User talk:Jwy/Archives/2009/February

Sourcing

Put {{fact]] before speedy deleting. AND...I sourced the Whitman page section that you and Sherurcij tag-teamed on. That is not original research!!! Victor9876 (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope that is the case. As to "smelling of weasal words", the paragraph doesn't appear to have had that intent, and the contributor even mentioned that the material had too little of an audience to be concise. WP:FOC states you should try to add to, or seek a way to keep and improve the content. If it can not be improved and the fact tag goes ignored for thirty days, then delete it.

As to my issue, the section was complete as for now, and sourced to the content. I did not write the book, or make the videos on A&E or the History Channel. I merely read their websites and noticed the errors. The errors are in contradiction to the lead-in of the Charles Whitman article and the historical facts, which I brought out in the section. That is not WP:OR and fair play since the book and TV programs are supposed to be more accurate than WP, which relies on them as sources. Look at the sources on the bottom of the Whitman page and you will find them sourced as well as Lavergne's book. Does this make sense to you? Victor9876 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As Sherurij tried to use Nazis analogies and I essentially invoked "Godwin's Law", I'm trying to understand how you correlate WP:NOR into the "Media distortions" section on Whitman. I'm sure you're well intentioned, however, when sourced, and verifiable, what does the explanation of the distortions have to do with WP:OR except some pedantic WP rule? There is the WP:Ignore All Rules policy as well. Victor9876 (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The questionable paragraph has been sourced. Victor9876 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you're being pedantic and a grammar troll. If you look again, read all of Lavergne's content that is linked, read the statement and it's link, the statement stands true - sourced - and verifiable! What YOU were expecting is irrelevant. I thought you wanted a source for conclusions of the statement, not a non-observation by others. Now stop this pseudo-intellectual mental masterbation, and get on with something constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor9876 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

---

"Lavergne dismisses all Whitman's personal issues and attributes his actions simply to his being 'evil.' This is wrong because he had the tumor and personal issues."

True

The first sentence is well sourced. The "he had the tumor and personal issues" is well sourced. Its the "this is wrong" part that I think is synthesis not in the sources and is important to how the section reads. You can have a tumor and be "evil."

You are using a WP guideline. A guideline is just that...a guide. Not an absolute! I think most rhetoricians would agree that the term "Evil", belongs in fiction, not as a scientific tool, therefore, I disagree with "Evil" as an explanation for Whitman's actions. That could have been said in one sentence, why waste the trees for a book?

That's just what I have a problem with: YOU disagree with evil as an explanation. I do too, but our opinion doesn't matter here. There are those that do believe it and it is our job as editors here to report it (if its not fringe) as it is. I believe in letting the facts speak, which is the basic goal of the guideline. We are to report, not opinion-ize. Give me some time to restore some enthusiasm to the task and I will spend some time to write the section more the way I would have it. (John User:Jwy talk) 07:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My main objections are described in the talk page, OR was one of several minor, but collectively problematic items that should be addressed. If I can maintain the energy, I'll provide a re-write, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on my other objections there. At least indicate that I've made my self clear and you understand but disagree.

You have made yourself clear. You have also disclosed that you are assumptive that I would disagree. That's commenting on both the commentor and the comment; sometimes a necessity, even when against the policy. Victor9876 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe my comments contribute to good communication, which is the goal of that particular guideline. (John User:Jwy talk) 07:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are not a good communicator, I'm saying that you among many, many contributors, don't look at the content and sources. However, terms like "smells like" and "evil" are so open to interpretation and confusion. Also, if you want me to get these messages, leave them on my talkpage, so I will get the message and be able to answer you. Victor9876 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"smells like" was more contentious than necessary, but I wasn't aware we would be having difficulties. In hindsight, my bad. But I'm using evil because it is in the article and a key part of the discussion. I did look at the sources and found problems (see Talk:Charles Whitman). (John User:Jwy talk) 20:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as a curiosity, are you from Texas, or attended UT? Victor9876 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it doesn't matter. (John User:Jwy talk) 07:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There ya go; great communication! Victor9876 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We are obviously having trouble communicating, so I am trying to leave the personal out and focus on what matters. I am not always successful, especially since we are discussing Original Research which involves what an editor is doing. I ask your forgiveness if I step over the line and your help in keeping to the topic at hand. It takes a lot of energy. When we settle things down, I should be content to share more about things if you care to, but for now it is unimportant. It would be important if I were shot at that day (WP:COI) or were otherwise involved in the matter, but I am not. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have decided you are not forth right and have an agenda. I will not discuss anything with you anymore. You are becoming predictable, and that bores me!--Victor9876 (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you base that unfortunate decision on and don't know how I might reverse it. If there is, let me know. I was hoping a third opinion would help. I don't mind being predictable and boring in this context. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

