a decision to believe that that means there was no consensus. The consensus on this article was, to me, fairly clear, so to the extent you think that consensus didn't exist we'll simply have to disagree.
- Consensus, in the deletion context, does not mean unanimity, or even counting heads, but is affected the strength of the underlying arguments. When I close AfDs, I tend to discount discussion that focuses on the quality of the article ("I like it!" or "I don't like it!"), and give greater weight to arguments based on our content policies. I hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So which arguments based on our content policies did you think were strongest? --Pixelface (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can't explain why you ignored the editors who suggested keep and merge, I plan on taking this to DRV. --Pixelface (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I explained it fairly straightforwardly, but I get the feeling that further explanation isn't going to change your mind. Therefore, feel free to do as you please. I'll be happy to discuss this further at DRV.
- However, in the interests of transparency, I'll say that one of the "keep" votes consisted of nothing more than "I like it", Le Roi-Le Grand Roi des Citrouille's seemed like a WP:POINT vote to me -- essentially stringing together several sentences of the form "No, it doesn't!". Both your and DGG's comments were thoughtful, but were outweighed by the concerns, raised by many other editors, of a lack of secondary sources and of notability. Nandesuka (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses
Hi. I've just put Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses up for AFD, and I'd like to know whether the content of List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles was similar enough to justify speedy deletion under CDS G4. Would it be possible to get a userified copy of the deleted page for comparison? Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. User_talk:Nandesuka/Eggman_snapshot. Let me know when you're done with it so I can delete it. Nandesuka (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, done, thanks. They are substantially different. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, if material from an article on AfD gets merged into another article it's not legal under Wikipedia's usage of the GFDL to delete the original's edit history. I've redirected and restored Tucker's kobolds, Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) would have become a copyvio otherwise. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Got a reference for that claim? Either the original material was released under the GFDL -- in which case it is valid to use it in any way -- or it was not, in which case it was a copyvio to begin with. Deleting an article's history has no relationship to whether or not given material is a copyright violation. Nandesuka (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You apparently don't understand the GFDL very well, and I'd suggest you take a look through it before you do any more article deletion. Retaining authorship attribution is one of the core requirements of the license, so by removing it through the deletion of edit histories you're rendering Wikipedia in violation of the GFDL's terms. Please see my user talk page for a more detailed explanation. Bryan Derksen (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems absurd, but I have seen it claimed before. I believe their position is that the edits were released under the GFDL on condition that they would be attributed to the author; therefore we have no right to continue to use any of that material if the author's name is not available somewhere. I have no idea where this claim comes from, because when other websites publish Wikpedia's material under the GFDL, they attribute it only to Wikipedia, not to individual authors. And I do not remember signing anything that said I was editing if and only if my material is always attributed to me. But for some reason, that is the new interpretation of the GFDL. You asked for a reference, which is a good idea.
See, for example, the very end of Rachel Marsden, an article that was deleted then recreated, and which now says, "This article uses content licensed under the GFDL from deleted revisions of Wikipedia's article on Rachel Marsden. A list of previous authors of the page can be found at Talk:Rachel Marsden/GFDL History. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken this up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#A case of merge and delete and the GFDL. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We both brought it up at the same time, it seems. That's fine. I also left a note on Danny's talk page asking him if the WP:OFFICE's understanding of the GFDL matches or disagrees with yours. Nandesuka (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted in the AN thread, while Danny may well be able to tell us what the Foundation's understanding of the relevant GFDL issues was when he was in its employ, he hasn't worked for the Foundation in eleven-plus months and, as you may know, has of late been a bit at odds with the WMF, such that he's probably not the best person to ask about the Foundation's positions. You might have better luck at User talk:Mike Godwin. Joe 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The theory is that you should be able to, from the page histories, reconstruct who wrote what in any article. In practice this varies from simple (only one person wrote the article) to hideously complex (many people wrote the article and lots of stuff was merged in from other places, sometimes with numerous different page histories needing to be examined to track down the origin of a particular sentence). Those who say that this is not what the GFDL was meant for, point out the "main authors" bit, but the trouble is that with large merges (or indeed large splits), large chunks of text can get moved around, and attribution is most definitely needed. The example I like to point people at is Ptolemaic Egypt and Roman Egypt. The text in those articles was originally at History of Greek and Roman Egypt, but then someone split that into (the already existing) Aegyptus Province and Ptolemaic Egypt. Aegyptus Province then got moved to Aegyptus (Roman province), and then Ægyptus and now (hopefully for good) to History of Roman Egypt. The sequence with Ptolemaic Egypt was more straightforward, with only one move to History of Ptolemaic Egypt (as far as I can tell). But the point of all this is that, although the articles have changed much since the split, much of the edit history of the text in those articles is still at History of Greek and Roman Egypt. It would be nice to compare the version before the split with what is in the articles at the moment, but as the edit history is split across pages, this is not possible. To take just one example, I wrote the bit starting "Following Alexander's death in Babylon in 323 BC, a succession crisis erupted among his generals. Initially, Perdiccas ruled the empire as regent for Alexander's half-brother Arrhidaeus...", but to find that out you have to get past this edit (which doesn't say where the transferred material came from), and look at the history of History of Greek and Roman Egypt, namely at this edit. See also the notices I placed on the talk pages of the three articles about this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have reverted it and another editor did. The entry has been in the article for some time and I have put in talk that I feel it is extremely relevant. The problem that you and the other editor has stated that it does not make sense from a contextually point of view which is not an argument that makes sense inasmuch as it comes right after a passage criticizing the game as not appropriate for children. I will put in another section but the arguments that it does not belong are not well based.Mysteryquest (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not in violation of the 3RR rule, you should review that rule more carefully. Moreover, you might consider coming up with a valid reasons why it should not be included in the article instead of simply reverting it? You and the other editor claimed that it was not in context. I put it in context. It has a better source than much of the information in Runescape and as I have stated, I have yet to see a compelling reason why it should not be included. Should we have an administrator resolves this.Mysteryquest (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but when a scientific article points out that the OED made a mistake on CONJECTURE about what was going through a man's head, then it can make a mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia's content policies make it clear that, as regards our articles, it is not your privilege to substitute your opinion for that of reliable sources. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a comment about one of your closes at a later afd on a related subject Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retcon (Torchwood). In fairness, I'm telling you about it. Please dont interpret this as anything personal--I think the general issue remains unsettled.DGG (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense taken. Nandesuka (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that recommendation a month back for technical tips - it's been useful. Hope you are doing well. --David Shankbone 06:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Banderlog. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BOZ (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I would have asked you directly, but I figured you were on wikibreak. :) Lifebaka created a new redirect, but would you mind restoring the rest of the article's edit history? BOZ (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Eye of the Beholder (video game) article, changed Lathander to Acwellan, see talk page.
[3]
(also User_talk:Doommaster1994)
85.224.19.18 (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you recall the details of his block you issued in Feb? I am seeing this user being uncivil and harassing several others recently, and I wonder if there are similarities between his behavior now ([4],
[5],
[6], [7], [8] )and his behavior in the past.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of citations are needed, exactly? Can you give some examples? I feel that it's unfair to the people who have been victims of his bad business practices if his taking advantage of them is omitted from his Wikipedia entry. A lot of other people in the comic and Transformers fan communities feel the same way. So if you can let me know what sort of citations would validate the controversies section, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance! --MightGaine (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Our first responsibilities are to our readers, and to the subjects of our articles. Our content policies are spelled out fairly clearly in WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answering in more detail -- take a look at the Derek Smart article. Here's a biography about a controversial figure in the video game industry that still manages to sketch the outlines of the dispute, and to do so while citing reliable sources. "Reliable source" doesn't mean "The Washington Post". There is a spectrum. Nandesuka (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability and there is not at this time the plurality of views that I'd like to see represented in the discussion. If you're at all inclined to look over the guideline and the discussion and tell me your general opinion both, I'd appreciate it.
