→Your post on tag-teaming: reminder |
→Your post on tag-teaming: - comment |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
::Hopefully superfluous reminder for Elonka: WP is rather black-and-white when it comes to the use of admin tools or the threat of same. An admin who is involved in editing an article, is not editing there as an admin, period. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_tools] [[User_talk:Avb|Avb]] 18:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
::Hopefully superfluous reminder for Elonka: WP is rather black-and-white when it comes to the use of admin tools or the threat of same. An admin who is involved in editing an article, is not editing there as an admin, period. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_tools] [[User_talk:Avb|Avb]] 18:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
::: Avb, your understanding of the policy is correct. I was not threatening any use of admin tools on my part. The most I'd do would be to bring this up at [[WP:AE]], and let someone else make that decision. I'd rather not file any report at all, but if DG keeps engaging in personal attacks and false accusations, towards me and others,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka&diff=231336845&oldid=231314760][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka&diff=230628278&oldid=230625286][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka&diff=230292993&oldid=230292671][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka&diff=230290877&oldid=230290310][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elonka&diff=230290310&oldid=230289452] eventually some admin is going to lose patience and DG is going to end up blocked again (this would make it his third block this month).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ADreamGuy] I am genuinely trying to give DreamGuy a chance to fix things so that it's ''not'' necessary. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:35, 15 August 2008
I periodically go through and clean out the old comments... This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current. Those looking for archives are invited to refer to the history.
If you have a demonstrated history of personal harassment on these pages, your posts are not welcome here. (This includes certain "admins" who have personal grudges and seem more interested in breaking policies than enforcing them.) You should know who you are. If you do post, your comments will be removed, most likely unread. If there's any chance that you might not know that your behavior is considered harassment, I will tell you, and from that point on you will not be allowed to post here. To anyone who doesn't know what I am referring to here, this warning does not apply to you, so by all means leave a message.
Please add new comments below (you can use the handy dandy "new section" tab next to "edit this page" at the top of the screen).
GOLDENKEYQUEST.COM TREASURE HUNT & YOUR JUDGMENT OF "SPAM"
It's curious that you should delete the reference to goldenkeyquest.com, which is free - and not spam, as it is as accurate an example of treasure hunting as any that exists, with a novel social-network aspect that broadens the definition and therefore should sit well with any encyclopaedia - and yet retain a lottery link that has a spurious connection with treasure hunts. Moreover, there seems to be no logical distinction between the calibre of Los Angeles based community hunts (which openly tout for money) and the web based community hunt on the web to which goldenkeyquest.com refers (which, again, is free). Care to comment? Or, if you agree, I should be grateful if you would reinstate the article.
--McGPro (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
&TOTSE
I'm a little confused why you don't find it notable - as pointed out in the article, it has received significant MSM attention. --YixilTesiphon TalkContribs 21:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- MSM? I'm not familiar with that bit of jargon. I've not seen anything in the article that looks like it establishes notability, and indeed most of the article is subtrivial, insignificant, and looks like a vanity page by someone from the site. DreamGuy (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- "Main stream media". I simply haven't seen evidence to back up your accusations.--YixilTesiphon TalkContribs 16:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to be much mainstream media in the article, and even if you get to the point where some of the info in there might be shown to be notable, the vast majority of the page is just subtrivial info of no significance to anyone but fans of the forum, who already presumably know that stuff anyway. You are free to disagree, but anything on the page you think is notable needs to have reliable sources proving it and the rest, perhaps the whole article if sourcing is bad enough, needs to be deleted. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of random information, it's an encyclopedia.DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please explain how it does not meet [[1]] notability criteria (particularly #1).--YixilTesiphon TalkContribs 21:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- That says there must be multiple nontrivial mentions in independent mainstream media. Of all the cites listed on the page, only two are from the media: one of those does not even mention TOTSE, and the other one only does so trivially and speculatively. There is no nontrivial mention at all, no reliable independent source for the entire article basically. It clearly fails that criteria quite spectacularly. DreamGuy (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please explain how it does not meet [[1]] notability criteria (particularly #1).--YixilTesiphon TalkContribs 21:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to be much mainstream media in the article, and even if you get to the point where some of the info in there might be shown to be notable, the vast majority of the page is just subtrivial info of no significance to anyone but fans of the forum, who already presumably know that stuff anyway. You are free to disagree, but anything on the page you think is notable needs to have reliable sources proving it and the rest, perhaps the whole article if sourcing is bad enough, needs to be deleted. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of random information, it's an encyclopedia.DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- "Main stream media". I simply haven't seen evidence to back up your accusations.--YixilTesiphon TalkContribs 16:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
typo shmypo ;)
can you prove I didn't go into the future to find this article? :) TravellingCari 20:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
SRA and DID and False Memories
Hi DG,
The SRA page has a section on DID and SRA and FM; do you know enough and have the sources to expand? My sources are mostly focussed on moral panic and forensics, I've little that looks at false memories and dissociation, but I am certain it is out there.
You might like the reorg of the page. You might not. Have a look, suggestions welcome. DID and FM were sections I didn't do much with. WLU (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- DID and FM are two topics I usually edit. RE is doing is normal hack-n-slash job on those pages with fewer editors to hold him back, but I do what I can. DreamGuy (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Proposal regarding GSG mention in JtR.
