User talk:Dhubbard2500
Welcome
[edit]
|
March 2021
[edit]
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. - wolf 17:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Quality of evidence, encyclopedic tone
[edit]Hi, thanks for working to improve the article on Buckland, but we really do need not just to add claims and cite them (well done), but to assess the quality of evidence adduced. Anecdotes, especially jolly ones (ha ha ho ho, Buckland ate mole-rats' noses, etc etc) are right on the limit of credibility. Many unlikely tales, a few of them probably true, were told about Buckland. We should not just be taking the jolliest of the tales and retailing them as if they were fact; what we need to do is to cite scholars who assess the evidence, and who can give the reader an idea of what probably really happened, starting from the bare (dull) facts and moving cautiously on from there - that's what an encyclopedia's tone is. If you want to run a website of exciting stuff about Buckland, then a blog or forum or nature website or alumni magazine would be suitable places: Wikipedia is not such a site. Hope this is clear. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I do not understand what you are talking about, because none of what I added was anecdotal; in fact, I removed anecdotes and replaced them with actual events/information. Dhubbard2500 (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hm. I think I was using the mobile editor and may have become confused between what you added and what you removed, I'm afraid it's easily done on a small screen with a user interface that displays different comparisons at different stages of editing and reversion, so sorry about that. However, you have just added "While dining with a colleague in 1848 he was shown a silver locket containing what resembed a pumice stone. He put the object in his mouth, possibly in an effort to determine what it was, and swallowed it. It was in fact a piece of King Louis XIV's heart which had been taken from the royal tomb by a member of the Harcourt family.[1]" which is certainly anecdotal. I do not wish to get into you-did-this-and-he-said-that with you, not least because we have a clear policy, WP:NPA, "no personal attacks", which you have strayed towards, and because I didn't write the article, nor add its undoubtedly anecdotal content. Let's see if we can't get the article into a factual, non-anecdotal state, which means devoid of little stories of any kind so that we have a conventional if simple biography. At the moment the to-and-froing is not leading towards a better article. I guess we can agree on that much. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
The source (which seems to be reputable) gives no indication of it being anecdotal; just because it is unusual does not make it anecdotal. As far as your mistaking my additions for removals due to using the mobile editor, that is understandable; I exclusively use the mobile platform and see it may be confusing to some. And as far as your claim that I have strayed towards personal attacks, I would request you draw my attention to anything that I said that even remotely nears that; citation is key. Since we are talking about personal attacks, I find your attempt at talking down to me by suggesting I don’t know what Wikipedia is for to be such an attack. Just a note on your claim articles aren’t for exciting stuff, I would refer you to that the section I was adding to was specifically for such things; and exciting stuff, if factual and reliably cited, is suited for articles anyway because it is part of the life of the subject. A agree this back-and-forth isn’t helpful; so, unless you can provide citation that my edits are anecdotal and not factual, I would suggest you stop removing it, because it is part of Buckland’s life and therefore I will keep putting it back. Regards, Dhubbard2500 (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, you will not, that would unambiguously be disruptive editing, and indeed your threat to continue in that way is itself unacceptable. Kindly do not accuse me of "talking down" to you, I am just stating Wikipedia policy. The "exciting stuff" is, further, exactly what we should not be adding, as the supposed excitement factor - i.e. entertainment value of a certain kind - is not encyclopedic. I have reverted your repeated edit; if you wish to press the point, though I think it quite indefensible, then please do so on the article's talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
You have no authority here. What you believe to be unacceptable is irrelevant; the only concern is with what policy says is unacceptable, and I have been within that policy. This situation has become cyclical due to your refusal to accept facts. The really weird thing is, you had no issue with the article before I edited it, even though it included an anecdote that was even cited as being such. You only took issue once I replaced it with the more factual version. Also, you keep saying Wikipedia is for solely encyclopedic information (which my edit is), but, while it may be called an online encyclopedia, it should be clear to anyone with sense that it isn’t in practice. It’s a misnomer. Just an example: When comparing an encyclopedia to a dictionary, the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia says encyclopedias don’t include etymology; not far down it gives the etymology of “Wikipedia.” Logically, Wikipedia would not allow their own page to not be encyclopedic if they wanted pages to be encyclopedic.
So, unless you can dispute the facts in this section with a source, I will keep readding it. Dhubbard2500 (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at William Buckland. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop edit-warring at once. I've stated my view clearly on the talk page, and your editing is now becoming both inconsistent with your strong opinion that anecdotes are unacceptable, and frankly disruptive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at William Buckland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Graham87 07:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Consensus is against you. It's time for you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Any more reverts and there will be sanctions. Graham87 07:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
You say consensus is against me, but there is just one person who has voiced disapproval of the facts being put forward. I am not the one who started this, they are, by deleting a valid section of the article. Therefore, the default version of this article should be considered the one that includes the information at question. However, as I see you are an administrator, I have acquiesced to your seeming demand that the article be left incomplete by removing the facts. As you are an administrator, I invite you to FAIRLY arbitrate this dispute.
