| Revision as of 16:41, 16 October 2007 editATren (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,279 edits →"Carrying the torch": it won't work with me, David.← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:45, 16 October 2007 edit undoFloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits →"Carrying the torch": blanking unfriendly discussion...go make snarly comments somewhere elseNext edit → | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
| Can you explain to me how I "disregarded ]" (), when I repeatedly sought guidance from ], repeatedly asked adminstrators and an arbitrator for guidance on compliance, and participated in ] discussions on how best to phrase the rule? Many thanks, THF 23:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | Can you explain to me how I "disregarded ]" (), when I repeatedly sought guidance from ], repeatedly asked adminstrators and an arbitrator for guidance on compliance, and participated in ] discussions on how best to phrase the rule? Many thanks, THF 23:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == "Carrying the torch" == | |||
| What is that supposed to mean? ] 12:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : per The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002. ]] 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I know what it means. I wanted to know what you were implying. If you are implying that I have some agenda here, you are quite mistaken. I came to this case as a completely uninvolved third party, and I continue to pursue it because the evidence does not support any of the proposed findings (yes, I've examined it all, something the aribitrators should get in the habit of doing...). | |||
| ::It is incorrect and irresponsible for you to imply that I have alterior motives. ] 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps the implication is that you need to move on and worry about yourself, instead of hyping this case in your head fixating on it, doing nothing on Misplaced Pages but focus on this case, that in the end you have said all along has nothing to do with you. You've made your arguments. Why don't you now think about cleaning your own house and take down your blog focusing on ] and remove the advertisement of your off-wiki harassment of him from your User page? ''That'' would show you really are concerned about "heckling people" off Misplaced Pages. Believe it not, you are the only one who is doing very little to improve this project aside from regurgitating the same arguments over and over, taking on anyone who disagrees with you, when your own behavior is far less than exemplary. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 16:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm sorry, but why do you keep bringing up Avidor? That conflict has nothing to do with this case, and your continued insistence on bringing it up in every discussion is getting tiresome. And, FWIW, if you are trying to run me off the project like you did to THF, you will find that will not work with me. I have infinite patience in dealing with editors who choose to attack the editor rather than debate the issue. ] 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:45, 16 October 2007
| This is FloNight's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
---
Advice from a BLP hardliner needed. :-)
Hi, Flo. I'm coming to you for lots of inobvious reasons, including the fact that I have rarely or never been able to convince you of anything (so if we agree on this, it must be right. :-)) and for some more obvious reasons, such as your being an arbitrator, and listing yourself as being especially concerned with BLP issues on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/Members/Admin members, but finally, of course, that I respect your opinions.
Anyway, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources." The latter says "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below)."
That doesn't seem to make any exception for non-controversial information, or even for experts writing non-controversial information. Should it?
There are quite a few examples from Misplaced Pages:Featured articles:
- KaDee Strickland uses an interview with the subject published on the interviewer's 2-person site to reference 4 non-controversial points. ^ a b c d Davies Brown, Phil. "KaDee Strickland Interview". Horror Asylum. November 12, 2004. Retrieved June 13, 2005.
- Miranda Otto writes a film criticism referenced by the critic's personal site: Anderson, Jeffrey M. (April 2002), "To Err Is 'Human'", combustiblecelluloid.com. Retrieved April 11, 2007.
- Nellie Kim uses a b Whatever Happened to Nelli Kim?. GymnasticGreats.com. Retrieved on April 13, 2006.
- Jackie Chan uses several fan sites for non-controversial information
- ^ Biography of Jackie Chan. Biography. Hong Kong Film.net. Retrieved on June 6, 2007.
- ^ Jackie Chan. Biography. Ng Kwong Loong (JackieChanMovie.com). Retrieved on July 9, 2007.
- ^ a b c Jackie Chan profile. Biography. JackieChanMovie.com. Retrieved on June 7, 2007.
- ^ Armour of God. jackiechanmovie.com (2006). Retrieved on August 20, 2007.
