![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Welcome!
Hello, Weakopedia, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions
I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
You might also find these policies and guidelines useful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Getting the articles just right can be tricky - but there are lots of people to ask!
If you have any questions, just click on the Contact Me link after my signature at the end of this section. Alternatively, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question.
By the way, when you are writing on a discussion page (or someone's talk page), it is considered good manners to sign your comment... to do this, just add ~~~~
at the end of your comment. That will put your user name (Weakopedia) and the date/time at the end (or you can click on the
icon when you are editing. Never sign on an article page - only on a discussion page.
I am now going to add my signature, using ~~~~
: --
PhantomSteve (
Contact Me,
My Contribs)
07:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
You have an interesting viewpoint! However, it leaves me with one question: what, then, are reliable sources of information? If we can't use newspapers, magazines or government announcements, then what is left that would be counted as universally reliable?
Obviously, we can't rely on individuals to always be reliable in what they say are facts. You say that we can't use a lot of what Wikipedia currently considers to be reliable sources.
So, again, I ask: what sources would you count as reliable?
Regards, -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Regards, -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I have not forgotten your question - it's answering has led me across Wikipedia and through many other areas. I hope to have a suitable response soon. It is an interesting topic that deserves consideration! Regards. Weakopedia ( talk) 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There are several ways of getting help:
{{helpme}}
followed by your question - someone in the IRC help room will be over as soon as possible
Regards, --
PhantomSteve (
Contact Me,
My Contribs)
09:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It didn't turn out how I wanted, but I responded. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 12:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
So they did! An admin no less - did you read the advice printed at the end? It leads to a page describing how it is best to ignore incivility. However to get that far you first have to read his comments, which were not entirely civil. So what does that mean?! Is his advice for himself? Is it for the rest of us - is he saying to ignore him because he is uncivil? Goodness knows. Well, having looked at his user page it seems he is a master of incivility so I can only assume he carries the 'advice' pinned to his tail to cover himself for when people become annoyed by his attitude. Rest assured that if you become an admin you will already have an attitude far better than some of them! Weakopedia ( talk) 08:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time making anyone see reason in the above discussion - especially when most of those discussing, seemingly the most active contributors to the article (and the 'big city' game), don't want to see reason.
I agree with your user page intro; if I could add to that, I would say that Wikipedia contradicts itself in its very fundaments: How can it be seen as an authoritative source when the weight of authority and authoritative fact themselves are contested (as so often is the case) by the contributors themselves? Many articles here are a reflection of that politick; many are based on a collection of 'chosen' sources reflecting the viewpoint of the majority of an article's contributors, an article that too often tells a story that strays from objective fact or even reality. I've had a very long and direct experience with this in my contributions to the Paris article, believe me.
It is here that you will not only see the effect of the media on the opinion of the masses, but, within the contributions themselves, all the fallacies and aggressiveness of human competition: a selective "defensive reasoning" that chooses facts that best support the point of view being defended. This facet of public-wide contribution is both unscientific and immature, and cannot result in any article that can be trusted completely.
Perhaps it is along these lines that you should present your argument - your front page does have the tones of a conspiracy theory, and probably will be accused of being such by those who don't agree with you - for their lack of a more sound argument, no doubt. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you have really hit the nail on the head regarding articles about things that are close to people. Thanks to the media the general public sees more of celebrities than they do their own family. People know more about newscasters, politicians and actors than they do about cousins, aunts or neighbours. And yes, people become very offended when you challenge their perceptions of their 'heroes', the reason of course being that the identification is so strong that they see any challenge as one on their own personal belief system.
Your point about sourcing is also well taken. Wiki rules state that it doesn't matter if the sky is blue and everyone on earth can look out their window and observe that fact - it is only whenever the blueness of the sky become a topic for discussion in the media that it is of note and may be Wikified. This is worrying for two reasons - firstly that the media get to decide what is suitable for Wikipedia. Secondly if the media report instead that the sky is red, and are consistent in that, then Wikipedia has no choice but to report it as such.