My argument is that the information at question is factual. It is relevant to the life of William Buckland; not only because it is just a part of his life, but it also cements his being an eccentric man (which is what the subsection is for). While the other listings in this subsection do show him as being an odd person, they don’t show any uniqueness; eating a piece of a king’s heart is very unique. It’s clear it should be included. The only argument that has been given against this inclusion is that it doesn’t sound real, but there are plenty of things that don’t sound real in history that have actually happened. And there are sources that say it happened which are reputable.
I’ve invited the other editor to put forward any source saying the event didn’t happen, and they’ve been unable to. I’ve invited them to point to any part of the story that is not factual and they have been unable to.
The facts are clear. This event happened and is a notable thing in William Buckland’s life, and therefore should stay a part if his article. Dhubbard2500 (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- I would have negotiated with you if it were not for the edits of LouisLoverKing. Where that is you or an acquaintance of yours is irrelevant; the fact that that account was created and made the edits that it did proves that you are not here in good faith, so both accounts have been indefblocked. You are not welcome here. I am technically involved, but ignore all rules is a policy for a reason. Graham87 03:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I didn’t know about the LouisLoverKing edit till just now, and attributing them to me or someone I know is a sign that you’ve unfairly taken the other editors side and are looking for any excuse to dispute the section. I have no reason to circumvent this arbitration, especially since I have been asking for this for several days (I sent an email to the help section the day this all started asking for steps and never received a reply). I even deleted the section as a good faith gesture when I saw there was finally an admin arbitrator, even though the default page would be the version that included the section. If you can’t fairly arbitrate the situation, please point me to another admin that will. Dhubbard2500 (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, it's a sign of common sense. There is no reason to trust you. Graham87 08:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect, common sense is something that is obvious AND factual. This is something very similar, a situation where an assumption would obviously be made. It is obvious the other user would be assumed by the opposing party to be me or someone acting on my behalf, when they come out of the blue in the middle of a dispute, but that’s an assumption, not fact; as a moderator, I would expect you would know the difference. Ask yourself, why would I do that when I, that same day, asked for arbitration and deleted the section myself in an effort of goodwill? It would be illogical to do something of that sort. Just thinking about it for more than a second would show your assumption to be false.
In any event, this recent edit history, and your assumption about it, is irrelevant to the point.
Are you going to fairly arbitrate the dispute? Before this “edit war” William Buckland’s page included two things that I edited in his eccentricities section: 1. A statement that he would ride his horse during lectures. I read the source given an discovered there must have been a misunderstanding by the person who originally included it in the page; a story of him riding his horse was in proximity to facts about his lecture style, but he did not ride his horse during lectures. I removed that and put in the actual fact about him and his horse; the user I’m in dispute with undid this edit saying it was irrelevant, and I somewhat agreed (it was more a fact about Buckland’s horse than about him) and just re-removed the part about the horse riding during lectures. That edit was left, so I assume it was acceptable to the other user.
2. A story about Willian Buckland eating King Louis XIV’s heart. I looked into the source and found it sketchy, so I looked at King Louis XIV’s page. The event was also mentioned there and it’s source put the event into better perspective; Buckland’s page used a source that made it sound like he had randomly eaten the entire heart, but the source on King Louis XIV’s page showed a clearer description: it wasn’t the entire heart, just a small piece in a locket, and it wasn’t random, he thought it was a mineral and thought he could identify it by putting it into his mouth. I deleted the misleading version and put in the correct event and cited the same source given by King Louis XIV’s page.
The 2nd thing is what this dispute is about. The other user deleted it, giving only the reasons that they didn’t believe it and Wikipedia isn’t for interesting facts. Both of which are easily rebutted; them not believing it, doesn’t make it untrue and Wikipedia is for facts, if its and interesting fact, all the better. Another big argument for its inclusion is that it’s included in the King’s page; if the King’s page includes a fact about a piece of his heart being eaten, it should definitely be included in the page of the person who ate it. Dhubbard2500 (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
[Graham87] Are you going to address this? I would ask on your talk page but it says I can’t. Dhubbard2500 (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
sample
[edit]Test test Dhubbard2500 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
[edit]Via technical evidence, LouisLoverKing is 
Confirmed as a sockpuppet of this account. --Yamla (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
What technically evidence ‘confirms’ LouisLoveKing is a sockpuppet? It goes against common sense that a puppet account would go against the interest of the supposed puppeteer account. Louis Lover undid edits that I made. It is common sense that, if I were to make a puppet account, it would be to further my goal; which was for an admin to arbitrate my dispute with another editor. I had reached my goal already by the time KingLouisLover entered the situation. I do not believe KingLouisLover was being malicious in undoing my edit though; it’s probable they did not know the page dispute was about to be arbitrated, since that news was in my talk page and not the disputed page’s talk page. Dhubbard2500 (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
UTRS 51643
[edit]UTRS appeal #51643 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- ^ "William Buckland". Westminster Abbey. Retrieved 17 January 2016.