- Austin Nichols cites a film review ^ Swietek, Frank. Day After Tomorrow, The. oneguysopinion.com. Retrieved November 11, 2006.
and so forth, I'm sure there are others, I didn't look very hard. Should self-published third party sources be allowed as references for non-controversial information? How about expert s-p3ps? --AnonEMouse 15:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hello? --AnonEMouse 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm thinking :) FloNight♥♥♥ 14:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering you, but you are one of the few influential BLP hardliners who is actually civil to editors. (It's like that O'Henry story about how any man who is kind to dogs is always cruel to women.) A other BLP hardliners had came to mind, but I was afraid one would have deleted my question and called me fifteen kinds of British swear words, and another would have banned me indefinitely and redirected my user page to Clown. :-) ... --AnonEMouse 13:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi AnonEMouse :) I think it needs to be decided on a case by case basis with the general rule being that the information needs to be verifiable. So for example, content that can be found (but maybe with difficulty and expense) would be alright. If the information can not be verified, then I think we need to use a better source. It is sometimes hard to know what is going to end up being controversial for a particular subject, so we need to be careful to be careful about what we call controversial. Hope that helps (Sorry, I was slow but I wanted to think about it before I replied because I did not want my words to come back to haunt me. :-) Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 18:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Your thoroughness is appreciated. When you write "can be found", and "can not be verified" do you mean that it needs to be likely available from another source, or that we need to actually find it from another source (in which case we wouldn't need to use the self-published sources after all)? --AnonEMouse 13:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- By "can be found" I mean that under normal circumstances the information can be found in another way. This is where it gets tricky. Sometimes the sources where we might verify it would not be published by our usual meaning of the term. For example, background information about a subject (like spouse, high school or college, hometown) can be verified for most people and might be done if needed by a journalist or a researcher but usually they look at a CV that is provided by the subject. If they were going to verify it, they would most likely look in data bases. For our purposes, data bases or a CV are often not seen as appropriate because it starts to veer into the area of original research. And we do need to be careful about including information that no one mainstream media has published because I think that there is benefit to us using them as a screening tool for what is relevant related to our subject. But there can be times when encyclopedic content related to a subject is not found in mainstream media sources. In these cases, taking it on a case by case basis seems alright to me. So, sometimes I do not have a problem with us using a high quality self published source for this type of encyclopedic content because under normal circumstances it can be verified through a data base or through in depth research. Hope that helped make my meaning more clear. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- It does, thank you! --AnonEMouse 14:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm making a "non-controversial" proposal. :-) Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-controversial_information.2C_proposed If you can phrase it better, that would be appreciated. --AnonEMouse 15:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- By "can be found" I mean that under normal circumstances the information can be found in another way. This is where it gets tricky. Sometimes the sources where we might verify it would not be published by our usual meaning of the term. For example, background information about a subject (like spouse, high school or college, hometown) can be verified for most people and might be done if needed by a journalist or a researcher but usually they look at a CV that is provided by the subject. If they were going to verify it, they would most likely look in data bases. For our purposes, data bases or a CV are often not seen as appropriate because it starts to veer into the area of original research. And we do need to be careful about including information that no one mainstream media has published because I think that there is benefit to us using them as a screening tool for what is relevant related to our subject. But there can be times when encyclopedic content related to a subject is not found in mainstream media sources. In these cases, taking it on a case by case basis seems alright to me. So, sometimes I do not have a problem with us using a high quality self published source for this type of encyclopedic content because under normal circumstances it can be verified through a data base or through in depth research. Hope that helped make my meaning more clear. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Your thoroughness is appreciated. When you write "can be found", and "can not be verified" do you mean that it needs to be likely available from another source, or that we need to actually find it from another source (in which case we wouldn't need to use the self-published sources after all)? --AnonEMouse 13:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
My Arbcom
You stated in this edit that there is / was plenty of evidence to support a CU. Which of the 5 Checkusers do you feel had plenty of evidence? Your response was kind of vague. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- What I think it means is that there was enough circumstantial evidence that you could be someone's sock to justify taking a look at the logs, as opposed to saying, "SevenofDiamonds is a pain in my neck so let's look at the IP data and hope something actionable turns up." Obviously, once checked, the logs failed to support any particular conclusion. Thatcher131 15:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there was enough evidence to warrant doing a CU. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
 Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Congratulations to our 225 new members |
The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below) We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future. This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page
Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network: Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Complete To Do List
Suzanne Carrell • Mullá Husayn • John Gilchrist (linguist) • Thomas Brattle •
Assessment Progress
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .
Accusations
Perhaps you may be able to assist with my request to settle this issue once and for all. I am being accused of trolling and vandalism by Wikipedians who I suspect are not abiding by their own policy of "no personal attacks". Settling this by arbitration is just fine by me. The process of submitting a request is quite complex. Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.22.40 (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey there
Long time no see. I've been watching several articles regarding accumulating trivia, and there's one, Uroboros, that seems to have people insistently readding trivia (under the guise of mentions in "popular culture"). I don't mind a few things, and policy does allow for some stuff, but this article seems to attract lots and lots of junk. At times the trivia list gets longer than the article itself if not watched. I was thinking about removing the section altogether, but don't know if I would be justified in doing that. Anyway there is another user who keeps readding stuff. Again, it wouldn't matter so much except some of these articles are magnets for crap, and it makes no sense to mention things that should link to that article, yet when mentioned add nothing but clutter to the article in question.
I've not been really active at Misplaced Pages but have been watching a few articles for a long time (e.g. God is Dead, Oedipus Complex, Uroboros) that tend to accumulate trivia. I want to avoid a revert war with the current other who is readding the material. Can you advise? --DanielCD 13:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like policy says trivia is generally ok, but it seems that obviously non-notable stuff is subject to removal. --DanielCD 14:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
As usual, I've answered most of my questions and solved most of my problem shortly after asking for help. I even found Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup. It's a pain to keep up with policy changes sometimes when you don't edit so often. I've gotten a job at the school I'm at that might help me get back in the game a little tho. --DanielCD 15:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Daniel :) Great to hear from you. I would love to catch you with what is going on re: school and such. I think of you often when I sign into Flickr since your images are marked as favs there. I've been meaning to write you for ages so glad that you got in touch. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- This semester I'm mostly working on mastering test administration (psychometrics): WAIS, WISC and the MMPI. --DanielCD 18:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom email
Hi, you suggested to me I mailed to the ArbCom mailinglist on the ArbCom talkpage. The mail is still with the moderator though, and I was wondering what would be the usual timespan for the moderator to approve emails for the mailinglist. If this is a typical time, that's not problem, but my fears of something going on that the community is not allowed to know are growing. I don't believe that this is the way of the Wiki, but before I get started on all that, I would just like to know if 4 days is a typical time, or that there are indeed some kinks in the pipe there. Martijn Hoekstra 09:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
THF's problematic edits
Can you please identify specifically which edits you consider to be "problems"? The evidence cited in 4B is weak and flawed. Smb's evidence is almost exclusively links to talk page debate. Will Beback's evidence is from February - THF's first month on the project (literally, 6000 edits ago). The Sicko edits that triggered this case were largely confined to the talk page - and in fact, RFCs seemed to support at least some of THF's arguments. So this seems to be a ruling that punishes THF for either: (a) his newbie edits from 8 months ago, or (b) recent edits in which he engaged in spirited talk page debate. I don't think either is worthy of a sanction, but especially not (b). It's a very dangerous precedent for Misplaced Pages to sanction opinionated people like THF for engaging in discussion and debate - even if that debate was heated at times. ATren 13:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikimania 2008/Conference of the Americas
Hello, As you may or may not know, Alexandria, Egypt was selected to host Wikimania 2008 . So as to prevent the hard work of the many Wikimedians involved in the Atlanta bid from going to waste, we have decided to host a conference for the Americas. This is in no way an attempt to compete with Wikimania or make a statement against Wikimania.
As one of the people signed up to help with the Wikimania Atlanta bid, we hope you will join us at the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas. We will be having a meeting tonight in IRC tonight (Oct 15) at 9:30PM in #cota-atlanta on irc.freenode.org to discuss the conference. For more information about IRC see .
For more information about the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas see http://www.cota-atlanta.org and our wiki http://www.cota-atlanta.org/wiki.
If you do not wish to receive further notices about the COTA please remove your name from our notify list. --Cspurrier 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
"Disregarded WP:COI"
Can you explain to me how I "disregarded WP:COI" (as your proposed 7.1 states), when I repeatedly sought guidance from WP:COI/N, repeatedly asked adminstrators and an arbitrator for guidance on compliance, and participated in WT:COI discussions on how best to phrase the rule? Many thanks, THF 23:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Category: