User talk:Skyeking/Archive 1

Re: VHEMT Article Edit

Hi there; no problem about the 'vandalism' bit, I'm sure I've done similar stuff in the past. Personally, I preferred the layout as one paragraph, as I believed - in my humble opinion - it looked neater; however, I do not believe there is any form of MoS regarding it, so I won't raise any problems with how it looks now. That said, my main concern was just with the spacing - but I see you have left it as one space between paragraphs, which suits me just fine. Richard BB 14:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Hi Skyeking. I've had VHEMT on my watchlist (along with plenty of other articles) and noticed the discussion on the talk page recently. I just wanted to say that your reply to Jagerman probably would be best off on the article's talk page. Even if you don't agree with his assertions, his criticisms were aimed at trying to improve the article (after all, you can't improve something if you don't know what's wrong with it).

In the discussion you had with me a while back, I said that reading the guidelines, whilst important, needs to be taken together with knowledge of how they are applied in practice - and in practice, discussions such as the one Jagerman started are continued on the talk page.

Secondly, whilst you are free to communicate with other users in your own style, I thought I ought to point out that you are not required to set out your discussions in such a formal manner (with section headings, typing out the exact details of the edit in question and quoting WP:EQ and WP:CIV at the beginning and end of the post). Hope this doesn't come across as patronising - as you said, you're not a dedicated Wikipedian and these things don't come intuitively. Regards Hadrian89 (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Civility

(WP:CIV) – (WP:FIVE)

Hadrian89:

"...your reply to Jagerman...best off on the article's talk page. "...and in practice, discussions..."

Skyeking:

Your answer is Incorrect. Read my statements at USER Talk Page "Uikku" / USER Talk Page "Jaggerman". In addition, your argument is "Apples" vs. "Oranges" the two situations are completely different. Many times Article Talk Pages are being abused by irresponsible Editors and no one stands up to them. Therefore, your "in practice" statement doesn't apply to this situation. In addition, I'm surprised by your statements because our discussions were on our USER Talk Pages (rightfully so, and in compliance with Wiki Policies/Guidelines).

Hadrian89:

"...don't agree with his assertions..."

Skyeking:

Your assumption is Incorrect. And Jaggerman's statements ARE erroneous, a misuse of the Article Talk Page, and a false implication about myself. Read my statements at USER Talk Page "Uikku" / USER Talk Page "Jaggerman"

Hadrian89:

"Secondly, whilst you are free..."

Skyeking:

Your answer is Correct. I am free to communicate (using my style) with Editors so long as I comply with the Wiki Policies/Guidelines regarding communication.

Hadrian89:

"...you're not a dedicated Wikipedian..."

Skyeking:

Your answer is Incorrect. I am dedicated (improve Wikipedia) to WP:FIVE and I am bold regarding "in practice" (gray area) actions. Regardless, my intent is to comply with Wiki Policies/Guidelines and be overseen by Wiki Administrators.

Wiki Regards (WP:EQ),

Skyeking (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jagerman's comment in the talk page was about the article, as you see if you read it again. I see that you interpreted it differently. The discussion about the article belongs to the talk page of that article. Let it be that way in the future, ok? Moving discussions about an article to other users' talk pages is plain nonsense. I see that you demand users to answer to your comments within 72 hours or otherwise you interpret the silence your own way. That is nonsense too. Other users have their own daily goings and duties and generally do not take orders from you. Uikku (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

COURTESY NOTIFICATION:

"Thank You" Uikku for responding at my User Talk Page.

Hopefully, within 72-hours (or maybe 96 - 120 hours) I will have time to respond to your arguments (interpretations / illogical arguments) that I disagree with. In addition, I question some of your other statements. Therefore, I will provide further clarification (logical arguments)--- because it's important for Editors to "...interact with and understand those with whom they are working.” (WP:UP)

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I've read the relevant user talk pages.

First of all, when I said you weren't a dedicated Wikipedian I was merely quoting your own words at User talk:Jagerman where you talked about the limited amount of time spent on Wikipedia (and the limited environment you spend that time in, i.e. the VHEMT article). I wasn't trying to suggest that you lacked integrity.

