| Revision as of 20:31, 23 September 2014 editLithistman (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,072 edits fixes← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:53, 23 September 2014 edit undoDrmies (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators406,984 edits →A barnstar for you!Next edit → | ||
| Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
| *As much as I hate to rain on Viriditas's parade, you made a personal attack on me at ]. I don't wish to prejudge ''you'' the way you prejudged me by assuming you won't take it back, though I have my doubts. I do think it is time you realize that in between pro-cult and anti-cult there is, well, good encyclopedic editing. ] (]) 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC) | *As much as I hate to rain on Viriditas's parade, you made a personal attack on me at ]. I don't wish to prejudge ''you'' the way you prejudged me by assuming you won't take it back, though I have my doubts. I do think it is time you realize that in between pro-cult and anti-cult there is, well, good encyclopedic editing. ] (]) 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| *:You are, of course, free to believe whatever you like about me. Your ''perception'' of my post there as a "personal attack" is just utterly ludicrous. ''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC) | *:You are, of course, free to believe whatever you like about me. Your ''perception'' of my post there as a "personal attack" is just utterly ludicrous. ''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::*What matters is what you ''say''. I don't actually believe anything about you. ] (]) 20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Section reserved == | == Section reserved == | ||
Revision as of 20:53, 23 September 2014
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | LHM is busy working at his new job and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
WikiLeaks and PRIMARY sourcing
Hello!
Since this is more of general topic and not specific to the Landmark Worldwide article, I thought I would first come here. If you prefer that I move this discussion to the article talk page, just let me know and I will.
When using WikiLeaks or WikiSource or other WP:PRIMARY sources, we need to have a reliable secondary source that comments on or uses the item to establish the significance of the documents/statements. There are a number of discussions around this at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but a couple that are on-point are here and here.
Please take a look at those discussions and see what you think. Related to the Landmark article, I could not find a secondary source that discussed the WikiLeaks document. Thanks and Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Here's the money quote from WP:PRIMARY, in my views: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The US DoL investigation is not being "misused" in this context, and is thus acceptable to cite in support of a claim related to the existence of said investigation. No "extraordinary claim" is being made that needs additional secondary sourcing. LHM 17:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- I beg to differ, and the burden is on you. I won't template you, but I'm telling you that your edits suggest you are not editing the article in a neutral manner, and this is a clear example: tendentious information based on a primary source. I suggest you stop reverting until you find a consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'd recommend you put your "badge" away, and forget you're an administrator, now that you've decided to edit war. LHM 01:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- And simply because I made an edit that you disagree with doesn't mean that it is I who is being non-neutral. I am arguing for inclusion of a neutrally-worded passage (I note, with interest, that you refuse to point to anything in the wording of the passage that is tendentious) that refers to a USDoL investigation that is a matter of public record. LHM 01:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have added my comments to the NPoV noticeboard entry on this, but basically the way I see it is that the statement cannot be made without context. It looks like the only outcome was a few dollars in overtime pay to someone, which seems trivial to me - but we can't interpret the primary source and we have no secondary sources to interpret it for us. Where I live, a Land Record is a public domain document that I live in the village that I do - but without secondary sources establishing that fact as somehow noteworthy it does not belong in the article on my village.
- I am not attempting to trivialise something that is not, and I believe you would agree that my edits to the article in question are neutral and did not "whitewash" anything. It is clear that the article has had some rather heated debate (and I came back to it for that reason, or at least to try to settle some of that debate). Just because there are points of view does not mean that attempting to adhere to our policies here is being non-neutral. I hope that you reconsider "leaving" the article, as some of your content editing elsewhere is exemplary. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I beg to differ, and the burden is on you. I won't template you, but I'm telling you that your edits suggest you are not editing the article in a neutral manner, and this is a clear example: tendentious information based on a primary source. I suggest you stop reverting until you find a consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comic novel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ulysses. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring by admins
Two examples of edit warring by the same admin in two different articles spread apart by one week. See for example this report. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing ever happens to admins who misbehave, unless it's just so egregious that they are stripped of their tools. That's why I quit editing the article where Drmies called his bald revert "admin intervention": I knew once he did that, that there was a greater-than-zero chance I'd be blocked if I kept working on improving that article. LHM 02:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Quitting is certainly one solution, but not always the best solution. Looking at the most recent dispute, you failed to immediately stop edit warring and to warn Drmies on his talk page. If you look at the diffs of the last dispute I had with Drmies, you'll notice that I did not revert a single time, yet I still ended up blocked. The best thing you can do is immediately document the dispute on the relevant noticeboards. When enough reports pile up over time, the community will take a closer look. I notice that Drmies attempted his patronizing shtick with you as well, talking down to you and giving you a veiled threat in his position as an admin. He did the same thing with me as well, accusing me of being a "youngster" (I'm not) and threatening me with false accusations. You need to document this bad behavior whenever it occurs, without fear or intimidation. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- The thing about that page is, I'm just not interested enough in Landmark to put myself through the kind of nonsense that goes on there. Once Drmies started stomping around "waving the badge", I just decided to focus on work I find more interesting on this project. I have a long list of things I want to get done for the various WikiProjects I'm in, so I'm focusing on that. I will say, though, that if he (and that awful Landmark article) are ever brought before Arbcom, I will definitely present evidence. LHM 02:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, believe me, I understand your position. You and I are here to write articles, share what we know, and learn from others. But a lot of these admin types aren't here for that reason. They are here to play games, and to use Misplaced Pages to advance their own personal goals. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- If someone offered me the tools right now, I'd turn them down. As much as I'd like to be able to use a couple of them (particularly the non-controversial delete, as well as the move and history merge ones), I just don't have the desire to play politics as I see far too many administrators doing on here. I like to write and learn new things, period. That's why I'm here. LHM 02:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, believe me, I understand your position. You and I are here to write articles, share what we know, and learn from others. But a lot of these admin types aren't here for that reason. They are here to play games, and to use Misplaced Pages to advance their own personal goals. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- The thing about that page is, I'm just not interested enough in Landmark to put myself through the kind of nonsense that goes on there. Once Drmies started stomping around "waving the badge", I just decided to focus on work I find more interesting on this project. I have a long list of things I want to get done for the various WikiProjects I'm in, so I'm focusing on that. I will say, though, that if he (and that awful Landmark article) are ever brought before Arbcom, I will definitely present evidence. LHM 02:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Quitting is certainly one solution, but not always the best solution. Looking at the most recent dispute, you failed to immediately stop edit warring and to warn Drmies on his talk page. If you look at the diffs of the last dispute I had with Drmies, you'll notice that I did not revert a single time, yet I still ended up blocked. The best thing you can do is immediately document the dispute on the relevant noticeboards. When enough reports pile up over time, the community will take a closer look. I notice that Drmies attempted his patronizing shtick with you as well, talking down to you and giving you a veiled threat in his position as an admin. He did the same thing with me as well, accusing me of being a "youngster" (I'm not) and threatening me with false accusations. You need to document this bad behavior whenever it occurs, without fear or intimidation. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: I have started a new discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#Edit_warring_and_advanced_permissions. I would like to modify the edit warring policy to make it clear to admins that the policy applies to them as much as it does regular editors. Please participate. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently, your having posted to my talkpage earlier in the day makes us some sort of collaborators or something, and disqualifies me from commenting on the edit warring policy--at least according to Spartaz. LHM 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edwards v National Coal Board may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- for Health & Safety Practitioners"], an article on LawTeacher.net. Accessed: 19 September 2014.)</ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Andrew R. Heinze may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ].<ref>http://www.dramatistsguild.com/memberdirectory/getmembership.aspx?cid=18399 Heinze bio] on the Dramatists Guild of America official webpage.</ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Testilying
I checked out Chillum's talkpage after the user commented on User talk:Boeing720#Last warning. I saw the dispute you were having and followed the links you provided. No collusion, just agreeing that "police perjury" was simpler and more encyclopedic language. The last interaction before this was a Mediation Cabal case back in 2007. So we're not exactly allies. Just wanted to inform you.
