I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development will be appreciated. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The second edit was unintentional, as I thought I’d done something wrong and it simply hadn’t updated.
I do not know how to add the citation the information regarding his arrest came from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and is listed on a local page which displays local arrests.
if you can tell me how to add the citation, I will do so.
This is the link.
(Redacted)
I am not a random person, I know Shane and his family personally. It wasn’t my intent to unfactually defame him but rather give a more accurate glimpse at who he is. 2601:203:284:C70:5C2E:3499:E6BC:2CA9 ( talk) 22:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please see
WP:BLPCRIME and
WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. ... A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk) 22:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. Thank you for clarifying. 2601:203:284:C70:5C2E:3499:E6BC:2CA9 ( talk) 22:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey! I was pleasantly surprised to see your name popping up in my feed for yesterday's episode of Better Offline, I really enjoyed listening to it! Was great to hear somebody talking on a public platform about how Wikipedia works and why it's so important. I particularly enjoyed the discussion towards the end about the rise of AI and the 'enshitification' of the internet, and why that has made maintaining Wikipedia is so important in this context. When I started editing a few years ago, I had similar thoughts about the oligopolisation of the internet by big social media companies, but now with AI and the dead internet theory, having a community-based source of reliable information is all the more vital.
I do hope this leads to more people contributing to the platform, as Ed Zitron pleaded for at the end; a recent feature by The Guardian succeeded in bringing at least one or two new people into the Women in Red project, so I'm really pleased to see folk actively promoting more people getting involved. Anyway, I digress. Thank you so much for doing this podcast episode, I really appreciated it. :) -- Grnrchst ( talk) 10:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bounced onto here to say thanks as well, I parasocially knew you before EdZ, but was happy to see your name pop up. tedder ( talk) 04:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both, I'm so glad to hear it's being well received! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm reaching out to you as a new page reviewer. I noticed you just deleted the page Miyosmart as A7 within three minutes of the page creation. Can you explain your reasoning? Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 00:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the page made no credible claim of notability and lacked any references. It was created by a user whose only other contributions have been vandalism and apparently trying to game autopatrolled.
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk) 00:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Given that the article had just been created (by a very new user) and it didn't appear to be outright vandalism, why not let it sit for at least an hour (or send to draft) to see if the editor improves it? A quick Google Scholar search shows multiple hits for the lenses. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 00:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Further, the lenses are a product, which do not qualify under A7.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (
talk) 00:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted it rather than moved it to draft per
WP:DRAFTIFY. However, since you seem interested in working on it, I've draftified it. You're right that it's a product — that's my mistake, I misread it to be the name of the company. Best of luck with the article.
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Mostly, I was just curious about your decision as I had saw it pop up during a page review, and I went in to copy edit and format, then it had been deleted before I could publish, which was surprising. At NPP, we have a guideline to wait at least an hour to recommend deletion and/or draftify unless there are serious content concerns to avoid being bitey. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 00:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted it rather than moved it to draft per
WP:DRAFTIFY. However, since you seem interested in working on it, I've draftified it. You're right that it's a product — that's my mistake, I misread it to be the name of the company. Best of luck with the article.
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Is it okay if I recreate draft article (about fever dreams), that was deleted by you in 2023? This time I have better sources. (User Masem advised me to ask this question from the admin who deleted the article.) -- Pek ( talk) 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would recommend drafting it first, and going through
WP:AFC. I'm concerned that you don't seem to have a much better grasp of the sources needed for new articles (a concern I see is shared by some others, e.g.
User talk:Pek#New articles and sourcing), and especially with topics that brush up against
WP:MEDRS I think it would be best if there was a second set of eyes on the article before it went to mainspace. If another editor reviews it and finds it acceptable, I certainly have no qualms with the page being recreated at that point.
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk) 17:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I made an draft article. Could you please review it, check if the sources are good enough and if they are, could you move it to mainspace?
Here is the article. --
Pek (
talk) 11:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I see Drmies has already left you some feedback, which is pretty much what I would have said. I have to say I'm disappointed to see that, although you've swapped out a few sources, the article is largely the same poor quality as your previous attempt. I'm really not sure where the disconnect is here, but can you not see the vast difference between the types of sources you've used in this draft and the types of sources used in high quality medical articles like, say, Oxygen toxicity?