O.K. John, let's try to see if we can become friends. Your re-write wasn't bad, but this "in 1999, acknowledging Lavergne, names the triggering element beyond these contributing factors "for lack of another word, evil.", doesn't follow Lavergne's own statements in the article where he refutes "any" triggering elements that could have contributed to his actions and just says Whitman was plain 'ol mean and evil. Re-read the article if you must. BTW - did you have a fun vacation? Don't make me jealous now!!! lol!--Victor9876 (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Whitman talk archive

I think I fixed it for now. I extended the archive time to 30 days, mostly because nearly everything archived was part of what was going on now. I had archived the page a few days ago and only left the last 30 days. It may not work right, but I'll address it when it archives again if it doesn't. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't much use the archive bot because I usually am the one who first archives a talk page. Those are slowly growing ones, or ones that I watch all the time and hand archive them when necessary. However, I think you're right and this should do it. We'll see!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Whitman page

I never wrote or posted that. I traced it to here [[1]]. How it got posted under my ID, I have no idea.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That link is my correction of the edit that appeared under your name. Maybe it got deleted in your edit window or a WP glitch, but its corrected now. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Now you need to put an explantion of the tag on the talk page. I don't need this shit anymore and want away from Wikipedia and it's insane concept. Good luck with article.Victor9876 (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(I'll put this under this section as it kinda matches) ... the comment was not about you ... it was related to the 2 editors who have been trying to out-urinate each other, and really have become an issue to the project overall. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you mean where I recommend that he "also *stay away from* the editors who have tried to help in an overly patient manner"? Seeing as he began to harass Edit Centric, and cavassed me (and probably others) as well, I was trying to get him to stop the harassment. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity resolved. Instead of "stay away from," it could have been interpreted that I should start a RfC or something. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is Jwy. I do know that you came in, became flustered, then semi-requested a 30, arima shows up, you go away, come back, go away, mis-interpret a WQA suggestion, don't protest the move by arima to the article page, move a whole paragraph to another section, leaving the balance to have nothing to do with a "Discussion", only conflicting reports over Whitman's motivations, overturn my naming the section appropriately, and now, a new party has arrived reverting and changing my edits. All over the name Gary Lavergne - CABAL! Let's go to An/I together, just you and I.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than doing the two step, let's resolve the Conflict vs Discussion issue. How do you get Discussion out of what is left in the article? There is no discussion involved there. What is there is the Medical Report on Whitman and it's conclusions vs Lavergne's hypothesis. That's all. There is a Conflict in the two, one is Lavergne's opinion in rebuttal of his critics, the other, a Commissioned Panel of experts findings. Conflict not discussion. Please return your assessment of what's there. Thanks!--Victor9876 (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Will move content discussion to Talk:Charles Whitman. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration on Whitman Page

I would like arbitration on two matters concerning edits of February 27th:

1. Whether Victor9876 is the sole owner of this article, and 2. if the answer to #1 is "no" then I'd like impartial editors to evaluate my edits, compare them to the "undo" by Victor, and determine which is better writing.

If the editors want me to go away, that's o.k. I'd like to contribute what I know about law enforcement, but I don't want to waste my time either. Thanks. Snipercraft (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I responded to a similar posting on the Whitman talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would such a new editor want to go away so quickly anyway?  ;-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

All I did was make a few stylistic edits to a portion of the article that was not in dispute. I started with the first paragraph and got to the third or fourth. I made no substantive change. Then ALL of it was undone. Any new editor would want to go away quickly. Some of you colleagues are rather emotional, aren't they? Snipercraft (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll continue the content discussion on the talk page. In relation to this article, I'm (overly?) cautious about commenting on personalities. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)