Secondly, the reason I posted to your talk page in our previous discussion is because there was no point in having a public debate about the matter. As before, the community is in no doubt whatsoever about the location of talk page banners. Any other editor who who came across the article talk page would have immediately agreed with me. So from my point of view, I was merely politely informing a rookie editor as to how things work around here.

Onto the meat of the matter. You claim that my relating our previous discussion with this discussion about the proper location of Jagerman's post is comparing apples and oranges. I disagree. The same basic problem is at the root of the two discussions: you have interpreted the guidelines in your own way without recourse to the community's application of them. (And as the guidelines are only a codification of community consensus in the first place, it doesn't make sense to say that the community as a whole is wrong).

In this particular case, you have formed your own interpretation of what constitutes a comment aimed at improving the article. Jagerman's post falls outside your rather narrow interpretation. However, the vast, vast majority of other Wikipedians would say that a constructive criticism ("this article needs more external references") easily constitutes a comment aimed at improving the article (I concede that the other half of the post - the potential COI discussion - should have been taken to your talk page first as a matter of courtesy). This is why the discussion about external referencing should be continued on the article talk page.

Also, to discuss your attitude more generally, and to hopefully prevent this sort of lengthy discussion happening again: in both this discussion and the previous one, when someone like myself or Uikku questions or attempts to correct your misinterpretation of the guidelines, instead of going 'hey, these guys have been around Wikipedia a bit, maybe they know what they're talking about' you assume that we are either ignorant or irresponsible (and on the latter, it wouldn't hurt for you to assume good faith). Please read through this reply a couple of times and consider your position, rather than jumping to prepare your rebuttal arguments. Regards Hadrian89 (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

COURTESY NOTIFICATION:

Hopefully, within 72-hours I will have time to respond to the portion of your arguments (interpretations / illogical arguments) that I disagree with. In addition, I question some of your other statements. Therefore, I will provide further clarification (logical arguments)--- because it's important for Editors to "...interact with and understand those with whom they are working.” (WP:UP)

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In response regarding Skyeking's claims and requests: Note that I'm also posting this (minus the COI information, which I have removed as I agree that it is not relevant to improving the article) to the VHEMT article's talk page as it concerns improvement of the article.

FIRST (re: vandalism): Great. Undoing vandalism is commendable, and I agree that many of the edits have been vandalism. (I fail to see how this addresses my actions, however, unless you are attempting to claim that my change was vandalism—but as I interpret your discussion, I do not believe you are claiming this).

SECOND (re: various statements):

"organization"—my choice of words here is not particularly important. My reference is to the VEHMT web site, which is, in my mind, a "formal organization" even if the movement beyond the website itself is not organized. Again, my charge is that the article, aside from the media coverage section, references only the website of the movement for its information.

"sufficient notability"—If there indeed is sufficient claims to notability to the movement (note that this must be evaluated separately from the notability of Knight himself), finding additional material citing the purpose and goals of VHEMT ought to be relatively easy. So find some citable material: the article should be based on how VHEMT is itself perceived by reputable sources, not how VHEMT wishes itself to be perceived via its own website.

"notability not indicated"—I am not arguing for the deletion of the article. Media sources, as you indicate, are sufficient to justify the article's existence, but are not sufficient to overcome the notion that all of the real content in this article is based, often word-for-word, on the movement's own website. There is an inherent bias expected in that source, and it is this bias which I feel justifies the single-source header. The article needs to discuss the movement from a neutral point of view, not from the point of view of the spokesman and founder of the movement. Note that the website might in fact be neutral in its claims, but it is reference from other reputable sources that justifies this neutrality, not the popularity and claims of the website itself.

THIRD (re: COI). Indeed I erred here, and I apologize. You are correct that such a claim does not belong to the talk page, and as such I have amended my comment to to Talk Page. I was seeking a claim from you that there is not a conflict of interest, and you have provided one.

EDITOR REQUESTS:

1. Request to remove section from Article Talk page: I have amended the statement to remove the COI claim; it did not belong there. I have left the remainder of the talk page section, however, and added this response, as it does very directly concern improvement of the article: the article needs sources outside the movement's own site backing up its claims regarding the movement. This is exactly the sort of discussion that belongs on a Talk page, and attempting to hide it from public view detracts from the potential improvement of the article.

