Misplaced Pages

User talk:Dyrnych: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:37, 3 January 2015 editChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers457,369 edits Thx: re← Previous edit Revision as of 22:33, 3 January 2015 edit undoAfronig (talk | contribs)196 edits Thx: 3rr warningNext edit →
Line 131: Line 131:
:I agree that that is all sensitive material and a BLP concern. I appreciate your attempt to clarify and wish that you'd done that initially, although it's unclear that the OP had any source in mind which actually does any of those things. As I said, my goal in invoking ] and ] there were to remind the OP that the talk page isn't an appropriate place for advancing theories about what may or may not have happened. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you'd be less dramatic about things; I think that would have made all this a non-issue, as I was about to collapse the conversation anyway. ] (]) 02:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC) :I agree that that is all sensitive material and a BLP concern. I appreciate your attempt to clarify and wish that you'd done that initially, although it's unclear that the OP had any source in mind which actually does any of those things. As I said, my goal in invoking ] and ] there were to remind the OP that the talk page isn't an appropriate place for advancing theories about what may or may not have happened. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you'd be less dramatic about things; I think that would have made all this a non-issue, as I was about to collapse the conversation anyway. ] (]) 02:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:: It was a crowdsourced documentation project that gathered all the data and analyzed it, by mapping out all the witness details and unmasking protestors and posting non-public (and likely false for that reason) information. It contained the videos from the aftermath and used shots to mark the evidence and then reconstruct where each witness and camera was right down to where they live. Furthermore, another was worse and contains links to claimed executions by police officers, I got it in two clicks from Google. Not pleasant. And I didn't pick that GG link at random either - if you can follow the hint you have everything you need to find and confirm the location and details of which this data and idea originates from. It was also pre-grand jury document release that it got its start. Its no better than that Anonymous and Reddit campaign, Gamergate has also been similar for this type of thing. The difference is that once it gets entrenched the BLP nightmare begins and its hard to put that genie back in the bottle. ] (]) 02:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC) :: It was a crowdsourced documentation project that gathered all the data and analyzed it, by mapping out all the witness details and unmasking protestors and posting non-public (and likely false for that reason) information. It contained the videos from the aftermath and used shots to mark the evidence and then reconstruct where each witness and camera was right down to where they live. Furthermore, another was worse and contains links to claimed executions by police officers, I got it in two clicks from Google. Not pleasant. And I didn't pick that GG link at random either - if you can follow the hint you have everything you need to find and confirm the location and details of which this data and idea originates from. It was also pre-grand jury document release that it got its start. Its no better than that Anonymous and Reddit campaign, Gamergate has also been similar for this type of thing. The difference is that once it gets entrenched the BLP nightmare begins and its hard to put that genie back in the bottle. ] (]) 02:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

== 3 Revert Warning - January 2015 ==

] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].

'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 22:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:33, 3 January 2015

I will usually respond to comments here. Politely, if possible.


Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2


My local time: January 2025 12 Saturday 2:40 pm CST 20:40 UTC

Quotes

I am not sure how one "plagiarizes" direct quotes. Are you suggesting I should change or alter the quotes? I believe that the quotes are properly ref'd to the RS. The language of the Commentary author has not been plagiarized. A suggestion as to how to "fix" this would be appreciated. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

They're referenced, but the material surrounding the quotes is taken directly from the article. WP:PLAGIARISM describes it as "Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text." It's a copyright issue as well, which I think dominates over the plagiarism aspect. I'd just rewrite the material around the quotes; the quotes themselves are fine from a plagiarism/copyright standpoint, although I think that they're excessive. That's a different conversation, though, and one that I'm happy to have in a different context. Dyrnych (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
If you read the material, you'll see that both source and publisher are named in each case. Funny though: first you wanted to remove these quotes as part of your "reorganization"; then you suggested, inexplicably, that they were "plagiarism"; now you're also saying, without explanation, that they're a copyright violation. Of course, this has nothing to do with your previously expressed personal view that this is a "fake scandal" and that our WP article shouldn't be reflecting too many conservative views because the scandal is, well, fake. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
They are both plagiarism and a copyright violation, both of which charges I've substantiated. I don't care if the quotes stay in, as you'd see if you read my reply. I do care that the direct quotes of surrounding material be attributed in text to Commentary Magazine and/or recorded. I find your constant questioning of my motives and unthinking reversion of my edits inappropriate in the extreme. I am trying to be civil towards you, but your behavior is making that difficult. Dyrnych (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
So rather than add the words "Commentary Magazine" to the article text yourself, you're engaging in a letter-writing campaign against the editor who noted the wrong publication, accusing him of plagiarism, and tagging every other quote in that section for copyvio without further investigation. And although you previously wanted the entire section deleted because you personally think the scandal is fake and we shouldn't be giving too much weight to public expressions of outrage in reliable sources, it's just a coincidence that you're now tilting at windmills to get the quotes removed on a technicality. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I am responding to this and other concerns on your talk page. You can read the article's talk page for an account of why you are wrong about literally everything you've just said. Dyrnych (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Cite stuff

In your 'ref name="Vox0815"' and other cites here, a few issues. I think "cite news" worked while "cite web" didn't. You had only one "curly bracket" { at the beginning of the template. Maybe more. Hopefully I fixed them at least basically here. It's a fast-moving page so hard to proceed methodically. Thanks for your work. Swliv (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I copied and pasted from the first source that I cited, so whatever errors were present in that one were preserved in the others. Thanks for the heads up! Dyrnych (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for the detail, and cool head in editing a complex article. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael brown

I wanted to clarify my position on why I think the police report being classified as being exceptionally cleared is significant, and not clutter up the talk page there, but instead here on your talk page :) This is from the KCPD, which is based on the guidelines from the Mo. St. Hwy Patrol, and STLPD uses these guidelines as well. Before a case can be classified as exceptionally cleared, these listed conditions must be satisfied:

  • The investigation must have clearly and definitely established the identity of at least one offender. (check)
  • Sufficient probable cause must have been developed to support the arrest, charging and prosecution of the offender. (check)
  • The exact location of the offender must be known so that an arrest could be made. (check)
  • There must be a reason outside the control of law enforcement which prevents the arrest. (check, and this is the most important one because the only thing that prevented Michael Brown from being arrested for strong-arm robbery, was due to his death)

And it is my belief that as far as the FPD is concerned, this case is closed and solved - Michael Brown robbed that store and the only thing that prevented his prosecution and conviction was his death. They have a confession from Dorian Johnson who was there during the robbery and told them what happened. There is video surveillance of the crime being committed by Brown. There were patrons/employees in the store that witnessed Brown committing the crime. The suspects (Brown and Johnson) were identified as the robbers. Brown was in possession of the item(s) reported stolen. The business was willing to prosecute. Did I mention they had a confession and a video. Case Closed. But yet, there are some who still think that the robbery is still an allegation, as if the investigation was going full speed ahead to this day to determine who did it. The FPD knows who did it and that is why they classified the robbery as being exceptionally cleared. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely got a little off track on the article's talk page. I understand your point and it's certainly important that the police consider the case closed. It's especially important because many of the events of the robbery are not in dispute. But if you look at the legal standard involved there, it's "sufficient probable cause." That's a monumentally low standard and vastly different from the legal standard required to convict a person: "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." And there are all sorts of things that could affect whether a person would be convicted even with police certainty or near-certainty. So while I agree that the police stage of the investigation is done and I agree that the evidence suggests that you and I should probably believe that Brown committed a robbery, that doesn't necessarily translate into the legal conclusion that Brown would have been convicted of robbery. Dyrnych (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss

Hi, I read your comment about unfamiliarity with the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. I went back to refresh my understanding and found a much modified version of the old Excel flowchart that I designed years ago: The intent was to clarify that exactly what I did last night serves a purpose. I've been on both sides of the issue, and I know how frustrating it can be to see hard work torn down. But I think that you all needed a fresh start. It seems that at least I got some action going and people thinking. I've been out of the loop for a while. There used to be processes to find objective writers who could help cleanup articles, but my experience is that they eventually got painted ugly and drawn into the scuffles. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

First shot

Saw your comment about "conclusions". Since I've gotten called out on WP:FORUM I'll respond here.

  1. If it is a bullet casing, then we know for sure at least one shot happened near the car.
  2. There is also a photograph of a hole in one of the nearby buildings. Residents have claimed that cops retrieved a bullet from that hole and removed the siding to get to it. https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/504355965601599489/photo/1
    1. If that is confirmed, a line from the car to that hole is perpendicular to the line from the car to Brown's body. That lends support to the accounts that say a shot happened during a (struggle?) near the car, before brown's later movement down the road.
    2. Also points out a missing shot in the audio either from trimming or being too quiet, since there would probably not be enough time from brown to get from the car to where he was in the time of the audio

In any case, all of this is of course unsuitable for the article at this time because it is not backed by RS, and certainly some of the assumptions mentioned could turn out to be something else. As I said in the article talk, I was just mentioning it because I thought it was relevant to comments we editors had made earlier about the first shot in various contexts.