Peter 17:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. It simply looked sort of suspicious to me that two editors I'd never met--and who'd never edited the Blue Code page previously--showed up to support Chillum's first edit--a bald reversion of me after we previously disagreed strongly on a policy page. I had no proof, other than suspicions, which is why I worded my suspicions obliquely, instead of making a direct accusation. I am sure you're a great editor, though. LHM 18:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you
Dear Lithistman,
Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I do have some questions, and I hope I'm putting this message in the right place. At 115ash's suggestion, I created a new section on the Andrew R Heinze talk page, and (as I said on 115ash's talk section), I feel bad about messing up the Andrew R Heinze Wiki article because it didn't have flags on it before I added the new citations (because an article with flags on it looks bad.) So now I want to take my mistakes one by one and correct each one, but I'm not sure what was wrong with them. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- @EastDimeBoxFrank: I will take a look at that article and try to figure out what the issue is. One thing you can do to make it easier for people to navigate to articles you're talking about is to wikilink them, like this: Apple. You do that by typing ], when you compose your message. LHM 20:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Lithistman. I will do that. So here it is: Andrew R. Heinze is.EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- No problem @EastDimeBoxFrank:. At a first glance, there are serious issues with the sourcing, and much of the article may have to be trimmed/cut, so that it can be built back up again on the back of good sourcing. LHM 20:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Lithistman. I will do that. So here it is: Andrew R. Heinze is.EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- The info in the article was already there, and I just added some sources to try to improve it. Could you give me an example of where the sources are bad? For instance, when it comes to degrees from schools, I thought that a CV which was posted on the professor's university's own site would be perfect legitimate source. What would be better?EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- There are so many sources, some of which are not web-accessible, that it's going to take me awhile to sift through them. LHM 20:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking time with this. One thing that confused me is that I looked up a bunch of people's Wiki pages (so I could see what's wrong with my sources), and I could see that a lot of those Wiki pages have sources that are all over the map (and a lot of them go to dead links). I guess that I can't use them as models. For instance, I looked on the Austin Pendleton Wiki page, and there were only two sources on the "References" list (in a pretty long article), and both of those links seemed to be dead (there were also four sources on the "External Link" list), and yet the Wiki editors seemed to have no problem with it. Also, on that page, I saw that there were two kinds of sources, "External links" and "References", whereas on the Andrew R. Heinze page, the sources were all under, "Notes." What is going on with that? EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- There are so many sources, some of which are not web-accessible, that it's going to take me awhile to sift through them. LHM 20:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- The info in the article was already there, and I just added some sources to try to improve it. Could you give me an example of where the sources are bad? For instance, when it comes to degrees from schools, I thought that a CV which was posted on the professor's university's own site would be perfect legitimate source. What would be better?EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Right now I am improving a bunch of the sources on Andrew R. Heinze... including sources that came from other people. They were probably good once, but when I looked, they were dead. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I noticed that as well. As this discussion has now turned exclusively to the article, let's take it to article talkpage. LHM 22:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see you on the article talkpage now, so I will follow you there. And thanks again. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Eh
LHM, you must think I'm just fucking around here. First you accuse me of not practicing due diligence in the AfD, and now you doubt what I say in the article itself. Well, what you keep reinstating is a copyright violation, which is what I indicated in the edit summary. Why would you doubt that? Don't you think I'd ask the experts? Your lack of AGF, coupled with what appears to be a lack of, well, common sense, is somewhat troubling. You can't link to a "reprint" of something unless that reprint has been allowed by the copyright holder, in this case a French magazine. And can I just point out that you aren't even able to provide proper bibliographic information for the article (date, page numbers, byline), and that you won't find it on the NO website since it's not in their archives? Drmies (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think you've made it clear what your views on Landmark and Landmark-related articles are. That's as much as I'm willing to say. As for that article, have you read it? I just translated the text using some software, and it's explosive. LHM 02:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
| Thank you for your kind words during a recent conflict which I have been involved in. I would've perhaps continued if it wasn't for your helpful advice. Thank you. Cassianto 18:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC) |
- btw, do you like reading books on America by any chance? User boxes are helpful in understanding the real life, interests, opinions and thoughts of a user, wouldn't you say? Cassianto 18:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- First, thanks for the Barnstar! Second, I love reading books on America, Kansas, the Old West, and many other topics--thanks for asking! :) LHM 18:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| Thanks for contributing to several discussions with your insight and wisdom. It's good to know there are helpful editors like yourself around who will stand up to nonsense when they see it and tell it like it is. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC) |
- Thanks--I'm doing my best! LHM 01:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- As much as I hate to rain on Viriditas's parade, you made a personal attack on me at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. I don't wish to prejudge you the way you prejudged me by assuming you won't take it back, though I have my doubts. I do think it is time you realize that in between pro-cult and anti-cult there is, well, good encyclopedic editing. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- You are, of course, free to believe whatever you like about me. Your perception of my post there as a "personal attack" is just utterly ludicrous. LHM 18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- What matters is what you say. I don't actually believe anything about you. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Section reserved
for when John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) finds someone on IRC or through email to block me for implementing the consensus at John Barrowman. LHM 20:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)