Jump to content

User talk:Cyclopia/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dob

[edit]

There is nothing at all wrong in accepting the comment from a living person that is over a disputed single day, in fact we should support that living persons good faith comment instead of resisting it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't let people write their autobiographies here, and we don't throw WP:V and WP:RS in the rubbish because a subject says something. That said it would be ok to accept also the comment, but it is not OK to remove other sources and discussions. --Cyclopiatalk 20:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do listen to living people BLP is all about that. Jimmy has clearly stated he prefers the pointy issue is removed and I usually support living people in such issues. Its pointy to insist on adding the issue about a single day when the living person has made it clear it is the seventh. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is all about making sure that living people are covered objectively and without libelous statements. I am firmly opposed to having people modulate their bios to their preference, and the same think our guidelines. Jimbo is no exception to this rule. Now, please move this discussion to the appropriate article talk page. Thanks. --Cyclopiatalk 20:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom elections?

[edit]

I didn't realize that Arbcom elections had come up [1] - I was curious if you have any ideas regarding who are the best candidates for inclusionism and transparency? Wnt (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'd like to have the same advice as well! I voted there, but I don't have hard facts -here go my suggestions I would for sure exclude SirFozzie, Iridescent, Off2riorob and Balloonman: with different nuances, they are the usual kind of deletionist/BLP diehard people. GiacomoReturned is a controversial editor and I personally don't like him -but I had little interaction. I suspect the best in such regard is Jclemens, who is also an ARS member and wrote neat essays like Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!". I would strongly support him. I've always had pleasant interactions with Xeno, even when disagreeing. Others, I really don't know -I've interacted with Newyorkbrad, Casliber etc. but I don't remember enough to give an impression. If you have feedback from other people, let me know :) --Cyclopiatalk 18:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

[edit]

Please remove your accusation of sock-puppetry

[edit]

The only reason a few of my comments appear with an IP address is that I occasionally forget to login. I have always made it clear that what my IP and Username are. DMSBel (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there may be mis-reading/confusion between the similar account-names "DMSBel" and "Bdell555"? Repeatedly not logging in makes it pretty easy for me as a reader to question whether there may actually be other identities rather than a specific and unique attribution for comments. DMacks (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fairly clear Bdell555 and myself (DMSBel 62.254.133.139) are two separate users. If that was the confusion Cyclopia needs to say so here and then edit his comment on the discussion page of Ejaculation. However that he has refered there to IP socks, I suspect he is refering to my IP number which appeared when I had forgotten to log in. I have in the past linked my IP address with my username in comments so that there would be no grounds for accusation of sock-puppetry - who using a sock-puppet account would do that? Whether or not he agrees with me regarding deletion of the images, is one thing. Accusations of sock-puppetry are quite another (see WP:AGF). DMSBel (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped assuming good faith long ago with you. However it's true that I have no proof currently that you have IP sockpuppets, therefore I gladly apologize for the insinuation. --Cyclopiatalk 00:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine thanks for the apology. I am withdrawing from editing as having considered the current state wikipedia is in after reading some external links, I think I do not wish to invest any more time or effort in the experiment. I have had doubts about the wikipedia experiment that are fundamental and related to its nature as a user-edited encyclopedia and how it works. I have no illusions about what it limits and weaknesses are. A fundamental problem is people taking either exclusively inclusionist or deletionist positions, and allowing that to guide their judgements, and the failure to understand what is censorship and what is not. I also find editing it stressful and frustrating, I cannot endure this kind of online culture. I am strongly of the view that encyclopedic sexual content should not be photographic, but rather sketched, or drawn and clinical in tone. Too many editors within wikipedia are now out of touch and conditioned by wikipedia content. I suspect prolonged participation in wikipedia's "culture" is detrimental to intelligence, judgement and mental health. DMSBel (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested arbitration on the photos on the ejaculation page

[edit]

Sorry, but I think it is better to resolve this through arbitration.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Ejaculation Photos 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,DMSBel (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your opinions with me, Viriditas, but if you want to create a policy to censor leaked documents, draft it and seek consensus for it. No need to continue arguing over the same points.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We do censor information and we show self-restraint every day

[edit]
we do not censor sourced information (even primary sourced information) just because it's "sensitive"