A very worthwile suggestion has been made at the JtR talk page (re: the phrasing of this mention). I thought it only just that you be solicited for your opinion (even if you are blocked from editing). How do you feel about Brilliantine's suggestion of "The writing has been referred to by authors such as Curtis(ref) and Douglas(ref) as the Goulson Street graffito."? Now we'd obviously use the full names and such but the general layout of the sentence, keeping a rational place for two references, avoiding the synthesis of gathering many references as proof that there are many references... What do you think? padillaH (review me)(help me) 19:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but naming authors individually suggests that it's ONLY those authors who use it, and it's really the vast majority of authors on the topic. At one point I had some 8 refs there (with an additional onementioned on talk plus others I could also add if necessary) to prove that "many authors" say it, but Arcyane took those out as well and refused to accept "many authors" just because he doesn't want to believe it. Curtis and Douglas are just two following the lead of earlier authors. I picked them to highlight the situation to show just how far and wide the term is used: standard Ripperologists, academic authors, and world famous criminologists all use the term. Any attempt to give the false impression that it's only a few is against WP:NPOV and WP:RS. And I think you don't understnad what "synthesis" means. What we really need to do is get the page back to calling the section "The Goulston Street Graffito" and say straight out that that's what it's called. The "many authors" calling it that part is a compromise. Anything less then that is bowing to the complaints of an individual or two who want their own soapbox opinions to carry more weight than what the experts say on the topic, and that's simply not allowed here. DreamGuy (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- I would have thought that 'such as' gave latitude for it to be interpreted as a lot more than these two, but maybe that's just me. In any case, to use the 'many' (or indeed any quantifier of the proportion who do call it this) is weasel words, and specifically discouraged by policy. I have to confess that I'm a little puzzled by this edit war in terms of the behaviour of both sides, as it does seem to be a relatively trivial point of contention when viewed within the context of the (generally pretty good) article as a whole. Note that I have no viewpoint whatsoever on the subject or as to whether anyone is right or wrong (so I can't talk about the section heading), I am merely an encyclopedist.
- It looks like everyone has put a lot of good solid editing work in on the article, and surely the article will continue to improve more rapidly or congenially if everybody is calm and takes a step back. Thank you for taking time to consider the suggestion thus far, and should you have any further thoughts on it, I will be sure to note them (I have watchlisted this page).
- Many thanks - Brilliantine (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- If we're going to get rid of weasel words then we should just say "authors call it" instead of many or most or few and then provide the footnotes proving it. The problem here is that Arcayne has a longstanding disrespect for what the experts say, and he has fought in the past to remove all mention of "Ripperologist", "canonical five" and other terms used overwhelmingly in the field. The "writing onthe wall" is not called "the writing on the wall," it's "the Goulston Street Graffito" as used by the experts who write on the topic, including former police officers, professional academics and historians, criminologists and so on. Arcayne simply cannot decide he doesn't like the term and get it removed. We have policies we have to follow. Letting Arcayne try to make the name be as minimalized as possible is letting him put WP:UNDUE weight onto his own WP:OR opinion. DreamGuy (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Your post on tag-teaming
DreamGuy, as I'm sure you recall, you are currently under ArbCom restrictions regarding civility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. This comment[2] seems to be a violation, especially as you and I both know that you are just making stuff up out of thin air. You are making accusations about the essay which simply are not true. The original version of the essay was a result of the Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/2008 report, which was endorsed by 11 members of the Group. I may have been the individual who summarized the information for the wiki, but it was not my personal view. Your other statements about my on- or off-wiki actions are likewise incorrect. Further, if you do have concerns about my actions, the better venue is to discuss them in the RfC, not on other random talkpages, which is both inappropriate, and can also be seen as harassment and forum-shopping. I am not filing a report at WP:AE, but I did want to make at least one direct request to you: Would you please consider either removing your post, or changing it to deal strictly with the topic of the essay, without any personal attacks? Your block log is already long enough,[3] you don't need another one. Thanks, Elonka 14:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- As you (Elonka) are the primary listed editor of the article, and others have noted that you, and two other admins, appear to qualify as an admin tag team, it doesn't seem unreasonable. If he's blocked for that, I'll appeal. Some of the wording should be toned down, but I concur with the overall sentiment and appropriateness in that talk page. Obviously, he doesn't have diffs for off-Wiki coordination, but there would certainly be adequate evidence to support his assertions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hopefully superfluous reminder for Elonka: WP is rather black-and-white when it comes to the use of admin tools or the threat of same. An admin who is involved in editing an article, is not editing there as an admin, period. [4] Avb 18:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Avb, your understanding of the policy is correct. I was not threatening any use of admin tools on my part. The most I'd do would be to bring this up at WP:AE, and let someone else make that decision. I'd rather not file any report at all, but if DG keeps engaging in personal attacks and false accusations, towards me and others,[5][6][7][8][9] eventually some admin is going to lose patience and DG is going to end up blocked again (this would make it his third block this month).[10] I am genuinely trying to give DreamGuy a chance to fix things so that it's not necessary. --Elonka 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hopefully superfluous reminder for Elonka: WP is rather black-and-white when it comes to the use of admin tools or the threat of same. An admin who is involved in editing an article, is not editing there as an admin, period. [4] Avb 18:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)