2. Request to remove single-source banner from Article: Your responses do nothing to justify the removal of the banner: the fact remains that the article references only the movement's own site for its substantive content, which is the fundamental reason for the change, and is a point that you have not addressed. References 10 through 14, the only non-own-website references, as used in the article primarily support the claim that the organization has media coverage and, therefore, serve as a justification that the organization has relevance, but do nothing to back up the claims of the rest of the article. If, in fact, these, or other, references do back up the other claims in the other sections of the article then they should be used instead of VHEMT's website references. As the page currently exists, I feel the banner is justified and I oppose its removal.

Jagerman (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

COURTESY NOTIFICATION:

"Thank You" Jagerman for responding at my User Talk Page.

Hopefully, within 72-hours I will have time to respond to the portion of your arguments (interpretations / illogical arguments) that I disagree with. In addition, I question some of your other statements. Therefore, I will provide further clarification (logical arguments)--- because it's important for Editors to "...interact with and understand those with whom they are working.” (WP:UP)

Wiki Regards,

Skyeking (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

VHEMT Article - Discussion between Jagerman and Skyeking

Wikipedia: Civility
(WP:CIV) – (WP:FIVE)

• The purpose of this Section is to provide an area for these two Editors (Jagerman and Skyeking) to discuss the VHEMT Article.
  

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


COURTESY UPDATE:
Due to my upcoming international business travel I must postpone my response (logical arguments) to your post above----referring to Section "Talk Pages" (Jagerman) 18:01, 4 April 2010.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

TOPIC: VHEMT Article - Adding References

FIRST:
Referring to Jagerman's statements (above) in Section "Talk Pages" (Jagerman 18:01, 4 April 2010) - due to my business schedule I don't have time to present my logical arguments to his "subjective" and erroneous statements.

SECOND:
The following is my response to Jagerman's statements (20 April 2010 / 00:32 - Article Talk Page) at the VHEMT Article Discussion (Article Talk Page).

Jagerman:
"Good, so someone should..."

Skyeking:
Your answer is incorrect. There is NOT a single-source problem. The current Article References (#1 - #9) are valid. The current Article References (#10 - #14) are valid.

• The Article sources 1 - 9 should NOT be removed from the Article.

• The Article sources 10 - 14 should NOT be removed from the Article.

• Adding the two additional sources quoted by Hadrian89 (5 April 2010 / 15:37 - Article Talk Page) is optional.

Jagerman:
"The CNN article itself..."

Skyeking:
Your answer is incorrect. I agree with the comment from Hairywombat (23 November 2009 / 02:33 - Article Talk Page):

"What's to criticise? More seriously, anybody who needs to have the criticisms spelt out is unlikely to be able to read. So, no need."

Hairywombat

CAUTION:
In it's current form the VHEMT Aritcle is not a "soapbox". Different formatting of the Article could easily change the Article into a
"soapbox"---which is prohibited by Wiki Policies/Guidelines. In addition, a change of format would probably encourage more vandalism. And possibly "edit warring".

Once again, there is NOT a "single-source" problem. Therefore, the majority of Jagerman's statements are "subjective" and I disagree (88-percent) with most of his statements.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


ARGUMENT CONTINUED:
The following is my response to Jagerman's statements (24 April 2010 / 00:32 - Article Talk Page) at the VHEMT Article Discussion (Article Talk Page).

Jagerman:
"The most...Rule #5...I am proposing..."

Skyeking:
I propose that Rule #5 ("subjective" statement) be interpreted as having been complied with:

• Article References #10 - #14.

• Additional "valid" sources can be added.

• WP:FIVE---"If a rule prevents...maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

• WP:MAINT---"Maintenance work is a vital part of keeping Wikipedia running optimally."

• WP:VERIFY--first two paragraphs.

The "Ignore all rules." Wiki Policy is applicable to the VHEMT Article.
(WP:IAR / WP:WIARM / WP:BURO)

Therefore, the VHEMT Article is an "exception" to Rule #5.