On the contrary, we remove sensitive information all the time when it comes to BLP's, such as WP:WELLKNOWN, WP:DOB, WP:BLPNAME, and WP:NPF. As for using primary sources to write articles about non-BLP's, that generally falls under WP:NOR. The question then becomes, is WikiLeaks a reliable source for stolen primary source documents? Regardless of what you think the answer is, it does not fall under the standard model of a RS. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mention the use of stolen documents, I will mention that this has been profusely discussed on the talk page of Climatic Research Unit email controversy also and surely on many other Wikipedia forums in connection with that controversy. __meco (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't say? Tell me, my good friend and talk page stalker, why isn't there a single link to a leaked document in that article? Why doesn't that article rely on stolen, leaked, e-mails, charts, graphs, or documents? Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:Viriditas#Please abstain from personal attacks ([2]). __meco (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack. You might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Talk page stalker. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
Viriditas, do you read what you link? WP:WELLKNOWN says exactly the opposite, that we do not censor negative information if it is well sourced. For the rest ,yes, these are among the few and only cases where we exercise restraint, and we had to write a narrow policy to make that clear, because it is a big exeception with respect to the standard. And such exceptions regard what is usually information of very minor importance, like personal names of minor characters, not whole documented facts or events. But in any case, sensitive sites are not BLPs , so what you link is nice but has no bearing on the discussion. You refer to the Anarchist cookbook: well, yes, we host description on how atomic weapons are made, we host the chemical synthesis of drugs and we even have a List of suicide methods. Because if documents say something, it is not only ridicolous to put fingers in our ears and sing "lalala" while meantime that "something" is planetary knowledge disseminated everywhere: it is also a profound disservice and dishonesty to our readers. And no, using a primary source is not OR per se, WP:PRIMARY makes it very clear, if you just report objectively what it's in the primary source itself. Novel plots are an example of that. Finally: why are you telling me that here? This should be discussed in the AN/I thread, not privately. --Cyclopiatalk 12:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might miss the connection. WELLKNOWN is only one of many examples of the policies in action that contradicts your opinion. It says that we rely on a multitude of reliable published sources, IOW, not primary sources. Those sources must also report on a topic that is notable, relevant, and well-documented, i.e. not a primary source. These are not exceptions for BLP's, in fact, this is how we use primary sources, very carefully, if at all, and usually only when it is not controversial or sensitive. I am telling you this here, because when we communicate with a user, we use their talk page. In any case, please answer the question posed above: Why don't we link to and discuss the stolen, leaked e-mails and documents on the Climatic Research Unit email controversy page? The answer is simple. We don't write articles based on primary sources. You are, in fact, encouraging people to misuse primary sources, which is a Bad Thing. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I asked for this to be on AN/I because it related to the whole thread. Anyway, again: this is specific, narrow, exceptional BLP policy. It is an exception, otherwise it wouldn't be called "BLP policy" but "subject-wide policy". For example, about sensitive primary sources: we actually publish the original images -a primary source themselves- of the Rorschach test. This despite there have been concerns, even by public health officers, that such publication is dangerous because it makes one of the most important psychological tests potentially useless. Guess what? Several multiple RfCs on the subject firmly rejected censorship of such images. Now, if you want a restrictive policy to apply to leaked documents, start a RfC and seek consensus, it would be much more productive than chatting with me. You're not going to convince me on that, and citing me BLP policy is nonsensical when dealing with non-BLPs. You're encouraging censorship, and this is a worse thing. (About the emails, I don't know because I wouldn't touch climate change articles with a kilometer-long stick, given the editing hell within them: but I suspect in that case there are BLP concerns -them being private documents of living people, for example- that here do not arise). --Cyclopiatalk 12:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are mistaken. I have 90,000 edits and I've never once encouraged censorship on any topic. You are free to find one. What I am encouraging is the use of secondary sources, good ones, for all of our articles, and that encouragement stems from our best practices inherent in all aspects of the policies, from BLP to NOR, and more. You seem to think that the limitation on using primary sources is an exception, but it is not. As for your claims about private documents of living people, how is that not the case in the cablegate documents? Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How disingenous. Your very original post here and your comparisons to the "Anarchist cookbook" in various threads are encouraging censorship. Sensitive sites are not living persons and therefore are not subject to BLP policy. That said, I find this discussion unproductive. Discuss it community-wise at a RfC and seek consensus. Chatting with me, again, won't help you: I find your arguments utterly unconvincing and I am not going to change my mind if this is the best of arguments you can do. I'd close this discussion now. Thanks. --Cyclopiatalk 12:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is already consensus on the topic. The fact is, you and others aren't following it. We don't base articles on primary sources. The Anarchist Cookbook analogy is apt when we have editors picking and choosing which classified documents to write articles about after WikiLeaks decides which classified documents to release. That isn't how the reliable source process works, and if WikiLeaks releases a document on sensitive sites that Wikipedia editors decide they should publish when secondary sources do not, then the entire sourcing process has been subverted, which is exactly what has happened. Wikipedia editors do not get to choose what is important to publish. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is talking of basing article on primary sources. And yes, we are absolutely entitled to release content that secondary sources prefer not to publish, if it's in available reliable primary sources. See The Mousetrap, where we include the play ending from primary sources (the book) even if there are little to none secondary sources publishing it. Wikipedia editors do get to choose what is important to publish, provided it's within our own guidelines and policies: we don't have any superior to answer to. Now, I close this discussion, since it's clear that nobody of us will change their mind. --Cyclopiatalk 16:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content Viriditas is referring to used to be in WP:WELLKNOWN, but has now moved to WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Hope that clears up the miscommunication. --JN466 14:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bukakke article