Although sometimes things may be unsuitable for the article, it can help to raise peoples awareness to possible threads to follow as they are reading RS later. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Piaget Crenshaw, in one of her interviews, talks about the bullet retrieved from a building. I can try to find it if that will help. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I guess that my comment about conclusions was based on the assumption that there was no particular controversy about whether a shot was fired from in or near the car. It seems like all (or most) accounts include the shot. I guess the missing shot in the audio that you're describing is the only real evidence that I could see this impacting. I'm certainly not suggesting that it's irrelevant, but like so many other things in this case it's open to so many different interpretations that it's hard to say that it suggests anything. Especially because there's so much evidence that's being withheld or just missing at the moment.
I wasn't actually intending to suggest that you were violating WP:FORUM when I said that we were off topic; I was just noting that we were getting off the topic of the bullet casing and onto the topic of whether there's a double standard for you versus Michael-Ridgway. Sorry if it appeared that way. Dyrnych (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Dyrnych, There's a big problem with using that photo to draw conclusions. By the time that the yellow tape had been erected, Officer Wilson had long fled the scene in his vehicle. So a casing next to a vehicle is not a casing next to Wilson's vehicle. I almost made this mistake one time when I first saw the first video from Piaget Crenshaw. Was all excited thinking that I had finally learned what position Wilson's vehicle was in. I called the local television station that ran it and spoke to the web master who straightened me out, informing me that Piaget's apartment was positioned such that she couldn't get Wilson's vehicle in her viewfinder. So the vehicle I was seeing was one from another policeman who arrived there as backup. So when analyzing photos, basically any time you see yellow tape, it's pretty much useless. Sad but true.

And thanks a bunch for the thanks today. I don't get those, I guess you know. Much appreciated. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Big Big Big APOLOGIES

Dyrnych. I am so embarrassed to have mistaken you for Ga... whatever his name is. Please forgive me. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology and retraction. I have no doubts that your posts are made in good faith, and I'd ask that you assume the same of others. Whether that be me, Gaijin42, or other editors until and unless they demonstrate otherwise (and that's a pretty high bar). Dyrnych (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
So you really think him telling me how to autosign my name was good faith and not a dig? This is the double standard of which I speak. If I had done that to would him I would have been mowed down in a hail of bullets. And I'm brand new. And you guys aren't. So you should be holding yourselves to a higher standard. I mean, as soon as I clicked save, I saw that I hadn't signed it. So I went back to add the tildes and clicked save. Wanna guess what happened. Edit conflict. Because before I could do it, he was already bitch slapping me. That's messed up. You can pretend it isn't and he can play all dumb about it, but that is freaking messed up. But as a meta observer whose thinking that a documentary about my experiences might be instructive, especially to black viewers, I think it's cool that you guys are giving me so much fodder with which to demonstrate the racially tinged malice that operates in so many Misplaced Pages veterans. Again: The post was so petty, it hardly needed a signature. But again, thank you for being thoughtful enough to send me a thank you. I had been wondering how long it would take for that to happen. I think you are the first since the article was put into protected mode, i.e., the first of the true veterans to do in all the two weeks plus that I've been doing this first time. That is out of proportion. In a true GOOD FAITH environment, there would be as many thanks as there are threats to ban. Not here. Not even close. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, he wasn't telling YOU specifically to sign your posts, because at the time that he posted that the post was unsigned. So there was no way to know that that was you versus an extremely new editor who genuinely didn't know how to sign posts. I think you're perceiving an insult where none exists. Dyrnych (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown

Thanks for letting me know. Btw the New York Times issued a correction about the number of years Wilson served as a police officer. Tikihouse (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Tikihouse

Not a problem. I saw that you'd added that and would be happy if you reinstated that change. Thanks! Dyrnych (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Not sure if "happing" should also be fixed to "happening." Saw some inconsistent use of punctuation earlier with periods outside the quotes and also inside, along with a comma after an explanation point. Just FYI. If I see any others, I'll post here. Thank you. Tikihouse (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Tikihouse

Don't feel obligated to notify me. It looks like many of your changes were constructive and well within Misplaced Pages guidelines. It's just the embedded links that were problematic; as long as you cite using footnotes, everything should be fine. I definitely appreciate your edits to the page and am sorry that I had to revert so many of them. Dyrnych (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, after the judge issued a breakdown of the jurors' demographics, it seems a further breakdown of men:women ratio was made, as well as the number of black jurors and white.Tikihouse (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Tikihouse

Simply put <ref> </ref> around the links, and maybe move it to the appropriate place in the sentences. I reverted Dyrnych because otherwise there might be a lot more work reinstating the other parts that were collateral damage from Dyrnych's revert. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for your goodwill. Tikihouse (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added a ref link to Darren Wilson's birthdate for the article on Michael Brown. Mandruss has since ensured the correct format. Thank you. Your input is most appreciated. Tikihouse (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Tikihouse

