Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ranze (talk | contribs) at 05:56, 9 July 2016 (archiving pre-Turner stuff). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is a member of WikiProject Tokusatsu

Archives: /2012, /2013, /2014, /2015, /2016

Articles: apex fallacy (talk and AfD) & CGM (talk and AfD) & VAP

I think CCBT and CEBT show promise.

Useful template for article construction: Template:Find sources (do not actually save, just preview for links)

Useful tool for showing diffs: Special:Diff/1

Useful for checking sources Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#List and WP:RS and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Useful citation guideline for AMAs/Reddit https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/02/

Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal for later

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources aka WP:PW/RS is something I would like to remember to consult

Misplaced Pages:Credible claim of significance also is interesting for avoiding premature speedy deletion nominations

Misplaced Pages:REFILL looks very useful for times when I can only post bare URLs due to editing via a crappy tablet.

Stanford swimmer listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stanford swimmer. Since you had some involvement with the Stanford swimmer redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Wavedashing listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wavedashing. Since you had some involvement with the Wavedashing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Leijiverse listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Leijiverse. Since you had some involvement with the Leijiverse redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

High standards for BLP content on People v. Turner

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Misplaced Pages page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Please read WP:BLP carefully, including the following:

• "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."
• "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;"
• "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems – even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

--Carwil (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Per your request on my talk page for diffs of concern:

• — Debate over an unverified sexual detail not referenced in secondary sources and explicitly denied by a BLP-protected crime victim (Emily Doe).
• Proposed OR/BLPPRIMARY violation regarding blood alcohol content.

I have separate concerns about your repeated speculation about the victim's consciousness in the absence of any RS making that claim, although I wouldn't claim this a BLP violation.

While Misplaced Pages policy is important, what is of greater concern to me is the process of re-investigating a rape case that has now been settled, seemingly with no external impetus (i.e., no RS are impelling you to do this). I would encourage you to reflect on these comments from Emily Doe's victim impact statement:

I thought there’s no way this is going to trial; there were witnesses, there was dirt in my body, he ran but was caught. He’s going to settle, formally apologize, and we will both move on. Instead, I was told he hired a powerful attorney, expert witnesses, private investigators who were going to try and find details about my personal life to use against me, find loopholes in my story to invalidate me and my sister, in order to show that this sexual assault was in fact a misunderstanding. That he was going to go to any length to convince the world he had simply been confused.

I was not only told that I was assaulted, I was told that because I couldn’t remember, I technically could not prove it was unwanted. And that distorted me, damaged me, almost broke me. It is the saddest type of confusion to be told I was assaulted and nearly raped, blatantly out in the open, but we don’t know if it counts as assault yet. I had to fight for an entire year to make it clear that there was something wrong with this situation.

I hope this brief text clarifies the part of WP:BLP subtitled "Avoid victimization," which I quoted to you above. It is not Misplaced Pages editors' role to mount a second defense, to re-inquire into the victim's personal life, to seek out loopholes in her story, to demonstrate to the world that this assault was a misunderstanding. The trial is over. We report on it, and other things found relevant by reliable sources. And then we move on.

Finally, I didn't post the warning because I'm ready to report a BLP violation, but to make sure that you had been duly warned should your investigatory impulse lead to further violations of policy.--Carwil (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 Jonathunder (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per this edit, you were topic banned from "any gender-related dispute or controversy" which was to be "broadly construed." This was for "an indefinite period" and I do not see where this was lifted. Unless it was, it would be best if you consider People v. Turner and its talk page as off limits. Jonathunder (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a gender-related dispute, it's a dispute about sexual assault. Am I only allowed to edit criminal cases where both the plaintiff and alleged victim are of the same sex or something? I do not see how this is in any way related to Gamergate.

@Gamaliel: since you instated this would it be possible for you to offer some input here? Just how broad is this? The controversy surrounding this case seems class-based (people thinking wealthy jocks get light sentences) rather than gender. Ranze (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)