User talk:JrFace

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Also, please see WP:RS for some guidelines about what is an appropriate source to cite in a Wikipedia article. Thanks! -- Rbellin|Talk 03:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. --Strothra 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Hello, JrFace. What is your response to my suggestion here? Nick Graves 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. You had earlier agreed to file an RfC. In checking your contributions, I see it has not yet been filed. If you have changed your mind on this, that is fine, but I will have to close the mediation, since csloat has made it clear that s/he will not agree to informal mediation unless that step is followed first. I cannot mediate unless all editors agree to it. If the RfC is not filed in the next couple of days, I will go ahead and close the case. If that happens, however, I will still help out by offering my own opinion on the issue, strictly as a fellow editor, and not a meditator. Thanks. Nick Graves 00:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JrFace. I think csloat has substantially modified his position since the beginning of the dispute. He no longer insists that mention of Alexander's critique must be completely omitted from the article. There has been progress towards compromise, even if it may seem glacially slow, and even though it has required quite a bit of discussion. The best thing that can happen is for more eyes to watch the article. I know this can be difficult for an article such as this, since the subject is relatively obscure. You might consider posting a request at WP:EAR to get more input from other editors. Not to be harsh, but I would advise not speaking ill of your fellow editors, as this never helps. You might consider striking or deleting such remarks (such as from my talk page). I do agree that the version of the article that csloat has supported is not ideal--it seems skewed in Spivak's favor, rather than neutral. I am optimistic that the article can be improved in such a way that all concerned editors are adequately satisfied, if not completely. In the meantime, however, if the extensive dialogue and continued disagreement are getting you down, you might consider taking a break from the article. It'll be ok while you're gone. Another option would be to limit your work on it. Address one key issue at a time, and make one edit to the article or talk page per day. Nick Graves 04:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that describing Alexander and those who agree with him (whether they constitute an "echo chamber" or not) as "[o]ne critic" is certainly less than ideal. It's arguably a use of weasel words, it reads like an intentional attempt to diminish criticism (casting Alexander as so unimportant that he doesn't even deserve a name), and it gives the mistaken impression that Alexander is entirely alone in his criticism. Personally, I'd just say that Edward Alexander made the criticism, and perhaps note that the criticism has been echoed on various blogs. I also notice that the article has an extremely uneven method of making citations, mixing references with external links. That needs to be fixed. My two cents. Cheers! --Hyperbole 22:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly object to csloat's wording: like I said, it's not perfect (I think it's slightly POV in favor of Spivak), but it's not a blatant policy violation or anything. I don't really have any emotional connection to the article at all, having never edited it or read Spivak's work - I just showed up because there was a RfC put out. Cheers! --Hyperbole 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JrFace. I'm glad you found peace with the situation. The current text is not perfect, but it is at least somewhat more complete, and it does mention Alexander's criticism. I think you did well. While this may be water under the bridge at this point, I must say that I found the tone of your latter comments on the talk page confusing: The comments were quite formal, and referred to other editors as "friends" etc. Insofar as this was a good faith effort to remain civil, I commend you, but it did seem a bit "over the top," and could have been perceived as sarcastic by some readers for this reason. I am not suggesting that any sort of retraction or clarification on the Spivak talk page is in order, since no one took issue, and you have made your peace. But I am mentioning this in case you find yourself in a content dispute in the future. You do not have to make friends or write with impeccably prim and cordial prose to be civil. Again, I am glad you were able to achieve a compromise and some satisfaction on the issue. The article has been improved as a result of your efforts. Nick Graves 16:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia libel guidelines

This arguing about standards of libel got me thinking, it would be helpful to have a page that outlines specifically what may qualify as libel on Wikipedia. I found some helpful case law that I linked to on the other page, including what is probably the most important: precedent that shows that immediate retraction will negate any lawsuit, especially on Wikipedia where a retraction removes it from the entire website. The kind of paranoia by certain people just gets things out of hand. It baffles me why he so insists on ignoring expert testimony (not myself, but others); he literally was offended with me suggesting he listen to lawyers who understand the case law much better than him. -Nathan J. Yoder 09:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it seems there is a page, but it just links to webpages, without creating a summary itself. It probably should be expanded or link to another Wikipedia page that summarizes all Wikipedia relevant issues. -Nathan J. Yoder 09:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]