- Popsci sources like Discover's "Bizarre Fever Dreams Are Common, But Science Hasn't Figured Out Why", or sources from mattress companies, are not WP:MEDRS — and the latter are probably not even plain WP:RS. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I made an draft article. Could you please review it, check if the sources are good enough and if they are, could you move it to mainspace?
Here is the article. --
Pek (
talk) 11:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Care to explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.174.63.111 ( talk) 15:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Happily. Wikipedia must adhere to a
neutral point of view, and editorializing a person's tweet as "celebrat[ing] news of the indiscriminate killings" based on the tweet itself (
WP:OR) and an op-ed in an unreliable source falls far short of NPOV, not to mention
WP:BLP sourcing requirements.
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why not edit the contribution so it fits within NPOV? I think it's hardly OR that the tweet was made and picked up in the press by more than one source.
[1] As the qoute states, in response to his tweet the UK governments antisemitism offered his own advice. The author of the tweet has not distanced himself from it either - quite the opposite. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
201.174.63.111 (
talk) 16:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- The onus is on you to find the proper sourcing, and The Sun absolutely isn't it ( WP:THESUN). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why not edit the contribution so it fits within NPOV? I think it's hardly OR that the tweet was made and picked up in the press by more than one source.
[1] As the qoute states, in response to his tweet the UK governments antisemitism offered his own advice. The author of the tweet has not distanced himself from it either - quite the opposite. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
201.174.63.111 (
talk) 16:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
References
-
^ Sleigh, Sophia (7 October 2023).
"Keir Starmer under pressure to stop anti-Israel event at Labour conference". The Sun. Retrieved 28 April 2024.
{{ cite news}}: Unknown parameter|qoute=ignored ( help)
- So, the tweet itself is not a source, nor are the hundreds of tweets since, and neither is any mentioning of the tweet in the press, neither an op-Ed, not straight forward report with qoutes from UK political figures such as Lord Mann responding to the tweet? The understanding of the SUN being a non-RS is to do with unreliable reporting of events as to whether they occured, but that tweet occured. It's in the public domain, on the internet archive. Anyone with an internet connection anywhere in the world can view it. How can this not be added to the article?
201.174.63.111 (
talk) 16:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- There are two issues here: the inclusion of the tweet in the article, and then — if included — how the tweet is described. We should first tackle whether the tweet should be included. In order to justify including it, you need a reliable source, or preferably several, to support that it's noteworthy enough to include in encyclopedia article about the organization. If the mere existence of a tweet was enough to justify inclusion, as you note, there would be hundreds of them in any article about a subject with a Twitter account (or, in this case, many hundreds of tweets in articles about organizations that have employees who tweet). So far you have not been able to come up with any reliable sources. The Sun is so unreliable it has been deprecated from being used at all. If you would like to argue about that, take it to WP:RSN, but in the meantime you'll need better sourcing.
- Please recall that people tweet all the time, and political figures respond to tweets all the time. Wikipedia is not a repository for documenting every Twitter spat that's ever happened; it's for describing subjects in an encyclopedic fashion. If there is substantial reliable coverage of a tweet, it can potentially be included, but I'm not seeing that here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand? Without getting into a debate of whether The Sun is a generally a RS, I think you need to answer some specific questions in relation to this article: Did The Sun invent that a) the tweet occured b) the tweet's contents c) that Pawel Wargen was its author d) that Pawel Wargen is Progressive International's coordinator of its secretariat e) that Lord Mann as the government's antisemtism adivsor responded with a qoute in the article f) that Progressive International was organising a fringe event at the Labour Party conference?
- So, the tweet itself is not a source, nor are the hundreds of tweets since, and neither is any mentioning of the tweet in the press, neither an op-Ed, not straight forward report with qoutes from UK political figures such as Lord Mann responding to the tweet? The understanding of the SUN being a non-RS is to do with unreliable reporting of events as to whether they occured, but that tweet occured. It's in the public domain, on the internet archive. Anyone with an internet connection anywhere in the world can view it. How can this not be added to the article?
201.174.63.111 (
talk) 16:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Pawel Wargan is the coordinator of the organisation's secretariat, I'd say that would lead it to meet notability guidelines. I think any other conclusion would be almost perverse, but that's me. 201.174.63.111 ( talk) 16:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
wdym reddit is unreliable? it's literally where all the discussion from the beginning was taking place and where it was officially announced it was found? tf? what source do you want then? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2001:BB8:2003:D:455:305C:EF88:7EC0 (
talk) 16:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development will be appreciated. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The second edit was unintentional, as I thought I’d done something wrong and it simply hadn’t updated.
I do not know how to add the citation the information regarding his arrest came from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and is listed on a local page which displays local arrests.
if you can tell me how to add the citation, I will do so.
This is the link.
(Redacted)
I am not a random person, I know Shane and his family personally. It wasn’t my intent to unfactually defame him but rather give a more accurate glimpse at who he is. 2601:203:284:C70:5C2E:3499:E6BC:2CA9 ( talk) 22:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please see
WP:BLPCRIME and
WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. ... A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk) 22:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. Thank you for clarifying. 2601:203:284:C70:5C2E:3499:E6BC:2CA9 ( talk) 22:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey! I was pleasantly surprised to see your name popping up in my feed for yesterday's episode of Better Offline, I really enjoyed listening to it! Was great to hear somebody talking on a public platform about how Wikipedia works and why it's so important. I particularly enjoyed the discussion towards the end about the rise of AI and the 'enshitification' of the internet, and why that has made maintaining Wikipedia is so important in this context. When I started editing a few years ago, I had similar thoughts about the oligopolisation of the internet by big social media companies, but now with AI and the dead internet theory, having a community-based source of reliable information is all the more vital.
I do hope this leads to more people contributing to the platform, as Ed Zitron pleaded for at the end; a recent feature by The Guardian succeeded in bringing at least one or two new people into the Women in Red project, so I'm really pleased to see folk actively promoting more people getting involved. Anyway, I digress. Thank you so much for doing this podcast episode, I really appreciated it. :) -- Grnrchst ( talk) 10:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bounced onto here to say thanks as well, I parasocially knew you before EdZ, but was happy to see your name pop up. tedder ( talk) 04:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both, I'm so glad to hear it's being well received! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm reaching out to you as a new page reviewer. I noticed you just deleted the page Miyosmart as A7 within three minutes of the page creation. Can you explain your reasoning? Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 00:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the page made no credible claim of notability and lacked any references. It was created by a user whose only other contributions have been vandalism and apparently trying to game autopatrolled.
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk) 00:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Given that the article had just been created (by a very new user) and it didn't appear to be outright vandalism, why not let it sit for at least an hour (or send to draft) to see if the editor improves it? A quick Google Scholar search shows multiple hits for the lenses. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 00:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Further, the lenses are a product, which do not qualify under A7.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (
talk) 00:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted it rather than moved it to draft per
WP:DRAFTIFY. However, since you seem interested in working on it, I've draftified it. You're right that it's a product — that's my mistake, I misread it to be the name of the company. Best of luck with the article.
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Mostly, I was just curious about your decision as I had saw it pop up during a page review, and I went in to copy edit and format, then it had been deleted before I could publish, which was surprising. At NPP, we have a guideline to wait at least an hour to recommend deletion and/or draftify unless there are serious content concerns to avoid being bitey. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 00:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I deleted it rather than moved it to draft per
WP:DRAFTIFY. However, since you seem interested in working on it, I've draftified it. You're right that it's a product — that's my mistake, I misread it to be the name of the company. Best of luck with the article.
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Is it okay if I recreate draft article (about fever dreams), that was deleted by you in 2023? This time I have better sources. (User Masem advised me to ask this question from the admin who deleted the article.) -- Pek ( talk) 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would recommend drafting it first, and going through
WP:AFC. I'm concerned that you don't seem to have a much better grasp of the sources needed for new articles (a concern I see is shared by some others, e.g.
User talk:Pek#New articles and sourcing), and especially with topics that brush up against
WP:MEDRS I think it would be best if there was a second set of eyes on the article before it went to mainspace. If another editor reviews it and finds it acceptable, I certainly have no qualms with the page being recreated at that point.
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk) 17:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I made an draft article. Could you please review it, check if the sources are good enough and if they are, could you move it to mainspace?
Here is the article. --
Pek (
talk) 11:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I see Drmies has already left you some feedback, which is pretty much what I would have said. I have to say I'm disappointed to see that, although you've swapped out a few sources, the article is largely the same poor quality as your previous attempt. I'm really not sure where the disconnect is here, but can you not see the vast difference between the types of sources you've used in this draft and the types of sources used in high quality medical articles like, say, Oxygen toxicity?
- Popsci sources like Discover's "Bizarre Fever Dreams Are Common, But Science Hasn't Figured Out Why", or sources from mattress companies, are not WP:MEDRS — and the latter are probably not even plain WP:RS. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I made an draft article. Could you please review it, check if the sources are good enough and if they are, could you move it to mainspace?
Here is the article. --
Pek (
talk) 11:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Care to explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.174.63.111 ( talk) 15:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Happily. Wikipedia must adhere to a
neutral point of view, and editorializing a person's tweet as "celebrat[ing] news of the indiscriminate killings" based on the tweet itself (
WP:OR) and an op-ed in an unreliable source falls far short of NPOV, not to mention
WP:BLP sourcing requirements.
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why not edit the contribution so it fits within NPOV? I think it's hardly OR that the tweet was made and picked up in the press by more than one source.
[1] As the qoute states, in response to his tweet the UK governments antisemitism offered his own advice. The author of the tweet has not distanced himself from it either - quite the opposite. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
201.174.63.111 (
talk) 16:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- The onus is on you to find the proper sourcing, and The Sun absolutely isn't it ( WP:THESUN). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why not edit the contribution so it fits within NPOV? I think it's hardly OR that the tweet was made and picked up in the press by more than one source.
[1] As the qoute states, in response to his tweet the UK governments antisemitism offered his own advice. The author of the tweet has not distanced himself from it either - quite the opposite. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
201.174.63.111 (
talk) 16:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
References
-
^ Sleigh, Sophia (7 October 2023).
"Keir Starmer under pressure to stop anti-Israel event at Labour conference". The Sun. Retrieved 28 April 2024.
{{ cite news}}: Unknown parameter|qoute=ignored ( help)
- So, the tweet itself is not a source, nor are the hundreds of tweets since, and neither is any mentioning of the tweet in the press, neither an op-Ed, not straight forward report with qoutes from UK political figures such as Lord Mann responding to the tweet? The understanding of the SUN being a non-RS is to do with unreliable reporting of events as to whether they occured, but that tweet occured. It's in the public domain, on the internet archive. Anyone with an internet connection anywhere in the world can view it. How can this not be added to the article?
201.174.63.111 (
talk) 16:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- There are two issues here: the inclusion of the tweet in the article, and then — if included — how the tweet is described. We should first tackle whether the tweet should be included. In order to justify including it, you need a reliable source, or preferably several, to support that it's noteworthy enough to include in encyclopedia article about the organization. If the mere existence of a tweet was enough to justify inclusion, as you note, there would be hundreds of them in any article about a subject with a Twitter account (or, in this case, many hundreds of tweets in articles about organizations that have employees who tweet). So far you have not been able to come up with any reliable sources. The Sun is so unreliable it has been deprecated from being used at all. If you would like to argue about that, take it to WP:RSN, but in the meantime you'll need better sourcing.
- Please recall that people tweet all the time, and political figures respond to tweets all the time. Wikipedia is not a repository for documenting every Twitter spat that's ever happened; it's for describing subjects in an encyclopedic fashion. If there is substantial reliable coverage of a tweet, it can potentially be included, but I'm not seeing that here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand? Without getting into a debate of whether The Sun is a generally a RS, I think you need to answer some specific questions in relation to this article: Did The Sun invent that a) the tweet occured b) the tweet's contents c) that Pawel Wargen was its author d) that Pawel Wargen is Progressive International's coordinator of its secretariat e) that Lord Mann as the government's antisemtism adivsor responded with a qoute in the article f) that Progressive International was organising a fringe event at the Labour Party conference?
- So, the tweet itself is not a source, nor are the hundreds of tweets since, and neither is any mentioning of the tweet in the press, neither an op-Ed, not straight forward report with qoutes from UK political figures such as Lord Mann responding to the tweet? The understanding of the SUN being a non-RS is to do with unreliable reporting of events as to whether they occured, but that tweet occured. It's in the public domain, on the internet archive. Anyone with an internet connection anywhere in the world can view it. How can this not be added to the article?
201.174.63.111 (
talk) 16:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Pawel Wargan is the coordinator of the organisation's secretariat, I'd say that would lead it to meet notability guidelines. I think any other conclusion would be almost perverse, but that's me. 201.174.63.111 ( talk) 16:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
wdym reddit is unreliable? it's literally where all the discussion from the beginning was taking place and where it was officially announced it was found? tf? what source do you want then? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2001:BB8:2003:D:455:305C:EF88:7EC0 (
talk) 16:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)