brenneman 01:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nandesuka for help providing sources for Rogue's evolution. I do not understand D.Brodales resistance to illustrating this but appreciate your support. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please talk to me on the discussion page about your reverts on the Vulva article or stop reverting my edts.--Quakeshake (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I've replied there. Incidentally, thanks for working so hard to bring this to my attention. Thanks to you, I've investigated further and determined that that image is, in fact, a copyright violation. It should be removed from Commons (and, of course, Wikipedia), in fairly short order. Nandesuka (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And why, may I ask, does having an image of Rin on this article violate our image policy?--十八 19:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair use may only be claimed for an image when it is being used to depict the very topic of the image and is necessary to illustrate the topic. So a (copyrighted) image of Rin Tosaka might be fair use in the "Rin Tosaka" article but not in an article about, say, Japanese anime characters. See Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline and Wikipedia:NFCC for a more detailed discussion. Specifically, the image of Rin fails the 'No free equivalent' test as regards the Tsundere article. Nandesuka (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Just to let you know I've deleted User:Nandesuka/Young Zaphod Sockpuppetry which was in your userspace. You can pmail me for details, but just to say there was a complaint regarding personal information, so I've deleted it as a courtesy. The sock-puppeteer hasn't been active in an awfully long time. Sorry for messing around in your userspace but it kinda had to be done - Alison ❤ 07:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert someone's question/comment on the Spore talk page? I know it was an anonymous user and the snarky comment at the end certainly wasn't called for, but even though I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia and it was my understanding that talk pages aren't supposed to be reverted unless there are real personal attacks, or a few other guidelines I don't see the post falling under. Are the guidelines for reverting a question on a talk page looser than I thought? I'm fairly certain it was because of the "do your homework" bit, but in my opinion that's not really enough to warrant a revert on a talk page. I could be wrong though, and if there's some precident I'd truly appreciate it if you'd point me towards it. Thanks! Chuy1530 (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That user has been banned from Wikipedia for several years. That's the only reason. Nandesuka (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok, that makes sense then. I was just curious. Thanks! Chuy1530 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i am not involved in an edit war. if you consider the one you started, i am not side of your war. a simple not for you:
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Philscirel (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was very inappropriate, removing material from an AfD page. Please do not do it again. Haiduc (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't removed; it was refactored, and it is standard operating procedure when a deletion discussion goes off the rails. If you wish to share your personal opinions about other editors, rather than discuss the issue at hand, do it on a discussion page. Nandesuka (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to strip the article of unsourced, poorly sourced and patently speculative entries. I was, predictably, blindly reverted twice. So the article's now a redlink. FCYTravis (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I was casting my vote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 20 and was very confused at first when I could not before I found out that it was because you were casting your vote at the same time. I was not planning on making this my primary interest here in wikipedia but I think I stumbled on something here. I happened upon this page when I was shocked to find on the Lord Byron article page that he was promoted as being famous for pederasty among other things. I did a search of Byron and pederasty which was how I came upon the interesting article that has caused a lot of discussion. I find there is some genuinely useful and interesting information that should be kept, like if there is a CLEAR relationship between two famous people, but I have a feeling that this is rare on that article and not enough to have the article kept. The legitimate information should be kept on the famous people's article pages.
The main reason I'm writing to you is because I'm starting to agree with your statement that the editors are subtly trying to promote a specific viewpoint. My guess is they use references even if outdated or unreliably non-mainstream/biased, or ones that have a fringe theory that is also not mainstream. One of the problems with this is who is going to check all those references? I bet most people just accept references on face value. I mentioned a clear example of this type of reference on the "Pederasty in classical antiquity" article page where it says Aristotle had a pederastic lover and it includes a VERY free interpretation of a poem. This is strongly contradicted by his writings where he calls this "a morbid state resulting from custom", such as "plucking out the hair or... gnawing the nails"
I looked on the discussion section of the Historical pederastic couples page and found another example. There was a debate on Shakespeare and at the end of it, someone mentioned the reference doesn't even mention pederasty. I looked through the history and soon found the reference which I checked out and confirmed myself. This is about as free use of a reference as you can get with an overdose of interpretive freedom. Here it is if you're interested, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/mysteries/shakespeare.htm. It feels like these editors are trying to attach this term to as many famous people as possible to make it look normal, common, or mainstream. These claims are valid where they are true but truth doesn't look like the main motive here. I'm sure if I wanted to keep digging I can find some more sly or subtle examples.
Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks
Thanks for your dedication to the project goals. --dab (𒁳) 16:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Interested in your thoughts on this. Peter Damian (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Perhaps you should do some of your own research. Just because 2 or 3 editors (including one possible sock puppet) have a bias against any discussion of homosexuality, does not mean that it is well founded. The Journal is an academic publication and is peer reviewed, and as such is completely reliable. On the talk page is there ANY justifiable cause to doubt it as a reliable source? No. Just biased editors who don't like it. You should also look into the archive at the supposed "consensus" - there is none. Those saying so are misleading. But don't take my word for it - follow the edits from October 2007 on and you will see for yourself. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I did my homework, followed the edits and was amazed at the quick "consensus" that was touted, even though a similar number of editors complained that all the detail was being censored out of the article due to the bias of a few editors who act like they "own" the page.Smatprt (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So why not bring the issue up on the talk page, and call for an RFC to get other editors' to look at the issue? Nandesuka (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your title "Details of Haiduc's mischaracterization of DeFord" gave me a scare! Noroton (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point! Sorry about that. Nandesuka (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to Talk:Jean Cocteau, please "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your intervention at Talk:Circumcision. Much appreciated. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that writing "Do not delete referenced sentences before discussing it on the talk page" is garbage? (Your word, which means rubbish/trash, as if you didn't know). Please try to be nice.--andreasegde (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh.. now I get it. Jeremy, perhaps?--andreasegde (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't want to be criticized for strewing garbage around articles, don't litter articles with that sort of silliness. You've been here long enough that you should know that that sort of tendentious editing isn't tolerated. That you would edit war to keep such a ridiculously useless and repetitive series of noticed in an article is extremely disappointing. Nandesuka (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know that Mills is featured almost daily in the press, and is prone to statements of heavy bias by some of them. The article is very long (98,474 bytes) and has 182 references, which makes it a prime target for vandals. To put hidden sentences in is "Heading them off at the pass". Considering the article is waiting for a GA review I thought this action would be prudent, but obviously not. One can only wonder. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thrilled that you think that GA review is important, but it's not a valid excuse for littering comment spam around an article and interfering with other editors' good-faith efforts to edit an article. When there is a conflict between the GA review meta-game, and appropriate editing of an article, the GA review can, will, and should lose every time. Your little notices were (a) condescending, (b) absolutely inappropriate, and (c) littered around the article on every section. Please don't engage in such nonsense again on this or any other article. If you want to ask other editors to hold off on editing for a while, do it on the talk page. If you ask nicely, perhaps they will even agree. Nandesuka (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, although GA isn't awfully important, people who remove sentences inappropriately are a problem, but "inappropriate" depends upon more consideration than "cited." One can cite to Page 3. One can cite to the NY Post's Page 6. One can cite to one's favorite guru, astrologist, or hermit, but the quality of an edit is determined by NPOV, by informational content, by conciseness, by usefulness to a general reader, and by verifiability. Verifiability is not "cited." Verifiability is a matter that can be confirmed. When public scandalata magnata are involved, "verifying" means, indeed, not citation but consensus citation. "Cited" is the least of the least important factors in determining whether an edit is good or bad, because citation is only invoked when a statement is likely to be challenged.
- On the other hand, embedding code for no purpose but to warn away others is, at once, a violation of the general principle of avoiding bloat and an actual instance of violating WP:OWN. There is no need for such comments, because the people who are vandals and infantile won't care about the warnings, and the rest of the community will be offended by them. What such things will actually do is dissuade editing, and we really ought not be doing that especially when we're pushing for an article to get promoted.
- As for insinuations that Nandesuka is some other user, you're off the beam. I'm not sure why Nandesuka looks at these high profile articles, but he's a pretty trustworthy admin and has been through more tempering and testing than nearly any of our others, and all without losing his cool. Allegations of bad manners are always to be taken seriously, the way that belching at table is, but they're not quite damning. Geogre (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletion of that category was part and parcel of what I perceive to be a campaign to oppose my documentation of pederastic history in Wikipedia. The events at the Byron page support that interpretation, such as your absurd contention that I should agree to the removal of properly sourced material from the article because a sock drops by and flings an unsupported accusation. You are the one who has it backwards this time. A competent and impartial administrator would have flagged that abusive deletion right away, and demanded proof of the claim.