[edit]

There is a dispute that may go to RfC in the Bukkake article. A respected editor has rewritten the intro paragraph on his premise that Bukkake is only a film genre, and does not actually exist outside of pornographic films. In my opinion, the article should focus on describing the *act* called Bukkake, and refer to the use of that act within Pornography at some later point in the article (which is done.)

I have no idea what your opinion is on the issue, but adding another opinion from someone knowledgeable about sexology and sexuality might help.

Atom (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, but I'm really not qualified to participate. --Cyclopiatalk 14:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

[edit]

Jesse Prince

[edit]

I'm probably missing something here. You deprodded here with a link to a google news search. The link yields zero result for me. I'm guessing either you've made a mistake or I've screwed up somehow. Any ideas? (Oh, and Merry Christmas)--Scott Mac 15:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking) I get about 20 news results; perhaps you made a mistake copying the URL? User:Jayen466 18:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.122.148 (talk) [reply]
Hi Scott, Merry past-Christmas to you too. I suspect you or I miscopied the link; what I did was putting
gnews "jesse prince" scientology
in yubnub and then clicking on the archives. --Cyclopiatalk 18:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, probably it was me. Thanks for the help getting it right. I'll take a look, and send it to AFD if I'm not satisfied. Again, thanks.--Scott Mac 20:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

[edit]
[edit]

Have you actually accessed those articles? Have you verified they actually are correct? Also as a note - you have three reverts on that worthless stub. Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have been accessed by User:NuclearWarfare (the article nominator at AfD) and since I follow WP:AGF I have no reason to think they are wrong. If you are not sure you can ask him. --Cyclopiatalk 15:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on you if you are adding them to the entry not on what you assume another editor has done. Also, please refrain from re-adding the Mental Illness as it was being misused. When I deleted it I started a discussion at the talk page which you I note you have not engaged. See Talk:Involuntary_committal_of_Victor_Győry#Problem_source. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed the discussion and I am going to address it. About the sources, well, I don't see why we shouldn't assume good faith for the AfD nominator, but I'm going to ask him if he can provide us a copy of the sources. --Cyclopiatalk 15:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice on List of people affected by bipolar disorder

[edit]

Thanks for your attention to List of people affected by bipolar disorder: you're quite right, the notice doesn't belong there -- it's a holdover from the old days, when we had fewer user interface options. I've replaced it by an WP:EDITNOTICE that calls the user's attention to the notice right at the top of the page when they try to edit the article, but is not displayed in the body of the article at any time.

