User talk:NJGW/8

Revert on THC article

Why did you change everything back, I had to edit that article for my 4th year neuropharmacology class a lot of the information is out of date and incomplete. Every reference was legit; did you look any of them up before you just deleted everything?

Moved comment

About the cannibis edit.I thought it WAS constructive.Marijuana is a plant,not a drug.What part of that is unconstructive and/or untrue?Holler back.Blessings.Smokiewight (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hypergamy

Yes, I think the sentence made her views seem like there was a scientific survey regarding the issue. The book is her opinions and interviews regarding the subject. Hilary Black is not a sociologist, she is a magazine editor, so her findings in the book should be taken as opinion, and I felt that the original citation made her views seem absolute. I do think her opinion is important, but readers of the article should know the source of the information. Angryapathy (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think making the broad generalization that ALL women find the role of money in relationships to be taboo to be controvserial. This is NOT a proven view, nor is it widely accepted. The source of the information is not scientific, there was no poll taken, the only source of information is a non-scientific exploration into the subject. Please change the edit back to reflect this. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Discussion of the role money plays in determining how women select long-term male partners is often considered a taboo subject, and is rarely discussed openly" My main problem with that sentence is the last part "is rarely discussed openly." That part makes it seem like Hilary Black's views are widely held. While this may be true, the citation is really just an interview with the author about her novel. It does not have any authority to say that all of the population of the world rarely openly discusses the role of money in relationships. Also, where is the proof that majority of the planet often considers it to be taboo? If you don't like my edit, fine, but clean up the language to make it seem less absolute. But I think my edit more accurately portrays the source and information provided from the source as it applies to this article. Angryapathy (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your aversion to my edit. Do you feel that Hilary Black's book accurately portrays a majority opinion of the world? Angryapathy (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on the subject is not important. WP is based on what we are able to cite, not what we want to cite. You are citing one ref so you can support something that you consider "common knowledge" or "common convention." I know I am talking to the wall here, because you seem to be incapable of understanding this, but if you use a reference, the information cited should be FROM the source. Your opinion on hypergamy is irrelevent as it pertains to WP. And so is mine. I would list the WP policies for this, but I don't have time to read it for you. You should check them out. Angryapathy (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My question is: What your aversion to my edit? I think it is still a vast improvement to the current statement. Angryapathy (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is very dangerous to make a statement considered "common knowledge," unless you have a source for that knowledge. Just because it is common knowledge to one doesn't mean it is common knowledge to all. Also, I think I have a problem with the word "often," which is a weasel word. No one can give an exact quantitative defination of that word, so it should be scrapped. And yes, I dispute the validity of, "Discussion of the role money plays in determining how women select long-term male partners is often considered a taboo subject" as common knowledge. We cannot make an assumption that EVERYONE knows something. Again, the citation refers to one women's opinion, based on interviews with an unknown number of women, with no polling data. Hilary Black says that money plays the role based on this citation. And you can't cite "common knowledge" on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

How did I mischaracterize the source? Angryapathy (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know if we are reading the same article. The one I am reading is a phone interview with a magazine editor who wrote a book about how money plays a role in long-term relationships. Is Hilary Black really an authority on hypergamy, so much so that no one reading this article should know the source? Angryapathy (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on this matter is irrelevent, as is yours. What matters in WP is information that can be properly cited by the source. You seem to want to cite your "common knowledge" or "common convention," but the source you are using does not definatively say what you want it to. I could cite the WP guidelines on this, but I don't have the time to read it for you, so you should check them out. But I believe that you do not see my side on this, so I put something in the discussion of the hypergamy page so perhaps others can comment. Angryapathy (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

that's not the way it works, the onus is on the person who inserted the info; see WP:BURDEN if you were unaware of this

Oh, I know. A bad policy I wholeheartedly reject. I stopped donating years ago on account of this unfortunate turn of the tide here. If you have a mind to preserve the lifeblood of Wikipedia, which is already in perhaps irreversible decline, you'll start rethinking such policies fast and hard. --CKL