Everyone's (media, freelance writers, researchers, publishers, etc.) primary source of information about the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is from the VHEMT web site itself, or directly from Les. U. Knight (VHEMT founder). Therefore, it's a moot point to state that other sources are needed to validate the information in the VHEMT Article. In reality, other sources are what should be questioned (proper context of VHEMT statements) because many times these outside sources are merely a "soapbox" expressing the "opinion" of the author.

As I've stated before, Editors can add "valid" references.
(Jagerman hasn't provided an "objective" case to justify deleting the current Article References #1 - #14).

Is this a numbers game? VHEMT web site #1 - #9 / Other #10 - #14. If so, then additional "valid" references (by other "valid" sources) could be added to "tie the game".

My argument remains the same; there is NOT a single-source problem. The current Article References (#1 - #9) are valid. The current Article References (#10 - #14) are valid.

• The Article sources 1 - 9 should NOT be removed from the Article.

• The Article sources 10 - 14 should NOT be removed from the Article.

• Adding the two additional sources quoted by Hadrian89 (5 April 2010 / 15:37 - Article Talk Page) is optional.

Once again, the VHEMT Article is an "exception" to Rule #5. And my interpretation of Rule #5 (subjective statement) is----"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." (WP:IAR)

As an Editor (VHEMT Article) some of my Wiki goals are to:

• Provide accurate information about VHEMT (i.e. from the VHEMT founder himself vs. hearsay or unreliable/opinionated secondary sources).

• "Maintain" the VHEMT Article against vandalism. Said Article is constantly being vandalized.

• Monitor Article information (and Article discussions) against "soapbox" statements.
  

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

VHEMT Article - Discussion between Uikku and Skyeking

Wikipedia: Civility
(WP:CIV) – (WP:FIVE)

• The purpose of this Section is to provide an area for these two Editors (Uikku and Skyeking) to discuss the VHEMT Article.

Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


COURTESY UPDATE:
Due to my upcoming international business travel I must postpone my response (logical arguments) to your post above-----referring to Section "Talk Pages" (Uikku) 05:48, 2 April 2010.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

VHEMT Article - Discussion between Hadrian89 and Skyeking

Wikipedia: Civility
(WP:CIV) – (WP:FIVE)

• The purpose of this Section is to provide an area for these two Editors (Hadrian89 and Skyeking) to discuss the VHEMT Article.

Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


COURTESY UPDATE:
Due to my upcoming international business travel I must postpone my response (logical arguments) to your post above----referring to Section "Talk Pages" (Hadrian89) 3:17, 2 April 2010
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Feedback?

Just a head's up, I'm soliciting feedback on the VHEMT article in the talk section for the current revision, I've made a substantial revision in the effort to meet WP policy guidelines. Please take a look and let's discuss how to improve the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving VHEMT talk page

Sounds fine to me, there's not much activity there. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

MESSAGE UPDATE:
Nuujinn's response is in reference to my request in the Section which is titled "VHEMT Article - Discussions between Nuujinn and Skyeking"---Topic: VHEMT Article - Archive Talk Page

The following is a copy of my request:

TOPIC: VHEMT Article – Archive Talk Page

Nuujinn, what are your thoughts about archiving some of the VHEMT Article Talk Page Sections?
I would prefer to archive (Archive 1) the following seven Sections:

--- 1 Corrected facts
--- 2 Criticism of ideology
--- 3 Origins
--- 4 No criticism?
--- 5 Notability and single-source
--- 6 Discussion at WP:EAR
--- 7 Re : Notability ; Discovery Channel documentary

In addition, I believe it is essential to retain the following two Sections at the current Article Talk Page:

--- 8 Feedback requested on current version
--- 9 Mediation request

I am a novice about the archiving process, yet I am willing to assume the responsibility of archiving (complete the process to archive).
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Message Update was posted by:
Skyeking (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Seasonal Greeting

--Nuujinn (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

I "Thank You" Nuujinn for your Seasons Greetings.

And my Holiday wish for you is, "Happy Holidays Nuujinn!!"

In addition, a Special "Thank You" for all of your contributions, and other Wiki assistance.

Happy Wiki Year,

Skyeking (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)