If you see any similar articles, instead of simply deleting the file header and leaving it, you might want to call an admin's attention to the article, so they can do a similar job. -- The Anome (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks! Didn't know about that. --Cyclopiatalk 00:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed an alert

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Cyclopia

You may wish to reply. DMSBel (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, as a courtesy and because you have said you were not doing one of the things I filed the alert over, I have taken that from the heading here. I still have issues with your comments on the ED Asst. page, especially with the personal remarks and over-stating the strength of the consensus. But I think it is fair to just I have filed an alert in the heading until it is resolved.DMSBel (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it

[edit]

We can disagree about Wikiphilosophy, but this is going too far. Adding that shit to a biography of a victim in order to pursue a inhouse game is unacceptable. Stop, think, and exercise some human judgement. You are bordering on trolling now.--Scott Mac 16:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, I'm not "proving a point": an editor added sourced information to balance the NPOV of the article and you removed it without any policy- or guideline- based reasoning. BLP is also not a concern: the guy is dead. I won't add it again myself because it would be edit warring, but you can't come here and say "stop it" or accusing me of trolling over a content dispute. I accept to be criticized but I don't accept to be threatened by you only on the basis of your disagreement. --Cyclopiatalk 16:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are a disgrace. The editor who added it has already indicated he agreed it was unacceptable content. To suggest that we include such information on a suicide victim because he's not a living person is too contemptible to reply to. The guideline is human decency, and you shouldn't need that set into a rule book for you to get it. You are heading for being banned from all BLPs if you can't work out a more responsible attitude. Even a a legalistic reading of policy and guidelines don't justify dicking with sensitive content. If you can't edit such things with a modicum of responsibility you should not be editing at all. You are crossing a line.--Scott Mac 17:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFC/U is that-a-way. Otherwise, sorry, but I don't care at all of your attempts of imposing your personal ethical attitude to me. If you want to indulge in constructive dialogue, fine, but in such a case please develope a more respectful attitude for editor who don't share your own personal world view. That you don't personally like when sources say something not completely flattering about a fellow is not grounds to call adding such a material a "disgrace". --Cyclopiatalk 17:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Respect is earned. You've lost it. You can't go about publishing offensive disrespectful stuff on real people and then demand that people role-play respect in house. Sorry. I will be filling up the RFCU later. But you might like to review the badlydrawnjeff arbitration to see where this type of editing can end.--Scott Mac 17:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

[edit]

Oreste Scalzone

[edit]

Nice work on the Oreste Scalzone BLP. Although it could benefit from a couple of English citations, the article is beneficial indeed, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an Italian I feel suited to work on these subjects by helping with sources in my native language (I noticed the related Franco Piperno is still unreferenced and negative; plan to work on that soon) I agree however with your comment. I'll look for a couple English refs at least for the most potentially controversial facts. --Cyclopiatalk 18:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracey Walker

[edit]

Whatever else you are, you are a good researcher. So, see if you can prove me wrong on this one. It's a bit of a puzzle.--Scott Mac 21:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tried now and it seems you're right. I'll try harder later but chances are very slim -no online sources for "Internet supermodel" = hoax in my book. I just !voted delete. --Cyclopiatalk 12:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

[edit]

Your remark about logging in

[edit]

Your comment on the ejaculation talk page is out of line again. If it is not removed I will seek a block on your account.DMSBel (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:DUCK. It quacks. --Cyclopiatalk 19:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I wasn't saying you were maliciously socking, I just thought you forgot to log in.You do this often, so I just thought it happened again. --Cyclopiatalk 19:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you bringing up WP:DUCK for then? You are back-pedaling now. You intended to give the impression or were under the impression that those IPs were me, simply because they argued the pictures should be removed. It is not just me you are bothering here. If the comment is not removed I will be seeking your block. Last chance.DMSBel (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not backpedaling. I am still under the impressions that these IPs were you, per WP:DUCK. It's not only what they say, but how they say it, the arguments they bring in, the wording etc. were suspiciously similar to yours. But I am not under the impression that you're maliciously socking, so it's not a sockpuppetry accusation, more a "hey, don't forget to log in". Seek whatever you like, I suspect it will be a replica of your last WP:WQA boomerang. Bye. --Cyclopiatalk 19:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for editor assistance on this here [[3]]DMSBel (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have informed you that those IPs are not mine. Can you explain why you are not removing your comment suggesting they are? If you were just giving me a reminder about logging in, there seems no reason to keep the comment there now that I have told you these IPs are another user. Run a check on the IP if you want. But don't keep wasting my time. DMSBel (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, with regard to the above, I am accepting that you were genuinely mistaken on this occasion and you were not attempting to insinuate sockpuppetry. I have edited the section header here to reflect that. For your reference my IP is 62.254.133.139. With regard to the images in question, I hope you will come round to understanding that all the policies allow a degree of latitude with regard to removal of content. It is perhaps understandable that WP:NOTCENSORED is applied fairly rigorously and without that latitude sometimes. In this instance though we can allow editorial discretion the degree of latitude it needs without breaching WP:NOTCENSORED, as the talk page is always open for discussion of content issues. We do however need to take the matter of editing seriously, and avoid being played for fools and mistaking silliness for being radical, as other editors have pointed out. To some degree it is true that "we have all been had", myself included though I have been trying to mitigate the worst excesses on that page, I hope you will understand my reasons for pressing for a new consensus. Encyclopedias do not need radicals, they are simply a means for gathering knowledge on subjects and presenting it clearly not for pushing agendas or boundaries or challenging existing mores on what is acceptable. Though I generally have no interest in his writings you might want to consider that Nietzsche said that wisdom "puts limits to knowledge". Also Goethe: “We would have a better knowledge of things if we did not try to know them so thoroughly.” Josef Pieper: "there is no doubt that the will-to-knowledge, this noble power of the human being, requires a restraining wisdom, "in order that man may not strive immoderately for the knowledge of things." DMSBel (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are not going to convince me (and neither will Goethe). Please stop being disruptive. Find something else to contribute to the encyclopedia, this is not something that you're going to win. --Cyclopiatalk 01:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your AN/I

