User talk:Sergeant Cribb/Archive 1
-
Request
[edit]Hi, please don't continue leaving me messages on my talkpage. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 07:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ("Demonstrable case of wiki-hounding by 'clean start' account") — I will also leave a note at User talk:Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 07:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Sergeant Cribb, your comments are required on the ANI thread. Please, first of all, state clearly whether you are the same editor as Hyperdoctor Phroggrus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am. I scrambled it in disgust at the persistent incivility of TT ([1] refers) and the failure of the admin corps to do anything about it [2]. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Query
[edit]Just to expand on my query here – you've said that you're still open to compromise, yet seem to also be saying that you won't be tracking my edits any more, which was your part of the proposed bargain. Perhaps you could clarify, because if you are just agreeing not to trace my contributions, that would be case closed as far as I'm concerned. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 19:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Disruptive
[edit]You owe me an apology. I've worked damn hard tonight writing an article topic which has NOT gone unchanged since the AFD but changed to a more suitable title. You have no right to order me about or tell me what to do, you ought to be ashamed of referring to efforts like this as causing disruption. Lesser editors would walk out over this sort of treatment. The AFD should not have been opened, as it has been, this is not a valid reason for why an article should not be written as intended in the meantime. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I explained at the AFD why the move disrupted the discussion and why I have not "ordered" you to do anything. I did not open the AFD. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hardly disruption, it is still about the food, restaurants and pubs of the city. I wasn't even given a chance to start working on it before it was AFDd. Why should I let people delete an articles which hasn't reached its potential.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to add that inspite of all said and done, the comment of Sergeant Cribb was most instrumental in turning the article in a more constructive direction. I do not think that anything he said should be taken badly by Dr. Blofeld. It is not always easy to get used to another's style and Blofeld's style is quite impulsive, with sudden decisions taken in the middle of a debate. It is also very effective in producing growth in areas where Wikipedia is lacking. This is how I came to know him in WP Films and this is how he has risen to be one of the most productive editors in Wikipedia. Hoverfish Talk 22:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Flying Fische unblock decline
[edit]Yes, it was in retrospect a little over the top. I should have just stuck with "NO" but I had just been dealing with some rather obtuse people both online and off at the time, and overreacted. Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Reply from smaines
[edit]In regards to for AFD notice, you have miscited, by turns, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:OSE, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:GNG.
- WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. There is nothing in Ix which would fall under either of these priciples. If this is not so, please provide an example, which you did not do when you claimed it was OR/SYNTH in the first place.
- WP:OSE. Several sections of WP:OSE point out where the priciple is used to affirmatively guide decisions of deletion or retention, yet you posted, flatly, "The status of other articles is not argument for deletion or retention of this one: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists."
- WP:NOTINHERITED. You state, flatly, "Notability is not inherited" where I nor anyone else have alleged an inherited notability. (I concede that this is not obvious.)
- WP:GNG. You continue, "....It comes from significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", as if this is the only place notability comes from, which is not so. It was this I had in mind when I observed you had chosen, inappropriately, "the most deletionist construction" of the principle.
Finally, you have refered me to the first two sentences of WP:PA, which I include for your reference: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." All of these points listed above are clear miscitations (not mere misapplications) of the priciples involved, which I have taken from the content you have created in your AFD. I haven't commented on you, don't know you, haven't commented on your work elsewhere. I haven't even objected to your having raised the AFD in the first place. You say (truly enough), "Comments on the perceived inadequacies of other editors are certainly not arguments for retention (or deletion, come to that).", where I have only pointed out the clear inadequacies of your arguments, and suggested that you reconsider your assumptions.
If you really feel you have been personally attacked, I encourage you to take it up with the administrators, though I caution you that you may be seen as the aggressor in this.
Peace,
AN Discussion
[edit]Someone should have informed you about this discussion since it involves you. --CBD 16:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
No worries
[edit]I thought you had just joined about the same time as those attacking sock puppets, but it was explained to me that you just switched names. No problem, and I hope I didn't bother you. Mathewignash (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Turin Shroud
[edit]Hi there. You will see that Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena says this:
"Within Christian traditions, many instances reported involve images of Jesus or other Christian figures seen in food; in the Muslim world, structures in food and other natural objects may be perceived as religious text in Arabic script, particularly the word Allah or verses from the Qur'an. Many religious believers view them as real manifestations of miraculous origin; the predominant scientific view is that such perceptions are examples of pareidolia."
The next paragraph goes on to mention the Turin Shroud: "The word acheropite comes from the Greek ảχειροποίητος, meaning "not created by human hands", and the term was first applied to the Turin Shroud and the Veil of Veronica."
My edit was intended as a syllogism - the shroud is one of the most notable examples of simulacra, the predominant scientific view is that such perceptions are examples of pareidolia, therefore "one notable example, which has been explained by some commentators as paraedolia, is the Turin Shroud."
If you disagree with either of the first two parts of this inference, then I think you need to propose a change to Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena - there are no direct citations to support there either, even in the Pareidoila section (only one on Rorschach for some bizarre reason). But it may not surprise you that there is no mention of pareidoila in the Turin Shroud article itself. Not yet anyway. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- You wrote "One notable example, which has been explained by some commentators as pareidolia, is the Turin Shroud." There were no references and the assertion is contentious, so I removed it. Synthesising what is in other sources is not adequate. We go by what is attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I quite agree. Except that these "other sources" were the words in a linked Wikipedia article. So I think you may need to do some tagging over there? But surely any argument that pareidolia has no place in the Turin Shroud phenomenon seems to rely on the argument that it is genuine, which is apparently unproven and sounds like POV? What do you make of this [3]? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I make no suggestion that "pareidoila has no place in the Turin Shroud phenomenon", so no need to drag in that particular strawman. What I do suggest is that any such assertion be supported by reliable sources. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- So is that example a reliable source or not? Do you find the content of Religous perceptions as it stands perfectly acceptable? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- The website you link to appears to be a personal site maintained by Dan Porter, and hence a self-published source. Unless he is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, then this would not be a reliable source. However, such questions are best discussed on the article talk page or at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I do not have any opinion on Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice and for your polite responses. I am surprised that you have no opinion on the pareidolia section in Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena as that part seems to have a lot less foundation in WP:RS than does Pareidolia itself. I must admit that Dan Porter's site doesn't look very reliable, does it. It's just that his claim sounds to me like "common sense" (which, as we both know, has no place in Wikipedia). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)