As for civility, pointing out your apparent bias is not uncivil, but characterizing my motives as "misguided fantasies" is uncivil. You are not here to put down editors, or to talk down to editors. You are here to ensure impartiality, and in order to do that you have to be impartial yourself, regardless of your personal feelings vis-a-vis a particular topic. By that standard, you fall short. Way short.
As for your contention that my sourcing is systematically off the mark, take a group of my citations in sequence (I suggested before the last 100, but why not the last 20, to make it simpler) and let's look at them one by one. I think that exercise will prove you wrong. Not that I might not make an occasional mistake. I got the last one wrong by one page, but the facts were beyond dispute.
As for my wife, it is the other way around: she beats me. Haiduc (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replying on your talk page.
- We can certainly agree that citations should be impeccable. Whether they are or not is something that is always open to discussion and analysis. Unfortunately, your approach to date is to make overblown claims supported by questionable evidence and dubious generalizations, then to build your arguments on those unproven claims. We call that "begging the question."
- Then there is your repeated assertion that an editor is expected to read every source from cover to cover. You have repeated that theory so many times that you may very well believe it. Forgive me, but that is nonsense. In academic research we base ourselves on the relevant sections and passages. Yet you have presumed to attack my writing, basing yourself on that flimsy and absurd proposition.
- DeFord?! You came to one conclusion (with which I disagree) after reading him, I came to another. By what rights do you presume to impose your interpretation as true?
- Butcher? "I" mischaracterized Butcher?! You mischaracterized Butcher, as well as my edits. You claimed that
The bigger problem with Haiduc using Butcher to support statements to the effect of "Verne had homosexual leanings", or "Verne was a pederast" is that Butcher provides no support for such statements.
But that is exactly what Butcher says, as I pointed out to you here.
- Which brings me to another one of your tactics. As soon as someone points out a flaw in your reasoning or an inconsistency in your behavior indicating your own bias you do not even have the courtesy to acknowledge your error, and you just go on as if nothing ever was said (or as my wife would say, "as if butter did not melt in your mouth"). It was like that when I caught you in your Butcher misrepresentation, and in other instances. I would even say that one of your polemical tools is the big lie technique. Repeat some nonsense enough times and people will come to believe it, yourself included.
- Another tactic of yours is the ad-hominem attack, which you engage in with disturbing frequency, focusing not on the topic but on your latest bete noire, Haiduc. Other editors have drawn your attention to that, I believe.
- Another favorite tactic of your is the straw man technique. You are really good at that, but glib nonsense is still nonsense. Take for example your effort to paint me as some unbalanced, foaming at the mouth conspiracy theorist.
- I have no interest in "shooting the messenger," please do not interpret my criticism of your behavior in this defensive manner. I am not attacking you, I am giving you feedback that you would be well advised to take to heart. Nor have I ever suggested to you that your role as administrator precludes you from editing articles. It does, however, demand of you a level of impartiality and a courtesy of address that seem to elude you. So please spare me the avuncular admonitions about collegiality and if you presume to teach, teach by example. Then you will get some respect from me. Until then I will continue to regard you as an opinionated administrator who talks the talk but does not walk the walk. Haiduc (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding DeFord, I can see that I was not clear. You have said a couple of times that what we have is just a "difference of interpretation". I am claiming something different. I am saying that no reasonable reader could possibly have read DeFord's work and used it to make the arguments you made about Tilden having had "long term and loving relationships'. You either did not read DeFord at all, or did not understand what you read. We had a difference of interpretation, yes, but not a reasonable one.
- Your reading of Butcher is similarly egregious. No reasonable reader could read what Butcher wrote in his work and then use it to support the statements you wanted to use him to support. But then, the rest of your reply illustrates why you were able to do this: you didn't read what Butcher wrote. Are you expected to read every source "cover to cover?" No, of course not. But you are expected to read the relevant parts, and to not intentionally ignore those parts of a source which contradict your pet theories. In Butcher's case, where you took an offhand sentence in an introduction and held it up as rebutting an entire later chapter, your behavior was particularly sad.