[edit]
You ask me to "Think why it has happened?" Because you over-dramatised the extent of the edit-waring? Human Sexuality articles you said in the header - one article I am currently discussing on, editing. Only one though there are others not sexuality related that I am interested in. You also posted in the wrong section if your complaint is primarily about edit warring. But I ask you to be honest with yourself and ask yourself what you are trying to achieve and examine your own motives in doing this on me.DMSBel (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What am I trying to achieve? A thorough encyclopedia, nothing else. Ok, I tried to make you reason. You evidently can't. Good bye. --Cyclopiatalk 15:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I alert a Wikiproject

[edit]

How do I "inform a Wikiproject"? I would have liked to do so in several articles, but is this not WP:Canvassing? HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No it isn't, quite the opposite: wikiprojects exist exactly to provide help from editors who specialize or anyway care about a subject. You just go to the desired wikiproject talk page, open a new section and ask with a neutral message for help. --Cyclopiatalk 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I contortedly retracted the "bad faith" words, and will try to point out what I actually believe is going on with other wording, since using the expression "bad faith" now seems to me to be counterproductive, even when I think it likely exists. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, no. You should be neutral, otherwise it is akin to canvassing. You should simply say "Hi, there is a dispute about the wording of the lede in Homeopathy, further input would be welcome" or something on these lines. If you spread drama by talking about people being in bad faith (even if with other words) etc. ,you're doing it wrong. --Cyclopiatalk 23:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant on talk pages I should not use the expression "bad faith", but instead, point out what happened to make me think bad faith. I might be wrong in thinking it, but right in that something happened that should not have causing me to think it, and should focus only on content, not on any editor. On Wikiproject pages I would just write "there is a discussion about a subject related to this project here[]". HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's cool. --Cyclopiatalk 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

[edit]

