Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Backin72 (talk | contribs) at 11:54, 6 January 2009 (→Don't make false statements about consensus in edit summaries: diff, and reply -- no NPA, since I'm discussing edits. With evidence. Your responsibility to fix this.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

A.T. Still

Why do you undo the edits I made to A.T. Still's article. They changes I made were sourced with references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumaka (talk • contribs) 20:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Please explain this edit restoring unreferenced slanderous information to a Good Article. I'm assuming it was an honest mistake and not pov-pushing, but rather than undo it I would prefer if you did so yourself. Sincerely, Skomorokh 16:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop POV pushing. Is this a legal threat? Verbal chat 17:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? No it is not remotely a legal threat. You added Category:Neo-Nazi websites to the article Stormfront (website), despite the fact that nowhere in the article is there a reliable source cited for a claim that the website is Neo-Nazi. I thought you were an errant recent changes patroller. Please explain. Skomorokh 17:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think sources are required in the article for categories except pseudoscience ones if disputed. Slander is a legal term and should be avoided on-wiki. Sources are available - use google and the advice given to you on orange marlin's talk page. Verbal chat 18:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources are required at the very least for every contested claim, verifiability is very clear on this. The burden of proof is on the claimant (i.e. you); I cannot prove a negative. Are you going to remove the category or not? Skomorokh 18:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I going to remove a correctly applied category? No. I would advise you against edit warring. You've been given much advice. Verbal chat 18:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not correctly applied. WP:BURDEN is policy. I quote:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Skomorokh 18:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The category is correct, and categories do not require sourcing. THis one is so obviously correct that your wiki-lawyering is showing. Stop being disruptive please. Verbal chat 19:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Citing policy is not wikilawyering; I'm not relying on some arcane side point - it's a core tenet of the encyclopaedia that all content be derived from reliable, third party sources. Do you honestly think it acceptable that editors add articles to whichever categories they personally feel apply? Skomorokh 20:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when are categories supposed to be referenced? I see you warning OM and now Verbal, do you have WP:OWN problems? I don't understand why you are so combative to be honest with you. If you have a problem with what someone puts in the usual thing to do is take it to the talk page of the article, not to go to every editor and warn them that they are wrong and that they will fix it or you will remove it. Please you the talk page and discuss. --CrohnieGal 19:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when are categories supposed to be referenced? Are you serious? Misplaced Pages:Categorization. It's an editing guideline. It does not take long to read. Skomorokh 20:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That guideline does not support the removal of this category. Please stop your threats of disruptive editing and take this discussion to the correct forum: article talk page. Verbal chat 22:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as a relatively uncontroversial categorisation, but given that Skomorokh disputes the cat, it would be helpful to add a supproting ref to the article. Guettarda (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Guettarda. Verbal, there is a discussion ongoing at the talkpage. I am sorry for pursuing the matter here after you had apparently tired of it, but the notion suggested by yourself and "CrohnieGal" above that categorisation need not be supported by reliable sources is dangerously wrong. Ciao, Skomorokh 03:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That said Skomorokh, calling the cat "slanderous" is probably an unhelpful escalation. You can get your point across quite adequately without it; including it tends to turn a difference of opinion into a dispute. Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to convey the idea that this identification may be derogatory, offensive and inaccurate; I can only imagine how a run-of-the-mill nationalist would feel at being associated with the genocidal Third Reich. English is not my first language, and evidently the adjective was misinterpreted as legalistic; the underlying point is what is important. Skomorokh 03:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto on "dangerously wrong". Adding an unref'd cat is like adding any other unref'd info. "Verifiable" is not the same as "verified". But characterising what Crohnie had to say as "dangerously wrong", when last I checked it isn't even technically wrong (though I realise I may be out of date on the policy regarding cats), is again, unhelpfully inflammatory. Guettarda (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea that one can add whichever one categories one pleases to an article without having that categorisation supported by reliably sourced claims in the article is certainly wrong, doubly so for controversial topics, and triply so for controversial topics involving living people. Allowing a popular POV masquerade as a neutral POV on such topics is dangerous to both the subjects and the encyclopaedia. I don't think this issue is being treated with the levity it merits. Skomorokh 03:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the issue needs to be taken more seriously, try using language that will be taken seriously. Your choice of language so far seems to be carefully chosen to ensure that you are not taken seriously. If you think the issue is serious, you should start by avoiding language that makes it look like you are trying to pick a fight.

To begin with, you start off by calling this "tendentious editing", which it clearly is not. When you arrive with fighting words, you make communication and civil discourse impossible. It's all the worse when your accusations are inaccurate, as they are here.

Next you alight upon the favourite buzzword of troublemakers: "slanderous". To begin with, it can't be slander if it's written, it's libel. In addition, not every negative statement about a person is "slanderous" - slander pertains to actionable defamation. Do you have any evidence that the statement is false? Statements that are true cannot be slander/libel. The factual accuracy isn't the issue here, is it? If you honestly thought the label to be slander (and I assume you used the term in good faith), it's simply going to make people defensive - it's everyone's favourite legal threat. Granted, your title did that already, but for future reference, it's easy to convey your message without using language like that. It does not make for civil communication, it does not get your message heard.

Similarly, calling Crohnie's statement "dangerously wrong" when it was technically right, is a bad idea. The only policy I see applicable here is WP:V; the notes on categorisation that you linked to are guidelines - they should be taken seriously by editors, they should be taken into consideration...but when you use them to bash other editors over the head (as you did here), it merely suggests that you aren't familiar with policy. If you want people to take you seriously, it's important that you be aware of that distinction.

Finally there's the issue of BLP. Based on my reading of WP:BLP, the policy applies to people, not organisations. Sure, the broader principles should apply, but just as you shouldn't pretend that guidelines are policy, you should be more circumspect about what you claim that policies say.

If you think you're dealing with a serious issue, bear in mind that you need to convince people, not bully them. You need to have a conversation. If you're absolutely right, but come across in this sort of a manner, no one is going to take you seriously. If you're correct, there's no need to pick fights. If you just want to pick fights, find another venue. All the best. Guettarda (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Guetterda for explaining things. I did find Skomorokh very combative in the way s/he stated things here and also at OrangeMarlin's talk page about this. And for the record, I misunderstood Skomorokh and thought s/he was saying that the category itself needed a ref to be applied. My apologies to you Skomorokh for this confusion which I caused. I think taking it to the talk page of the article is the best way to go and am glad this was decided. Again, thanks all for listening. --CrohnieGal 12:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Criticism of the Talmud

I can't seem to find the previous AfD for this; could you point me to it? Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was one, but on checking it was a G6 - so maybe there was one, but maybe not. I've endorsed the prod instead as I don't know which speedy to apply. Verbal chat 22:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't really a speedy that directly applies, other than mebbe a foolish admin taking IAR too far. Prodded should do it fine; I'm going to leave the guy a warning since he's been told off for this sorta thing before. Ironholds (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi,

I had contact with you through my edits to the Foo Fighters page (HIV denial section).

Please leave my edit as it is until the reliability board can assess my submission.

Also what area of study is your PHD in?

Mfl1992 (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the area of my PhD is mathematical physics and computer science. I did study philosophy previously, though more as an interest now (philosophy of QM is occasionally touched on in my research). Did you see the link to the foo fighters own site I left over at RSN? I'm a fan of the foo fighters so was a bit disappointed when I first read this, but anyone can be mislead. Verbal chat 12:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it seems they either do support that organisation, it is a shame that they are perpretuating what seems to be false premises regarding the connection between HIV/AIDS

Hmm nonetheless they are a good band. It seems that source was considered reliable by the RS board:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#FOO_FIGHTERS_HIV.2FAIDS_denialism

I will see if I can dig up some quotes but otherwise I am content to leave it be.

Regards

Mfl1992 (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I believe the anonymous IP is a sock of someone. Knows too much to be a simple IP anonymous editor. OrangeMarlin 18:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't make false statements about consensus in edit summaries

"Restore last consensus version" is false, because we don't have consensus. Either you know that, or you should, from reading the talk page. Dematt, Levine2112 and I aren't convinced. That's not consensus by any calculus.

Also, "Let's get consensus for removal of sourced material on talk" ignores WP:BURDEN. Burden is with those who want to include. You know that, or should.

As for "No more warring..", see WP:POT. Stop warring yourself, and stop reverting in the name of WP:BRD and actually discuss.

In short, please get your act together on that page to some small percentage of whatever it took to get whatever advanced degree you have. Engage for real, and stop making false/careless statements. Stop playing your fellow Wikipedians for fools. It's really fucking insulting, did you know that? --Backin72 (n.b.) 11:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks? Assume good faith? Is there a WP:GROW UP? Verbal chat 11:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm grown up enough not to make elementary mistakes that waste other users' time and insult their intelligence. WP:SPADE, dude. And please show me where I made a personal attack, or where I described your editing incorrectly. I will admit to being rather direct and forceful, but I'm not going to go out of my way to be nice to editors who treat me curtly. Civil, yes; nice, no.

This isn't NPA because I'm talking 100% about your edits, where you most certainly need to change some stuff, per evidence above. Stop misrepresenting consensus. Get straight on WP:BURDEN. Don't bullshit about BRD. Pretty please, with sugar on top, so we don't have to go further up the W:DR ladder. --Backin72 (n.b.) 11:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)