It's one thing if it's worth fleshing out... it's quite another if it's fringe cruft. There's no point in holding on tooth and nail for every detail which may or may not support a dubious hypothesis that doesn't even have any academic support. NJGW (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And if somebody provided a cite, would you do the research necessary to check whether it actually supported the text? The policy of deferring accuracy judgments to sources seems to have at least two bad side-effects: 1. Lots of valuable and accurate information has been deleted (I've done it myself... after having googled for cites, left comments on the contributor's talk page, added fact tags, and waited a year... and I still regret it, because I know what I deleted was accurate and pertinent) and 2. Lots of bogus cites have been created. That's a heavy price to pay to avoid disputes between editors. There's got to be a better way. --CKL

I actually do check refs added to text. It takes a lot of time, but I find that it's important to keep POV pushers at bay. I'm not at all convinced that the information deleted from the Abiotic origins article were either valuable or accurate. Anybody interested in Gold's unsourced thought exercises can read his book, but the article should just explain what the academic consensus is and why. You should know that this petroleum fringe issue has been used in the past to push some other pretty fringey stuff (mostly as the main "proof" for asserting the dominance of the Illuminati/NWO/Bilderburgs on the world economy, so you can see how important it is for some to try and validate this unvalidatable cruft). I came into the issue with an open mind, but have been shown NOTHING that suggests a reason to defend these minutia of untested details. NJGW (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Still defending this particular edit? Alright, I give. I'm aware the subject attracts kooks, but that's not a justification for anything. Without speaking to the particular merits of the deleted text (which I hardly read), it's very likely there is abiogenic petroleum on this planet. Gold had a good track record in making crazy predictions outside of astrophysics that happened to be correct. I see the article already cites Proskurowski et al... CKL

Not a good idea to stand behind text you didn't read. BTW the problem with that article isn't that it claims there is abiotic oil (which there may very well be somewhere, and which petro-geologists don't dispute), but that it wants to claim there are significant amounts of it and that the biogenic theory is plain wrong. NJGW (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I never stood behind the text. I think you've missed the point. beefman (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, NJGW. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Distruptive_editing.2C_POV_pushing_and_sockpuppetry. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Article

I recreated an article that I previously voted to Afd. because I found lots of interesting sources and commentary on the subject. If you care to run through it and add or subtract to it please take a look Technocracy Study Course. It is energy related to the max and therefore thought perhaps you could add your pov ideas to presentation. skip sievert (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Navigant

Hi, Noticed you've restored some edits to the Navigant page - first up, I've no connection with this company, other than I know of them as a competitor of my own employer. But the section in question appears to be less than academic in format, and probably the work of someone with an axe to grind of some sort. The emotive use of the word "scandal" as a header suggests the nature of the intent of the addition. Would it not be better for the reputation of Wikipedia if such material was at least moderated where edited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartwilks (talk • contribs) 22:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response to this comment - I hope this is the correct place to respond. I have no 'COI' that I'm aware of re. the page in question - and no knowledge of the 'scandal' in question - which is why I made the comment. Stuartwilks (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Effects of Cannabis

You made an edit at the aforementioned article with the edit summary "what this ref is actually saying" But the text that you removed is exactly what the source says:"There are some reports that people use cannabis for help in alleviating mania and others report its use for relieving depression. However, these reports are anecdotal and no systematic research has ever been done to see if these effects apply to the population in general. Additionally, there are reports that indicate that cannabis can have a detrimental and potentially causative role in the development of psychosis and paradoxically, can induce mania... Because there is evidence, particularly in certain genetically susceptible individuals, of psychosis being related to usage of cannabis, it should be with extreme caution that one uses such a drug if they have a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Additionally, as it can provoke mania in some people, extreme caution should be used before one takes this drug if they have a diagnosis of bipolar disorder." [1] Your change seems to reflect only the positive aspect. Can you please explain your reason for changing this? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The details that you removed was not intended to be a summary of the Pendulum article. I placed in the details that you changed, because it speaks of the effects of cannabis on the mind (induces mania). The statement that some users find that marijuana beneficial is IMO irrelevant to the subject, maybe it could be placed in Medical Cannabis. You said that I should not repeat statements, I am not able locate the first, can you point it out to me? Thanks --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I never came across a rule that you can't use a source if its title and main point isn't reflected in the edit. That would be very limiting. However, this is not to say that the material I added does not reflect these. The authors discussion on the counteractive effects of cannabis is a major point. Regardless, what matters is that the details are relevant even if it doesn't summarize the source, the only problem is that if they contradict the source. Anyway, since similar details are in the article, I don't dispute the deletion. However, I would suggest that you define what you mean by beneficial to some users. It does not seem to be very informative. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a re-post of what I said below. I didn't see that there was already a section made for disputing your revisions in this article. In the Effects of cannabis article, a) you confused depersonalization for hallucination and b) you made cannabis into a proper noun. Not to mention the fact that you took a sentence with two citations and replaced it with a sentence with absolutely no citations. Just letting you know why I'm reverted your edit. Dmarquard (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I didn't add the statement about hallucinations. I only removed the depersonalization statement which was not supported by the citations. As you've re-added it, I removed the citation which is not verifiable, reworded the statement a bit to reflect the remaining citation. Please see my hidden note there, as the statement still has some issues (the citation being used is not a good one for that statement). The effects of C article should only have very high quality sources because of the constant POV pushing that happens there. NJGW (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

From the citation you removed: "The drugs most likely to induce depersonalization are marijuana, hallucinogens, ecstasy, and ketamine." Pardon me for confusing that line for your edit. With that being said, I'm reverting my statement back to the way it was. Dmarquard (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

NJGW, I changed it around a bit. Let me know what you think of it. Dmarquard (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, the Psychiatry Online ref is not useful because it is not a journal article (much lower standards that those that exist in the WP article) and more importantly provides no way to verify the information. The other ref is still not clear... a new ref is needed as I've pointed out in the summaries. If any of this is unclear, please raise the issue on the talk page and we'll discuss how to handle it with the other editors. NJGW (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks good for now. I'll have to sift through the internet in search of a source, as there's no doubt in my mind that it is true. Unfortunately, I can't use my own personal experiences as a source.  ;) Dmarquard (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I cited the line below it referencing hallucinations. The tail-end of the sentence has yet to be cited, however. Dmarquard (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Magnet Renewable Energy

I have had my article removed, I do believe that was not supposed to happen. This is actual information. Thank you, sir.

I believe I need to add these tags next.

dated prod-Deprod-Oldprodfull-Oldprod-hangon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeperez (talk • contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock watch?

I'm starting to wonder if CharlesRKiss is somehow related to other usernames (besides the obvious).

• "I proposed two sources, one table, several edits, all were denied by a small number of individuals, a very tiny fraction of readers. This experience is not new."
• "I am aware of accounts over two years old, with multiple edits, that still are unable to edit the Global Warming page." (Names of accounts not given, could possibly be banned users, but I'm not sure, especially considering that in his edit history (on either account) doesn't show him interacting with any other users on their talk pages.)

I'm definitely not sure enough to request a checkuser, but I'm keeping my eyes open. Awickert (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I 100% agree with what you write on my talk page, and it actually might be more likely, seeing how he continues to feel suppressed by the cabal and went bonkers when I brought up the comments and response to the paper he talked about. I think this is clear, impolite POV pushing - especially to bring up OR and an article whose own authors later refuted it.

Ever notice how all "skeptics" are instant climate experts? Of course, until they're proven wrong, at which point they go back to the "climate science sucks" community.

Hope you don't mind the snarkiness... I feel like I'm trying to be nice and this guy is frustrating me to no end. Awickert (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll comment if things don't get better soon. Awickert (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, I changed my username from Charlesrkiss, to CharlesRKiss -actually inadvertently. Thinking I was already logged in, as Charlesrkiss, at the COMMONS, I was asked that I register an account, to upload the table, "maybe" I thought, "I needed one especially for the COMMONS, perhaps the registration requirements were different for images, the subdomain was different, etc." That's what I thought.