Request for assistance

[edit]
Resolved

Since I have started editing at pseudoscience sites, the same group of a handful of editors have been following me around and deleting all my edits, then coincidentaly they all apear to vote to retain the reverts of my edits. For example, here [4], where (1) my "construction" tag was removed, (2) eighteen reliable sources were deleted, and (3) all of the RS content I put in was deleted. This left an article with only one single source for one sentence in the article, and an entire article with NRS and POV to only bad faith in the law. I don't want to make accusations of bad faith again, but it is quite coincidental that the same handful of editors appear wherever I edit, now even when I edit at unrelated article. This started when I begaon to remove NRS and POV material from pseudoscience articles like acupuncture and homeopathy. You can check my contribution history, and you will see that I have made substantial contributions in diverse areas of Wikipedia, and almost all have been reverted by the same handful of editors who coincidentally edit wherever I do. They are making POV pro-pseudoscience reverts of my RS edits with no good reason, then backing up the reverts with invalid arguments like the straw man argument, and voting together on talk. Until editing at the pseudoscience sites, I have never been close to an edit war. Now, I expect more problems, and I do not want to waste time putting RS in articles and make more edits if they are going to be undone. Is there an authority that can look at the revert here[5] and do someting to stop such massive reverts of construction tags, RS material, and sources, leaving only NRS and POV material in the article? HkFnsNGA (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the specifics of the edits, I suspect a problem is that you add too much material at the same time. It is a common faux pas for new editors. By doing this, it is difficult to distinguish material which is valid from material which it isn't, and editors often resort to just reverting it all. If you want to add massive amount of material, and you see it rejected per WP:BRD then better to take the issue on the talk page. About pseudoscience articles, sadly they're a POV pushing minefield, so take special care and try to be impeccable in whatever you do there. --Cyclopiatalk 12:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this and looked at the edit history there. As pointed out (also below) you definitely add far too much material at a time for other editors to really understand what's going on. BRD is very much a factor, and you actually edit warred over it. This was a very bad move, and is more apparent when looking at the total history. Don't do that. It was your second violation of BRD. YOU are the one obligated to start the discussion, not the one who reverts you. BTW, violation of BRD is the only known way to immediately identify the start of an edit war and to clearly identify who started it, so respect it. I hope this advice will keep you from getting into trouble, because you're doing lots of good work here. Regardless of how good it is, BRD should be respected since we're a collaborative project. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Points you and others make are good. So I deleted the many sections, and moved their content to talk, starting a talk page section for each of the many sections I propose adding. I added just two sections, not ten at a time, leaving the many other sections and their content to be discussed at talk, for ease of readablity of other editors. HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It is difficult to summarize the scientific consensus on homeopathy's effectiveness since this can lead to bias (pro or anti homeopathy). The available literature and research has not reached such a consensus. If you read carefully the reviews and the debate appearing not in homeopathy publications but in major scientific journals. Anybody could produce at least 3 high quality sources depicting the above situation.--George1918 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dealt with this problem of random false positives beyond placebo in homeopathy, by including a section discussing p-values, E-values, publication bias, and the file drawer effect in the homeopathy article. The section I inserted was deleted. HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide me the diff with that section? --Cyclopiatalk 17:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclopia, I don't know how to find my edit inserting the section, since the search history function on the history page is not working for me (and is not working for others, either). It appears that some of the content of my edits was preserved, but broken apart and inserted elsewhere. HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
George1918, Cyclopia's talk page is not a pseudoscience related page. How did you know I was asking questions about "bad faith" here, when there is no reference to this on the homeopathy talk page? HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry, but as a biophysicist I can assure you that you're wrong: scientific consensus is clear on homeopathy being not effective. That fringe sources can be produced rebuking that does not mean that the consensus of peer-reviewed research is different. Remember also that "consensus" does not mean "unanimous agreement". Finally, why discussing it on my talk? Use the homeopathy talk page. --Cyclopiatalk 15:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The bad faith article was only about bad faith in the law, a minor part of "bad faith", and it had only one RS source for a sentence deep in the article body. I happen to have been involved in 43 insurance bad faith claims, and 126 attorneys involving involving insurance bad faith, so my backgound was similar to that of the article as I found it, although I also did phil of sci/mathematical statistics and data analysis, and encountered the concept of bad faith in ethics, phil of mind, and phil of theology courses I was required to take. So I expanded the article to include RS material citing where "bad faith" is used in many other fields, e.g., using the Oxford Dictionary example of "republicans were negotiating in bad faith", and citing this dictionary and a Union site article on negotiation, discussing bad faith. I discussed my changes on the bad faith talk page and no one responded in any way, except to revert because "recent edits have turned it into a shambles". How do I respond to this, when there was no other response to my detailed talk page comments by anyone? (2) What is the purpose of a "construction" tag during an expansion, if putting it in is going to be reverted? It was reverted with with the comment "The unilateral placement of expansion templates carries no weight". What does "unilateral placement" mean at Wikipedia? (3) In the bad faith article, my RS material was reverted, leaving only NRS material (except for a single sentence that has a source). It would be interpreted as hostile if I reverted the NRS material as being NRS, replacing it with my RS material. How do I deal with an entire article with only one citation for a single sentence (and that one single sentence source being a questionable source)? (4) Bad faith is not a pseudoscience article. But after I began to edit on acupuncture, TCM, homeopathy, etc., editors suddenly appeared from those talk pages who were in dispute with me as to my pseudoscience edits, and massively reverted my RS edits. I am afraid to edit on any other articles because I fear being followed again, and damage being done to those articles from the "minefield" of editors. How do I deal with editors from pseudoscience sites following me around to other kinds of articles, e.g., to the bad faith article? HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry HkFnsNGA but have you read the above? Please try to be less verbose and try and discuss small changes. I'll answer in more detail later, but please tell me before that you understood the above. --Cyclopiatalk 17:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood what you wrote, the revert might have been made only because I added much RS content, and the editor did not read it. But it is too coincidental that editors from pseudoscience related sites suddenly appear at talk in the bad faith article, without them having been stalking me. Especially when a similar pattern of such appearance, reverts, and spurious talk page "arguments" had been happening so much that I called it "nit picking" and "bad faith". It is also why I asked the question about how to use the "construction" tag, which was not only reverted, but reverted with a comment about the "construction" tag being "unilateral placement". I did discuss my edits on the talk page, with itemized requests for help from others in further filling out the article so it is not only about bad faith in law, and so that it has more RS. No one responded in any way, except to revert (with the explanation "shambles" and "unilateral placement of construction tag") to an almost completely NRS article that only discusses bad faith in the law, . HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It is pretty common for editors to be followed along their contribs if they have been controversial somewhere -that's what the "User contributions" link is for, after all. That it is harassment or simply keeping an eye on a possibly troublesome editor (I'm talking in general) depends very much on the precise situation. About the construction tag, well, it simply seems that you unilaterally decided it was under construction: since there was no consensus for your overhaul of the article, the tag correctly goes away as well. Again, remember that pseudoscience articles are very tricky since they're a POV battlefield. You seem to be a good faith editor which can add lots of very good content, but don't be carried away -after all the point of a wiki is that our edits can (and will) be challenged or reverted at every time. It is only normal for this to happen, and especially new editors, which often do not know all the nuances of the place, are likely to be bitten by this. In any case you should deal with these editors as you should deal with everyone else: by being civil, by following the rules and by abiding to consensus. Don't be quick in assuming bad faith, again. Wikipedia is an exercise in patience, at all levels. I understand your frustration. I'll have a look at the specific issues later. --Cyclopiatalk 17:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments from an outside reader. HkF (can that be a nickname? seriously confusing names are difficult to reference)... Ocaasi (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HkFnsNGA abbreviates Hucklebarry Finn's Nigger. I chose the name based on my childhood role model of sanity. Now they are trying to delete me for being obscene here[6]. HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major changes to any article without talk page discussion are at least likely to be reverted. Don't be surprised. Don't just revert back either.
  • Major changes are most easily done in article drafts on either the talk page, in talkspace/drafts or userspace/drafts
  • People following eachother around is what we do. I follow hundreds of editors and if I see them making the same mistake in two places (or think they are), what am I supposed to do, just let them go? Everyone's here to improve the articles, we just don't always have the same drafts in mind when we're working. If people are following you around, it's probably not to harass you but to stop you from doing something they don't want you to do.
  • A construction tag is not a great excuse for a major, complicated overhaul. Instead, take all the time you need by doing the work separately. Then introduce sections one at a time, or propose the draft for comment
  • Your tendency to be insightful but wordy is likely going to be a problem around here. There's so much to read on Wikipedia that being concise gives your meaning extra extra accessibility.
Hope this adds some context. Ocaasi (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a talk page section for each new section I added to the article. As to being "wordy", I am a mathematician who used to worship at the Temple of Elegance, but that goddess rejected me, so now I drink from these[7] mugs. HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 10 talk page sections for 10 major revisions is still a lot to keep track of at once. I think best practices here would be doing each section maybe one per week, so that changes can be tracked and addressed individually. As is, it creates a bit of an all or nothing presentation for page-watchers, since they don't even know which edits to start with. Also, don't get me wrong. I enjoy being wordy as well... people just won't read your comments around here if you are. It's a practical issue and nothing else. I read your comments and find them interesting. Most won't get to the interesting parts though. Ocaasi (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wordiness in talk corrected. Going slow in adding large content and many sections, with proposed sections and content moved to talk for discussion before WP:bolding it in. HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the many well thought out and helpful comments of editors here. I am following the good advice given to me here. I appreciate the civility and good intent with which the advice was given to me. My issue is resolved, and I am putting a resolved tag on this talk page section. HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed with ARBCOM to appeal the topic ban over the ejaculation article.