- As to your criticism of my behavior: thanks very much. I'll take it to heart. I look forward to this as the dawning of a brand new day where we get along famously -- and where you stop misrepresenting sources. Nandesuka (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can show me where I claimed that Tilden and Bobby had a "long term and loving relationship" I will eat my hat. If you cannot, I expect an apology, and the replacement of the pair in the article.
- Your "rebuttal" of my Butcher quotation is invalid, because Butcher's later statement that Verne's sexuality was complex and that we cannot know the details of his relationships does not nullify his earlier discussion of the homosexual elements in Verne's writing. Both are true, and not mutually exclusive - that is where you make your mistake.
- So rather than point to an imagined pattern of source representation on my part, I would encourage you to examine a pattern of rigid forgone-conclusion type thinking on yours, where you form an arbitrary opinion about a subject and then attack users you disagree with by means of condescension, exaggeration, and other sundry polemical devices. Mellow out a bit, realize that we all are trying hard to be objective here, in the midst of what admittedly is a very delicate topic, and we will get along famously. Haiduc (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Tilden, the talk page speaks for itself: you tried to convince other editors that Tilden "had long term and loving relationships" in the context of discussing the DeFord work, which devotes an entire chapter to asserting the exact opposite. There is no reasonable reading of DeFord that could bring one to that conclusion. None.
- Similarly Butcher: while Butcher's words might not rebut the statement "Verne was gay," they do in fact precisely rebut the statement "Butcher says that Verne was gay," which is the implicit claim being made by quoting Butcher in the way you did. I hope this makes my position clear. Nandesuka (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<undent> It is simple, Nandesuka. Give me a diff showing me using "had long term and loving relationships" to describe Tilden & Bobby. I also categorically reject the words about Butcher and Verne that you are trying to put in my mouth. More straw man argumentation. You do not know how to say "I am sorry, I was wrong," do you? Haiduc (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In our discussion of DeFord you said: "Tilden had a number of long term loving relationships with boys and there is no reason to suspect that, had these two not been busted, this might not have evolved in a similar direction." Tilden did not have "long term and loving relationships with boys", or, in fact, with anyone, and DeFord devotes an entire chapter giving reasons to suspect that this relationship absolutely would not have evolved in a similar direction. The only reason you didn't know this -- I presume -- is that you didn't read the book. There is absolutely no reading of DeFord that could lead anyone, anywhere on the entire planet, to write such a ridiculous statement. That you persist in pretending that your reading is plausible is, to be blunt, laughable. Nandesuka (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- QED. I did not say it. And I am not going to discuss here Tilden's long-term relationships with his protegees, on which I based my comment, relationships which were apparently not pederastic, or if they were we have no information about it (or I would long ago have listed them in the article).
- As we see all too frequently, you are yourself guilty of the very behaviour you are so insistently and repetitiously attempting to blame me for. So all I have to say to you are two things. First, worry about your own mistakes before you presume to accuse me of that selfsame behavior. Second, stow your antagonistic and belligerent tone. It is inappropriate and abusive. Haiduc (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll stop criticizing the way you cite sources when you stop getting them wrong. Have a nice day. Nandesuka (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have no basis for this edit summary], as the Request Move closed with "no consensus." By definition, that means the issue is not "resolved to the satisfaction of most editors." Please stop attempting to bypass consensus with your preferred state. Thank you. Blackworm whose user name really is Blackworm (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop metastasizing your strongly-held point-of-view into other articles via edit-warring. Nandesuka (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence of pov pushing here, and I ask you to retract the incivil accusation and examine the facts, specifically that there is no consensus for the removal of the POV-title tag, as this discussion plainly shows. Blackworm whose user name really is Blackworm (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your input. Nandesuka (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your non-response is not appreciated and may be taken as further incivil behaviour. Please address the issue raised. Is there, or is there not, in your opinion, a consensus for the removal of the POV-title tag, based on the "no consensus" result of the move in question, and/or the ensuing discussion, and/or any other discussion to which you are able to point? Blackworm (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to discuss the continuing consensus that the POV tag not be abused on the article's talk page. Kind regards. Nandesuka (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that there isn't any evidence of abuse. Nice dodge, too. Blackworm (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