I have been thinking of your remarks as I have searched through Wikipedia this last week. The Brazil article is interesting. One editor makes the point that he shall not believe anything he reads on the internet over something he can read in a book written by a reputable source. It is an interesting argument to present, especially whilst using it to expand an online document, but it certainly illustrates a point. The sources that Wikipedians use are required to be secondhand but by the time it reaches the internet the information is third or fourth hand at best. So the fact that everyone on earth can see the sky is blue AND there are multiple scientific studies showing that the sky is blue, there is consensus between all humans and the entire scientific community, for us to say so here would be considered 'original research' unless it is consistently reported on in the news, the secondary sources.
This really necessitates a review of the secondary sources permitted, which I don't see happening so much. Government and business are clever, they pioneered the use of psychology for manipulation. Government has a clear responsibility to protect the national interest, but they must often admit that this necessitates the use of subterfuge, propoganda and more. They even invented the term 'miss-spoke' for the things they feel obliged to say that are not necessarily accurate. Being publically accurate is not in their job description. More so with businesses which of course are considered living things with rights and responsibilities to themselves.
For me then there are two visions of Wiki - Wikipedia as is, and Wikipedia as it could be. If we go with Wikipedia as is then a lot of work needs to be done about the sourcing. It isn't good enough to be spoonfed your oppinion by the media. Just because the media all agree on something doesn't make it true. For Wikipedia 'as is' that needs to me made clear, that the opinions expressed within are NOT the opinions of milliuons of editors but simply the opinions of those behind the media. And the sources should be investigated thoroughly, they are the whole basis for this website. Where they can be shown to have been inaccurate they should be dropped, no matter how big and official sounding they are. And the fact that the media say that another media source is reliable should not matter - Wikipedia might not be making claims of it's own but it is claiming that it's sourcing policy is adequate so that is what it needs to work on. At least this would be an honest Wikipedia, admitting what it is and trying to clear up it's mess.
I wonder though just how much Wikipedia would be left if we couldn't use sources that have shown to have misrepresented or skewed facts in the past. And then of course there is the problem of ommission - if the reliable media don't talk about it, it isn't news, isn't notable and isn't for Wiki.
Which makes me consider Wiki 'as it could be'. I read an article likening Wiki to a huge online role playing game, and that is exactly how many people here play it. Out of all the users only 1% play the game, but if you look through the user pages you can see them trying to 'level up' to sysop status and beyond. Wiki is a giant experiment in social activity in my opinion and the rules have been very cleverly worded to give them a framework to achieve their goals. Many users even abandon all notion of content and focus specifically on the rules of the game, and those rules are designed for the media led majority.
This means that every blogger, every website on earth can say the sky is blue, but the spoonfed majority still get to print the medias assertion that it is in fact red as fact. You can see it in most articles - there is continual disagreement with the parties pushing each other into 'conspiracy theorist' and 'conformist' camps.
I think Wiki should either fess up to what it is, not the opinion of the majority but the opinion of the media, or it should go all the way and become the giant social experiemnt it really is, allow more sources and go to town with the arguing.
By chance I was given a library, maybe 3,000 books covering 300 years of opinion, economics, science and government. I opened a random book from 1924 which was like the Wikipedia of it's day, reporting on subjects that had received much media attention in the preceeding period using media articles as sources. The first article was an expose of how international financiers had channeled funds through Britain to neutral countried during WW1 where it was distributed directly to the Germans with the full understanding and blessing of the British government, an act which prolonged the war by three years no less. The second article was describing how sunspot activity worked on a 35 year cycle and to expect global warming during the latter part of the century.
During the recent 'Climategate' affair I went looking through the alleged emails at random, picking out storylines and following them through. One which brought me amusement were scientists lamenting that certain officials seemed to get their scientific information directly from Wikipedia. I laughed, however I share their concern.
There are rays of hope - there are many editors and admins who are genuinely trying to contribute to something for everyone. However I believe that the underlying idea they are working for is flawed, and even if they brave the pitfalls of being a Wikipedian in theend they have only helped create an illusion of a global encyclopedia. Weakopedia ( talk) 12:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am preparing to file a complaint about this situation. I am collecting these diffs because I am trying to sort out what has been done and to figure out how to document what I need. I believe one of the admin in this situation has acted inappropriately. I am not inflaming any situation, nor do I intend to, etc. I am very upset about what has transpired and I want to show these to another admin and get advice about how to follow up with a complaint. Thank you for your concern, but it seems all of you are responding to these diffs because your friend Daedalus969 is complaining about them and claiming that they are there to somehow disrespect him. This is not true. Malke 2010 12:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that page may have been nominated previously for MfD, but I don't feel like looking around to see for sure. Editors are usually given a lot of leeway in what they can have in their userspace. If he's not mentioning any real names or going overboard with the personal attacks, it's probably ok to let him be. Of course, editors can consider that page along with other evidence when judging the overall value that Mr. Connolley brings to Wikipedia. Cla68 ( talk) 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
You seem reasonable, I want to discuss the dispute with you. The problem is that :Misconceptions2 is not willing to provide one secondary, reliable source for every assasination attempt claim. If that not provided I think a section about an attempt full of primary and unreliable sources is worthless. Sole Soul ( talk) 16:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For cracking me up with your reply at PhantomSteve's RFA. Hilarious and brilliant. -- Atama 頭 17:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop doing that. If it's out of place someone else will remove it. -- TS 18:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Weakopedia. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Calcott (car), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No source of copyright provided. Thank you. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I've rolled-back your reversion of another contributers edits, as the edit in question was to correct the incorrect information that was not supported by the reference that was already provided. Thedarxide ( talk) 07:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the confusion as we were both simultaneously at work there and your note was certainly appropriate and called for. I wish I had thought to do so myself...and I'm finished (I think) for now. Thanks -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 21:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate and support your recent edits of the WND article. However, as they appear to directly relate to the "POV" dispute previously initiated by User:24.40.158.36, perhaps you might consider moving your remarks to that specific section in support of that discussion?
Also, as you have, and I believe appropriately so, both noted and edited the article content for "WP:OR" shortcomings, perhaps you might also wish to consider appending an "OR" designation to the section dispute title (which user:24.40.158.36 neglected to do) and/or an "OR" tag to the article section itself should you deem it to be still deficient or worthy of further consideration in that regard. Thanks in advance for your consideration. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 15:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I reinserted nothing; I merely removed a separate piece of rather obvious vandalism. Upon closer inspection, you were right to remove what you did, but given that I didn't touch it (and the content has been there over five years, owch!), I'm not sure why you felt the need to warn me. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC).
Good Work! Weaponbb7 ( talk) 16:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I noted that you have removed the section dispute "Fact" tag I had placed within the WND "Controversy" section and have deleted the "unreliable" text and citation needed tag. May I ask your indulgence to please reconsider that edit? For several reasons?
As I mentioned in the WND discussion earlier, I am rather deeply involved in an RS/N directly related to the subject of WND "reliability" and the now-unsourced allegation of "unreliable" that you have deleted was serving quite effectively to demonstrate my contention that the "unreliable" assertion has little or no sourcing to substantiate that allegation. There should be no great rush to correct that rather glaring deficiency (it most certainly can attain some editorial consensus, one way or the other, in the immediate future) and I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your deletion in that light.
I am also of the opinion (and I'd daresay somewhat widely held within the Wikipedia community) that the immediate removal of text recently rendered "unsupported" by the challenge and/or removal of purportedly illegitimate sourcing is generally not good practice. As I stated earlier, editors who might support that "unreliable" WND characterization should be afforded a reasonable window of opportunity to defend and support the edit with appropriate citation & sourcing. The "citation needed" tag is both a petition and a courtesy to any editor who might be inclined to do so.
Also, and from a more genteel approach to dealing with tags in general, it is probably a better idea not to remove tags from an article placed by an editor or even possibly supported in its continued application by another editor (I'm losing track of who placed what & when) who is actively involved in a discussion of the relevant issue without first commenting on your intention within the active discussion related to that tag itself. Had you done so before removing it, I would have expressed my opinion that the tag is STILL warranted given the demonstrable shoddiness of the article composition.
There IS a method to the madness.
Whaddya think? -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 16:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, you just left me a note on original research with the message
"Logic dictating" isn't proof. Assuming it is, is original research. If you can find some proof and citation that he has won additional medals I would be happy to include it. = You further wrote
Which is true, I have sourced the citation from citation from KMSP/FOX 9 Minneapolis if you can find an additional source please post it. If not do not vandalize the page by removing it.
I haven't. Please do not remove any more material that has been sourced. Thank you. V7-sport ( talk) 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
I see your point. I reiterate that, at the time, the edit struck me as vandalism, and that I was on vandalism patrol, and am not interested in editing this article's content. I apologise for any problems this has caused. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contributions you might have in this matter. Thanks. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 18:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I was perhaps a little brusquer with her than I would be otherwise, since her efforts here are so clearly conflict of interest violations: i.e., writing about her father; and she doesn't seem to get why this is a problem here. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed your removal of my warning. You are right. What would you consider to be a more proper warning template to accompany this revert?. DVdm ( talk) 07:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Weakopedia, I got your message. The word "myth" is a POV term and per NPOV cannot remain. NPOV is one of our pillars and is, by it's own definition, not changeable by consensus, vote, etc.... I have changed it twice today and will not touch it for the rest of the day. I belive my change is done per policy --- but I'm always open to talking about it! :) 17:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the recent attacks made against you, if you wish to take appropriate action against the party in question, I have reams of evidence myself to include, as he's now graduated to the level of Wikistalking. Fell Gleaming( talk) 13:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Weak, I think you have raised some good points about the problems with the Info Box on that article. I have added some comments and referenced some additional Wiki policies that I think the current Info Box contradicts. If you like you can follow up by visiting the article talk page. Cheers! -- — Kbob • Talk • 17:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. Bearian ( talk) 19:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep it up. -- Vimbo Gales ( talk) 00:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Weak, thanks for the comments on the RfC. I wouldn't have gone to the trouble so quickly but the two particular editors are not easy to have a give and take with. Especially this fellow: [2]. So I'd appreciate it if you would stick around. I am going to get back with the references. Thanks so much, Malke 2010 16:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If they remove well-cited information from the article then you can do something about it - right now they are a bit rude, you have a disagreement over category interpretation, but they aren't deleting citations. If you do the work, and they undo it, it will be all the more clear who has the agenda here, and will be easier to remedy that.
Did I mistake it's probation status? I really thought it was under probation - oh well, civility is important whether it is under probation or not. I guess I am interested in too many things that are under probation.
And yes, you are correct that it says his religions should be related to his notability, which in fact probably means that what you wish to include is fine, especially if you write it up first in the main article. I would say that the best thing is to make sure the article documents his religious status (which is obviously important) and then try again to edit the infobox. Weakopedia ( talk) 03:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Welcome!
Hello, Weakopedia, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions
I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
You might also find these policies and guidelines useful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Getting the articles just right can be tricky - but there are lots of people to ask!
If you have any questions, just click on the Contact Me link after my signature at the end of this section. Alternatively, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question.
By the way, when you are writing on a discussion page (or someone's talk page), it is considered good manners to sign your comment... to do this, just add ~~~~
at the end of your comment. That will put your user name (Weakopedia) and the date/time at the end (or you can click on the
icon when you are editing. Never sign on an article page - only on a discussion page.
I am now going to add my signature, using ~~~~
: --
PhantomSteve (
Contact Me,
My Contribs)
07:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
You have an interesting viewpoint! However, it leaves me with one question: what, then, are reliable sources of information? If we can't use newspapers, magazines or government announcements, then what is left that would be counted as universally reliable?
Obviously, we can't rely on individuals to always be reliable in what they say are facts. You say that we can't use a lot of what Wikipedia currently considers to be reliable sources.
So, again, I ask: what sources would you count as reliable?
Regards, -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Regards, -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I have not forgotten your question - it's answering has led me across Wikipedia and through many other areas. I hope to have a suitable response soon. It is an interesting topic that deserves consideration! Regards. Weakopedia ( talk) 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There are several ways of getting help:
{{helpme}}
followed by your question - someone in the IRC help room will be over as soon as possible
Regards, --
PhantomSteve (
Contact Me,
My Contribs)
09:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It didn't turn out how I wanted, but I responded. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 12:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
So they did! An admin no less - did you read the advice printed at the end? It leads to a page describing how it is best to ignore incivility. However to get that far you first have to read his comments, which were not entirely civil. So what does that mean?! Is his advice for himself? Is it for the rest of us - is he saying to ignore him because he is uncivil? Goodness knows. Well, having looked at his user page it seems he is a master of incivility so I can only assume he carries the 'advice' pinned to his tail to cover himself for when people become annoyed by his attitude. Rest assured that if you become an admin you will already have an attitude far better than some of them! Weakopedia ( talk) 08:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time making anyone see reason in the above discussion - especially when most of those discussing, seemingly the most active contributors to the article (and the 'big city' game), don't want to see reason.
I agree with your user page intro; if I could add to that, I would say that Wikipedia contradicts itself in its very fundaments: How can it be seen as an authoritative source when the weight of authority and authoritative fact themselves are contested (as so often is the case) by the contributors themselves? Many articles here are a reflection of that politick; many are based on a collection of 'chosen' sources reflecting the viewpoint of the majority of an article's contributors, an article that too often tells a story that strays from objective fact or even reality. I've had a very long and direct experience with this in my contributions to the Paris article, believe me.
It is here that you will not only see the effect of the media on the opinion of the masses, but, within the contributions themselves, all the fallacies and aggressiveness of human competition: a selective "defensive reasoning" that chooses facts that best support the point of view being defended. This facet of public-wide contribution is both unscientific and immature, and cannot result in any article that can be trusted completely.
Perhaps it is along these lines that you should present your argument - your front page does have the tones of a conspiracy theory, and probably will be accused of being such by those who don't agree with you - for their lack of a more sound argument, no doubt. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you have really hit the nail on the head regarding articles about things that are close to people. Thanks to the media the general public sees more of celebrities than they do their own family. People know more about newscasters, politicians and actors than they do about cousins, aunts or neighbours. And yes, people become very offended when you challenge their perceptions of their 'heroes', the reason of course being that the identification is so strong that they see any challenge as one on their own personal belief system.
Your point about sourcing is also well taken. Wiki rules state that it doesn't matter if the sky is blue and everyone on earth can look out their window and observe that fact - it is only whenever the blueness of the sky become a topic for discussion in the media that it is of note and may be Wikified. This is worrying for two reasons - firstly that the media get to decide what is suitable for Wikipedia. Secondly if the media report instead that the sky is red, and are consistent in that, then Wikipedia has no choice but to report it as such.
I have been thinking of your remarks as I have searched through Wikipedia this last week. The Brazil article is interesting. One editor makes the point that he shall not believe anything he reads on the internet over something he can read in a book written by a reputable source. It is an interesting argument to present, especially whilst using it to expand an online document, but it certainly illustrates a point. The sources that Wikipedians use are required to be secondhand but by the time it reaches the internet the information is third or fourth hand at best. So the fact that everyone on earth can see the sky is blue AND there are multiple scientific studies showing that the sky is blue, there is consensus between all humans and the entire scientific community, for us to say so here would be considered 'original research' unless it is consistently reported on in the news, the secondary sources.
This really necessitates a review of the secondary sources permitted, which I don't see happening so much. Government and business are clever, they pioneered the use of psychology for manipulation. Government has a clear responsibility to protect the national interest, but they must often admit that this necessitates the use of subterfuge, propoganda and more. They even invented the term 'miss-spoke' for the things they feel obliged to say that are not necessarily accurate. Being publically accurate is not in their job description. More so with businesses which of course are considered living things with rights and responsibilities to themselves.
For me then there are two visions of Wiki - Wikipedia as is, and Wikipedia as it could be. If we go with Wikipedia as is then a lot of work needs to be done about the sourcing. It isn't good enough to be spoonfed your oppinion by the media. Just because the media all agree on something doesn't make it true. For Wikipedia 'as is' that needs to me made clear, that the opinions expressed within are NOT the opinions of milliuons of editors but simply the opinions of those behind the media. And the sources should be investigated thoroughly, they are the whole basis for this website. Where they can be shown to have been inaccurate they should be dropped, no matter how big and official sounding they are. And the fact that the media say that another media source is reliable should not matter - Wikipedia might not be making claims of it's own but it is claiming that it's sourcing policy is adequate so that is what it needs to work on. At least this would be an honest Wikipedia, admitting what it is and trying to clear up it's mess.
I wonder though just how much Wikipedia would be left if we couldn't use sources that have shown to have misrepresented or skewed facts in the past. And then of course there is the problem of ommission - if the reliable media don't talk about it, it isn't news, isn't notable and isn't for Wiki.
Which makes me consider Wiki 'as it could be'. I read an article likening Wiki to a huge online role playing game, and that is exactly how many people here play it. Out of all the users only 1% play the game, but if you look through the user pages you can see them trying to 'level up' to sysop status and beyond. Wiki is a giant experiment in social activity in my opinion and the rules have been very cleverly worded to give them a framework to achieve their goals. Many users even abandon all notion of content and focus specifically on the rules of the game, and those rules are designed for the media led majority.
This means that every blogger, every website on earth can say the sky is blue, but the spoonfed majority still get to print the medias assertion that it is in fact red as fact. You can see it in most articles - there is continual disagreement with the parties pushing each other into 'conspiracy theorist' and 'conformist' camps.
I think Wiki should either fess up to what it is, not the opinion of the majority but the opinion of the media, or it should go all the way and become the giant social experiemnt it really is, allow more sources and go to town with the arguing.
By chance I was given a library, maybe 3,000 books covering 300 years of opinion, economics, science and government. I opened a random book from 1924 which was like the Wikipedia of it's day, reporting on subjects that had received much media attention in the preceeding period using media articles as sources. The first article was an expose of how international financiers had channeled funds through Britain to neutral countried during WW1 where it was distributed directly to the Germans with the full understanding and blessing of the British government, an act which prolonged the war by three years no less. The second article was describing how sunspot activity worked on a 35 year cycle and to expect global warming during the latter part of the century.
During the recent 'Climategate' affair I went looking through the alleged emails at random, picking out storylines and following them through. One which brought me amusement were scientists lamenting that certain officials seemed to get their scientific information directly from Wikipedia. I laughed, however I share their concern.
There are rays of hope - there are many editors and admins who are genuinely trying to contribute to something for everyone. However I believe that the underlying idea they are working for is flawed, and even if they brave the pitfalls of being a Wikipedian in theend they have only helped create an illusion of a global encyclopedia. Weakopedia ( talk) 12:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I am preparing to file a complaint about this situation. I am collecting these diffs because I am trying to sort out what has been done and to figure out how to document what I need. I believe one of the admin in this situation has acted inappropriately. I am not inflaming any situation, nor do I intend to, etc. I am very upset about what has transpired and I want to show these to another admin and get advice about how to follow up with a complaint. Thank you for your concern, but it seems all of you are responding to these diffs because your friend Daedalus969 is complaining about them and claiming that they are there to somehow disrespect him. This is not true. Malke 2010 12:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that page may have been nominated previously for MfD, but I don't feel like looking around to see for sure. Editors are usually given a lot of leeway in what they can have in their userspace. If he's not mentioning any real names or going overboard with the personal attacks, it's probably ok to let him be. Of course, editors can consider that page along with other evidence when judging the overall value that Mr. Connolley brings to Wikipedia. Cla68 ( talk) 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
You seem reasonable, I want to discuss the dispute with you. The problem is that :Misconceptions2 is not willing to provide one secondary, reliable source for every assasination attempt claim. If that not provided I think a section about an attempt full of primary and unreliable sources is worthless. Sole Soul ( talk) 16:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For cracking me up with your reply at PhantomSteve's RFA. Hilarious and brilliant. -- Atama 頭 17:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop doing that. If it's out of place someone else will remove it. -- TS 18:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Weakopedia. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Calcott (car), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No source of copyright provided. Thank you. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I've rolled-back your reversion of another contributers edits, as the edit in question was to correct the incorrect information that was not supported by the reference that was already provided. Thedarxide ( talk) 07:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the confusion as we were both simultaneously at work there and your note was certainly appropriate and called for. I wish I had thought to do so myself...and I'm finished (I think) for now. Thanks -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 21:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate and support your recent edits of the WND article. However, as they appear to directly relate to the "POV" dispute previously initiated by User:24.40.158.36, perhaps you might consider moving your remarks to that specific section in support of that discussion?
Also, as you have, and I believe appropriately so, both noted and edited the article content for "WP:OR" shortcomings, perhaps you might also wish to consider appending an "OR" designation to the section dispute title (which user:24.40.158.36 neglected to do) and/or an "OR" tag to the article section itself should you deem it to be still deficient or worthy of further consideration in that regard. Thanks in advance for your consideration. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 15:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I reinserted nothing; I merely removed a separate piece of rather obvious vandalism. Upon closer inspection, you were right to remove what you did, but given that I didn't touch it (and the content has been there over five years, owch!), I'm not sure why you felt the need to warn me. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC).
Good Work! Weaponbb7 ( talk) 16:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I noted that you have removed the section dispute "Fact" tag I had placed within the WND "Controversy" section and have deleted the "unreliable" text and citation needed tag. May I ask your indulgence to please reconsider that edit? For several reasons?
As I mentioned in the WND discussion earlier, I am rather deeply involved in an RS/N directly related to the subject of WND "reliability" and the now-unsourced allegation of "unreliable" that you have deleted was serving quite effectively to demonstrate my contention that the "unreliable" assertion has little or no sourcing to substantiate that allegation. There should be no great rush to correct that rather glaring deficiency (it most certainly can attain some editorial consensus, one way or the other, in the immediate future) and I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your deletion in that light.
I am also of the opinion (and I'd daresay somewhat widely held within the Wikipedia community) that the immediate removal of text recently rendered "unsupported" by the challenge and/or removal of purportedly illegitimate sourcing is generally not good practice. As I stated earlier, editors who might support that "unreliable" WND characterization should be afforded a reasonable window of opportunity to defend and support the edit with appropriate citation & sourcing. The "citation needed" tag is both a petition and a courtesy to any editor who might be inclined to do so.
Also, and from a more genteel approach to dealing with tags in general, it is probably a better idea not to remove tags from an article placed by an editor or even possibly supported in its continued application by another editor (I'm losing track of who placed what & when) who is actively involved in a discussion of the relevant issue without first commenting on your intention within the active discussion related to that tag itself. Had you done so before removing it, I would have expressed my opinion that the tag is STILL warranted given the demonstrable shoddiness of the article composition.
There IS a method to the madness.
Whaddya think? -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 16:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, you just left me a note on original research with the message
"Logic dictating" isn't proof. Assuming it is, is original research. If you can find some proof and citation that he has won additional medals I would be happy to include it. = You further wrote
Which is true, I have sourced the citation from citation from KMSP/FOX 9 Minneapolis if you can find an additional source please post it. If not do not vandalize the page by removing it.
I haven't. Please do not remove any more material that has been sourced. Thank you. V7-sport ( talk) 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
I see your point. I reiterate that, at the time, the edit struck me as vandalism, and that I was on vandalism patrol, and am not interested in editing this article's content. I apologise for any problems this has caused. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contributions you might have in this matter. Thanks. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 18:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I was perhaps a little brusquer with her than I would be otherwise, since her efforts here are so clearly conflict of interest violations: i.e., writing about her father; and she doesn't seem to get why this is a problem here. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed your removal of my warning. You are right. What would you consider to be a more proper warning template to accompany this revert?. DVdm ( talk) 07:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Weakopedia, I got your message. The word "myth" is a POV term and per NPOV cannot remain. NPOV is one of our pillars and is, by it's own definition, not changeable by consensus, vote, etc.... I have changed it twice today and will not touch it for the rest of the day. I belive my change is done per policy --- but I'm always open to talking about it! :) 17:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the recent attacks made against you, if you wish to take appropriate action against the party in question, I have reams of evidence myself to include, as he's now graduated to the level of Wikistalking. Fell Gleaming( talk) 13:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Weak, I think you have raised some good points about the problems with the Info Box on that article. I have added some comments and referenced some additional Wiki policies that I think the current Info Box contradicts. If you like you can follow up by visiting the article talk page. Cheers! -- — Kbob • Talk • 17:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. Bearian ( talk) 19:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep it up. -- Vimbo Gales ( talk) 00:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Weak, thanks for the comments on the RfC. I wouldn't have gone to the trouble so quickly but the two particular editors are not easy to have a give and take with. Especially this fellow: [2]. So I'd appreciate it if you would stick around. I am going to get back with the references. Thanks so much, Malke 2010 16:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If they remove well-cited information from the article then you can do something about it - right now they are a bit rude, you have a disagreement over category interpretation, but they aren't deleting citations. If you do the work, and they undo it, it will be all the more clear who has the agenda here, and will be easier to remedy that.
Did I mistake it's probation status? I really thought it was under probation - oh well, civility is important whether it is under probation or not. I guess I am interested in too many things that are under probation.
And yes, you are correct that it says his religions should be related to his notability, which in fact probably means that what you wish to include is fine, especially if you write it up first in the main article. I would say that the best thing is to make sure the article documents his religious status (which is obviously important) and then try again to edit the infobox. Weakopedia ( talk) 03:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)