[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Appealing Topic Ban 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,

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

[edit]

Waiting for response to your undos and edits on Tom van Flandern

[edit]

You did reverts in Tom van Flandern article and posterior edits without discussing them at talk page.

I commented this on Talk:Tom_Van_Flandern, but received no response.

I commented this in my talk page User_talk:JuanR, in the section about civility that you started, but received no response.

I commented this in the Wikiquete allerts (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=413173016#Tom_Van_Flandern), but received no response

I will comment this here waiting some response:

Why must the consensus edition achieved by several editors who actively discussed in the talk page be substituted by DH editor version, who did his changes without first achieving consensus in the talk page?
Why is the DH version, which deletes some references, better than the previous?
Why is the original wording about the Meta Research Bulletin substituted by the new? What is the gain in writing something like "TvF published a publication"?
The original version contains the fact that Carlip article only analyzed aberration (which correspond to one section in TvF PLA article), why was this fact deleted in the new version?
Why are papers in PRE and other top journals labeled as papers by "non-mainstream authors". Whereas other authors (with zero publications in the topic in PRE) are labeled as "undisputed authority"? Who gives the labels and in basis to what? Editor preferences? In the talk page I gave two links to a famous physicist who disputes the authority of that "undisputed authority".
Why is Feynman cited after of "those claims were not accepted by the majority of scientific community", as if he was rejecting the works cited, when Feynman passed away before those works were published.
Why has the heading "Non-mainstream beliefs" been substituted by "Non-mainstream science and believes"?
Why was the section "Awards and honors" moved to the end?

Thanks by your collaboration. JuanR (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't answer (and now I can't either) due to having been really busy in real life. I can't answer to all your questions since I don't think to have been involved in all the edits you talk about. I hope to manage to have time tomorrow. --Cyclopiatalk 00:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the "published a publication" redundancy. For the rest, let's wait tomorrow. --Cyclopiatalk 00:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About your participation in the edits, you reverted a consensus edit and substituted by a own version by the good-faith editor DH [8]. I am asking you the questions that the good-faith editor DH ignored, because you were the latter who undo to his own version.
Thank you by doing now at least one of the corrections that I have been requiring since the day 7. JuanR (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After about two months, some anonymous editor has changed the wrong word "believes" in the heading to the correct word "beliefs". I am glad that with each little step, the wrong DH version that you reverted looks more like the original consensus version which was available before your edits. I am still waiting for the rest of questions raised above about the quality of the recent version of the TvF article. Regards. JuanR (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

[edit]

BLP, ethnicity, gender

[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in WP:BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice but... are you aware that I agree wholeheartedly with removing such criteria from EGRS, isn't it? --Cyclopiatalk 12:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

[edit]

Lewontin's Argument

[edit]

Fllowing the recen [9] our participation in the dicussion about the title and scope of the article will be apreciated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

[edit]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Will Eisner

[edit]

Category:Will Eisner, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

[edit]


Libertarian Movement and Montesano

[edit]

I don't agree with you about the trivia, but the article has so many far worse problems, it's not worth discussing for the moment. However, could you please look at the short section (I've renamed it and reworded it mainly for flow) and the sources cited? I tried machine translating the Italian, but the translation was so bad I couldn't decide whether the sources supported the paragraph or not. I'm assuming you're fluent in Italian and can more easily figure it out. In particular, I wasn't sure whether Montesano was supporting certain issues or had actually "joined" the movement, a rather important distinction. I was also bothered by the quote. What is the quote from? Montesano? A publication? If we're going to quote, I think we have to quote in Italian with a parenthetical translation. I doubt anyone said those words in English. Finally, is the material supported by secondary sources or by self-published sources? Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

[edit]

Please

[edit]

Per favore ti ricordi della pagina di diabete mellito? Ti ricordi quando hanno rimosso tutti gli articoli postati postati? Per favore intervieni e cerca di evitare un'ulteriore censura. Grazie--Moscone (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non eri stato bloccato? WP:SOCK? --Cyclopiatalk 17:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

[edit]

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

[edit]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Volume I, Issue III
February 2012

To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page.
ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.


The Signpost: 13 February 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

[edit]

Dispute resolution survey

[edit]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Cyclopia. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyclopia/Archive_6&oldid=1138939162"