I later found out I was logged in under two usernames. Well, I'd rather be CharlesRKiss, than Charlesrkiss, so I'll let the one go, or close it (how??). But I've never been logged in as any other username, and don't practice vandalism. All other opinions aside.--CharlesRKiss (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks for letting us know - we didn't charge sockpuppetry because the relationship was pretty obvious - but since you don't have sockpuppets, I'd appreciate to know which accounts can't edit global warming, so I could see if I could fix the problem.

I'm not sure how to close an account, but I know there's a way. Awickert (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The proper path would have been to request a rename. There may be a way to merge the editing histories, but you'd have to ask a the right admin. NJGW (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel kinda sorry.

I'll stop trolling ): —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.203.166 (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

YouTube

I know it is not suggested usually for Wikipedia to use links to the YouTube site... but what do you think about this one? Who ever the person that posted it... they have only posted this one on Hubbert explaining peak oil. Do you think it appropriate to use this in some of the energy and connected articles... or do you think it not a good idea? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY&feature=channel_page I am not aware of it being around in any other format, than on Youtube. Suggestions?. skip sievert (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Cite doi

(changed baby talk to proper English - NJGW) [Citation bot uses this format: {{cite doi|xxxxxx}}] Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mismeasure of Man

In your recent edit to the article you wrote: "Hans Eysenck, a psychologist who defended The Bell Curve and believed in parapsychology...". I can understand putting "who defended The Bell Curve" in this context, but what does Eysenck's belief in parapsychology have to do with his criticism of the book? Also in that sentence you put "Revised edition, p.151" as a citation that Eysenck was critiqued in the book, whereas Eysenck's review was of the original 1981 edition, not the revised edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcp7 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If we are to list a criticism, we should list where it is coming from. If a critic is a controversial one, we should state why they are controversial. If a citation comes from a certain page of a certain edition of a certain book, I am going to state which page and which book. I hope this is now clear, but feel free to ask more questions if don't understand. By the way, under what account did you edit in the past? NJGW (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

NJGW, if this incident concerns you I encourage you to read through the diffs and the whole situation. You will discover that I was reverting vandalism and cited content, and following Ice's warning I stopped the reverts. William was looking for an excuse to block me, simple as that. If I demanded your admin privileges to be revoked do you think it would be fair of you to block me? Of course not. I didn't delete anything, I moved it to the appropriate talk. User:Eleland was derailing the discussion, so if anything you should be speaking to him. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I urge you to fully-read the discussion and circumstances. Clearly are confused or else you would no Tuesday is not a "regular" editor. Either way, I was simply fixing and reverting the removal of cited material. I forwarded my complaints in talk and created a sock puppet report, all of which were ignored by the admins I contacted. I'll quote the rule in it's EXACT context:

1 - Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language. . Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may have to revert vandalism repeatedly before administrators can respond. 2 - Reverting actions performed by banned users . Tuesday removed cited content over 10 times, provided little rationale and only went to talk after I asked him to. If I went into Palestinian refugee and starting deleting entire paragraphs, in spite of warnings, would you block yourself following expected reverts and corrections? I assumed the sock report was enough, it was more than obvious he is a sock. William said this was a content dispute, it wasn't. William said he added a second block template, he did not. He recently removed that revelation from his talk page, surprise there. Something is obviously up and at this point I don't see why I should have to go any further. Comment on the sock report if you are truly concerned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The sock wasn't my main point. Tuesday's edits speak for themselves. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding

WMC responded to my request and then reverted a second response. My second response proved WMC's statement that he provided a block template, among other things, inaccurate. If a 3rd party were to review the talk page, I would prefer WMC didn't tamper with evidence. I know it's his userpage, he can wipe out anything he wants. Still, it's suspicious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Butting in here, since I reverted you at William's talk: your statements are still in the edit history, and can be linked to if need be. Your new section is still on his talk page, in fact. It seems like there's a lot of paranoia and suspicion. What is the goal here? If it is to file a complaint, go ahead. If it is to go through a different administrator in the future, make sure that you do so. I see that you're upset, and it seems this whole thing is pretty messy, but after reading through a bunch of this, I don't see what positive action will result from this. Awickert (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not upset. I was told to go to the admin before filing a complaint. All I wanted was for William to basically leave me alone and he declined. So, can you point me in the right direction? I don't know what noticeboard I should go to. Admin abuse? Dispute resolution? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Gideon Byamugisha

My mistake, thanks for letting me know. I've reverted myself now. NSH001 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gideon Byamugisha

On April 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gideon Byamugisha, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

thx Victuallers (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A deletion review discussion you may wish to contribute to

Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Wikipedia:Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. My message is not about an old discussion - I only posted the deletion review today. You'll hopefully remember there was a centralised discussion on the general subject of "lists of unusual things". This discussion concluded, and there was a consensus that these articles shouldn't automatically get deleted just because they're "unusual". As a result of that I've posted a deletion review for two articles which were deleted prior to that discussion, and which currently remain deleted, despite that consensus. It needs a deletion review to formally complete the process of reinstating them. SP-KP (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Swoopo

Maria Surfs The Web is a spot on KTTV fox news in LA. It isn't a commercial. It's news. Review some of the others [2] --neon white talk 10:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Kathy Shaidle

Based on some of your other edits, I think we have a irreconcilable difference of opinion on what constitutes NPOV and BLP, and will have to go to mediation. I also fail to understand why you have not contributed to the extensive discussion on the Talk page, rather than dismissing all counterarguments on a Subject line.

Do you realize that Shaidle has explicitly denied one of the quotes Richmond ascribed to her? According her, she did has not called Muslims "pathetic, whiny losers", but only a small group of Muslim law students who intervened in the Macleans/HRC cases. As such, the Richmond quote contains - arguably - a defamatory falsehood and must stay off Wikipedia until the matter is resolved. I would appreciate your removing the quote (or, preferably, the whole section) until the matter has been decided, either through mediation or by a consensus of the editors contributing to the article.

I have no intention of edit-warring with you, but I strongly disagree with both your interpretations and your editing practices.

Thank you, Chris B.18:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.81.91 (talk)

It's been on my watch list for quite a while. At first the quotes were on her own blog and people said that was OR (!!!), but now that it's in an RS source that's still not good enough. Odd. Where is the denial?

I'm glad you've been able to learn everything about me based on one person's personal characterization of a fraction of a percent of my edits. NJGW (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude, don't put yourself down. I'm sure there are plenty of more interesting things about you than your views on NPOV and BLP. But the edit I pointed to is an example (a simpler version, actually) of the same NPOV error you made with the Kathy Shaidle article. I'll be happy to discuss it with you if you like.

BTW, your response would be more constructive if it had engaged the main points I made in my comment:

1. Your editing behaviour: mostly repeated reversions without adequate discussion, though there are a couple of other things I could complain about.
2. Shaidle's claim that Richmond misattributed her in a defamatory way, and its implications for BLP and Libel.

Chris B. 66.183.187.193 (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, where is the claim of misattribution? NJGW (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about this, but after Googling the phrase I think Richmond was actually referring to this, so I think Shaidle was mistaken in claiming misattribution. But the NPOV and BLP issues go well beyond that. Chris B. 66.183.187.193 (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying Shaidle isn't an RS on what she said? It looks to me from your link that she calls Islam "fucking retarded". How is that something that is not proper to put in the article? NJGW (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long getting back to you. I understand your frustration; you obviously feel blocked in trying to add what you see as relevant information to the article. But Wikipedia policy (not so much RS, but definitely OR, NPOV, and BLP) tightly restrict what editors can write.

Let me explain it this way. Many people regard Shaidle as a racist bigot, but this not a fact about her; it is an interpretation. And there is at least one other interpretation: namely, that she is provocateur who is using deliberately offensive language as a protest against political correctness. That seems to be the view that she and her defenders take.

Earlier this year, a number of people wanted to piece together some offensive quotes from her blog and put them into a "Controversy" section. Even though the words were Shaidle's, the editors were obviously selecting them to advance their own thesis (i.e., that Shaidle is a bigot). That's OR, because the interpretation comes from the editors, not from Shaidle. To quote OR:Sources:

"All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

So, fine: eventually Randy Richmond of the London Free Press wrote an article that effectively does the same thing the WP editors were trying to do: it pieces together a set of apparently damning quotes from Shaidle's. OK, it's a secondary source, so it should be acceptable, right? Well, no. First, there's an NPOV problem. As I mentioned, there are at least two interpretations of Shaidle's blogging: Shaidle-as-bigot and Shaidle-as-provocateur. If the article made a vivid case for Shaidle-as-bigot (i.e., by quoting Richmond's article) and didn't even mention Shaidle-as-provocateur then it would be grossly POV. Unless we can show that Shaidle-as-provocateur is a fringe view, NPOV requires that the two view be included on roughly equal footing.

One solution, then, would be to add material in Shaidle's defense. Now, I have gone through her blog, looking for a succinct statement of the "provocateur" defense. I haven't found anything suitable, even though scraps here and there suggest that is her claim. Remember, we can't go OR on this side either. The Richmond quote is very punchy, very vivid; so it would still be POV (or Undue Weight) to "balance" it against a vague and indirect statement of the opposite view. If we do include some of this "controversy" stuff in the future (when more sources are available), I'd probably suggest that we paraphrase Richmond's comments rather than quoting them directly, just because they are so inflammatory they would tend overwhelm anything we put on pro-Shaidle side.

My feeling is that, currently there isn't enough good RS material to document the Shaidle-as-provocateur view. Thus I think we need to hold back on any discussion of her controversial blogging. This is particularly important under BLP, since the Shaidle-as-bigot view is obviously very prejudicial.

A final point about the Richmond article. Of course, it appeared in a respectable (though hardly first-tier) newspaper, but I don't think that makes it automatically RS. If you read through Wikipedia:RS, you'll see that there's no automatic assumption that newspaper content is RS - it needs to be looked at case by case. I don't think the Richmond article is a bad article, but it is quite POV - more like an opinion piece than a regular news article. Moreover, it has become in itself part of the Shaidle controversy. Not only has Richmond been attacked for subjecting Shaidle to "Ransom Note Racism", people have noted his connection to Richard Warman, who has been a target of Shaidle criticism. Two of people quoted (Kinsella and Farber) have recently been on the losing side of Shaidle controversies, so they are hardly impartial sources. The point of my gossip-mongering is to suggest that including the Richmond quote would put Wikipedia on one side of the Shaidle controversy, contrary to NPOV. As WP:NPOV states: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes."

Thanks for giving me the chance to explain my position. I understand that you see the article as incomplete, even verging on whitewash. If it's any consolation, at the rate Shaidle generates controversy, I expect we will soon have enough RS sources to write up a more complete, but still neutral, article.

Cheers, Chris B. 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Beer pong

Thank you for your consideration! If you take a look at my contributions on this subject, you'll notice they are primarily reformatting, minimization, and clean-up. I've removed multiple local references (the worst being: 'Such play is reputed to be employed only by even-numbered class years in at least one house.'). I believe the only original research here is adding clarification to one or two of the rules. They are quite generic though, please have a look.

Nnivi (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

revert on Neologism#Linguistics

Why did you revert my edit? Did you even bother to take a look at what I removed? "xerox", "googling" and "photoshopping" has absolutely nothing to do with "Words or phrases created to describe new language constructs". How exactly removing those examples from there counts as vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.223.38.12 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 May 2009

I reverted because:

1. You removed information with no edit summary
2. You are wrong that they do not describe new language constructs.

Sorry I suspected you of vandalism, but when an anon removes good info with no summary, that's what happens. NJGW (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators Noticeboard

Hello, NJGW. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hcp7 (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

On Swiftfuel

I think the merge would be the quickest and easiest way for you to accomplish your goal, while avoiding the WP:DRAMA that always seems to happen at AfD. --SV Resolution(Talk) 12:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That was easier than I thought it would be. But the AfD is still open (fortunately, it didn't go dramatic), so you're stuck with Swiftfuel for the moment. --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Swoopo

Hehe, just checked the Swoopo page after a few months. I'm baffled as to how you could think I was working for Swoopo. Everything I put in was a neutral factual information intended to educate about the workings of the site and make clear what a scam the whole thing is. I even found the damn $27,675.50 item. Asdf25 (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Hello, NJGW. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)