Again, I very much appreciate your edits at the page. If the ref is already named, use <ref name= />. If the ref isn't yet named, WP:CITE has a pretty good guide as to what to do. Let me know if you have any questions Dyrnych (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your revert

Did you think he removed "no criminal record"? If so, take another look. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed what it looked like to me, and you're correct that he didn't remove that language. I don't think that the language that he inserted was appropriate for the lead, but I was definitely wrong about the nature of his edit. Dyrnych (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Outside perspective humbly requested at ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You posted a third-party comment on the NPOV Noticeboards and your outside perspective is humbly requested at WP:AN/I#POV editors on Anarcho-capitalism. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Please weigh it at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_for_Cwobeel_for_BLP_violations - Cwobeel (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Dyrnych, no offense, but editorial discretion exists for a reason and its part of what Misplaced Pages editors are supposed to do. It is a part of WP:IRS: WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Remember, this is sort of a running issue with Cwobeel's insertions and reinsertions. Documents which exist are said not to exist, that is a simple and binary matter. Yet still it continues, despite it even being sourced and checked. Seriously. Cwobeel again is saying that something does not exist even when it is provided. Tell me, friend, but is not "ACLU Receives Ferguson Police Department's Incident Report on Fatal Michael Brown Shooting" containing the Ferguson Police Department's Incident Report evidence it exists? So why did Cwobeel reinsert - "NBC News reported that according to county prosecutors, Ferguson police did not file an incident report because the case was almost immediately turned over to the St. Louis County Police and reported a statement by McCulloch's office that the incident report did not exist." Clearly, both cannot be right. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am fine with editorial discretion. I am not fine with the entire enterprise of an editor's analysis of every source to determine whether it fits with that editor's notion of what really happened. The overall arc of your own editing seems to be geared towards that, and I do find it problematic. That's not to say that I think that you're editing with any sort of nefarious agenda, but that I think that you're editing in a way that frequently contravenes, ignores, and misreads policy.
To your question: Both can certainly be true: it can be the case that county prosecutors stated that no incident report was filed and that an incident report was in fact filed. That supposes one of several events: that the prosecutor's office was lying, or mistaken, or that the reporter got it wrong. However, the source that Cwobeel cited is absolutely reliable for the statement that he inserted. So including the statement could lead a reader to conclude that the statement is (1) valueless in light of the fact that an incident report exists, (2) illustrative of the level of confusion surrounding the Brown shooting in its immediate aftermath, or (3) demonstrative of a prosecutor's office desire to obfuscate matters. I'm fine with letting the reader draw whatever conclusion that he or she wishes with respect to the statement, as that's really what the enterprise of Misplaced Pages is about. Dyrnych (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Considering all three of those are problems and breaking news reports are WP:PRIMARY - it stays out. This is policy and you should not be advocating the confusing or assertion of false claims like this. It is shameful. Good day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no false claim and no, breaking news reports are not primary sources. Dyrnych (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thx

Brown's deceased body and crime scene photos drawing lines while revealing names and residences are a major BLP concern. Let's try and keep all that identifying non-public information off Misplaced Pages. Certain sites have absolutely no reason to be linked to and Redactions need not be announced. Since the specific materials have not been posted, yet, there is no concern, but let's keep it that way. Does that clarify? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that is all sensitive material and a BLP concern. I appreciate your attempt to clarify and wish that you'd done that initially, although it's unclear that the OP had any source in mind which actually does any of those things. As I said, my goal in invoking WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM there were to remind the OP that the talk page isn't an appropriate place for advancing theories about what may or may not have happened. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you'd be less dramatic about things; I think that would have made all this a non-issue, as I was about to collapse the conversation anyway. Dyrnych (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It was a crowdsourced documentation project that gathered all the data and analyzed it, by mapping out all the witness details and unmasking protestors and posting non-public (and likely false for that reason) information. It contained the videos from the aftermath and used shots to mark the evidence and then reconstruct where each witness and camera was right down to where they live. Furthermore, another was worse and contains links to claimed executions by police officers, I got it in two clicks from Google. Not pleasant. And I didn't pick that GG link at random either - if you can follow the hint you have everything you need to find and confirm the location and details of which this data and idea originates from. It was also pre-grand jury document release that it got its start. Its no better than that Anonymous and Reddit campaign, Gamergate has also been similar for this type of thing. The difference is that once it gets entrenched the BLP nightmare begins and its hard to put that genie back in the bottle. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

3 Revert Warning - January 2015

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Afronig (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)