User talk:Charles vanier

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Charles vanier for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Quaeler (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Zeitgeist. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Quaeler (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Zeitgeist, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You're not even treating the article like an article by signing your philosophic waxings. You will be blocked if you re-add this. Quaeler (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a reliable source? I hold a PhD in philosophy so please explain how a PhD does constitute a reliable source?--Charles vanier (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting - nowhere is there any mention of 'reliable source'. I'm not sure what that baggage is about; what i am sure about is that your edits do not reflect encyclopedic content (but rather pontifications), and due to that fail netural point of view metrics. Furthermore, twice now, you've signed your additions to an article as though you were leaving your posts on a forum - an editing behaviour unacceptable even for valid additions of content. Quaeler (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You directed me to personal analysis. This article speaks to the issue of "reliable source" which is why I mentioned it. Second, I acknowledge it was a mistake of mine to sign the article entry. Third, on what grounds/logic do you consider my entry "pontifications"? Fourth, please refer to me the Wiki policy on "netural point of view metrics" and how you decided that my article entry meets this criterion. Fifth, there is a lot of confusion over the word "zeitgeist" because of the Zeitgeist Movie." Why the Producer/Director called it zeitgeist is beyond me. The movie has nothing to do with the word Zeitgeist. The point is, much clarification needs to be done, hence why I wrote an article "What is the Zeitgeist?" and why I wanted to add a section called "Examples" so people can have a better understanding of the word "zeitgeist."--Charles vanier (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV isn't the best classification but, at a level-4 warning, this is the option I have (had i my druthers, i would have issued the warning solely as "no original research"), but i will couch this argument in the NPOV world instead: what you've written is basically a treatise; it contains your deductions, observations, and viewpoints concerning the concept of Zeitgeist. While i'm not saying that these ideas are invalid, i am saying that they are not encyclopedic (for instance, one would not imagine seeing this type of writing in the Encyclopedia Britannica, but rather a published philosophical review). I invite you to read another article which is largely philosophical (like Truth), and compare and contrast the content style with your suggested addition.

If there's still a murky point, then i'm really sorry you cannot see that this is written as a personal manifesto; i'm honestly not sure how one can better communicate the ability to discern such a thing (and as such i would default to the supreme court methodology on pornography.) If you're dissatisfied with my (somewhat hand-waving and) brief explanation, then i greatly suggest that you post your entire essay on the discussion page as a candidate for addition to the article and solicit feedback concerning it.

(ps. please remember to tighten up your discussion page editing if/when bringing this to the discussion page for Zeitgeist. Behavior like not-caring to indent your comments in a single thread-idea can appear to some editors as sloppy-editing, making it more likely that they'll give less credence to what you have to say).

Quaeler (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your "ps". I must confess, I am confused how you deduced that my addition is both a "treatise" and "personal manifesto." I am not sure how it could be both. If I may, please allow me to ask a question. If people come to Wikipedia looking for accurate clarification on a particular word or concept, then please explain how my addition does not offer insight. My addition offers historical examples so that people can grasp the meaning of the word Zeitgeist, because they are certainly not going to "get it" by only reading the so-called definition that is listed.

Why is my addition is necessary? Unfortunately, when people here the word Zeitgeist they falsely associate it with conspiracy. Second, the current article on Zeitgeist is scant. Also, have you read the so-called definition of Zeitgeist in the Wiki article? Do you really believe that this is sufficient?

Now, if there are elements that you describe as a "personal manifesto" then it seems only reasonable to offer some examples, otherwise, all the 'reasons' you cite is reduced to a non sequitur. You acknowledge yourself that NPOV is not the best classification. It is not matter of being "dissatisfied" with your remarks, but rather what appears to be missing is cogent argumentation. Since you deleted the article then the burden would be on you to back up what you say. I have carefully read what you wrote above and it is not that I am not convinced, but rather the "reasons" you site are subjective. It seems the article for Zeitgeist is surrounded by gatekeepers ... LOL and I am wondering now if there other unspoken reasons why you don't want my addition added.--Charles vanier (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, bring this up on the discussion page for the article; truthfully i don't have the energy to walk through your world now. Were i to have never existed, the correct thing for all editors to do when adding a large section (such as you attempted) is to bring it up for discussion prior; as such, the best thing for everyone involved is for you to post your addition for review in the article's talk page, with your questions and ponderings, and solicit feedback from other, energized, editors as to whether it should be added to the article. Quaeler (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]