This page 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.

Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You have made various comments on my review page and I have tried to deal with them appropriately. I have now rewritten the paragraphs where you thought that the source was unreliable, and I agree with your view on the original source.

It seems to me that you have an agenda, you are not neutral, you want to show that I am a bad science editor and you start from a position that is against me. I understand that you are a member of the wikipediocracy forum and have perhaps been subjected to the relentless accusations of my editing that have flowed from AfadsBad. I asked her to explain where I was going wrong with my science articles on her talk page. Unfortunately, in her reply she made a fuss about the taxoboxes used in articles on Gastropoda and never pointed out my other errors. She makes so many sweeping statements about my editing without providing any evidence, that I am surprised that someone like you is not more critical of her statements. It is five days now that her "full time job" has prevented her from making some detailed criticisms, and we are still waiting on them in the review. Some of the points she makes are valid but most are exaggerations, half truths or completely made up. If you look at the talk page of my editor review you will see some posts that Scott has moved there from his talk page. She joined in a discussion I was having with him and claimed, among other things, that I initiated an action which resulted in her being banned (I imagine she means blocked). This is a pure figment of her imagination. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And there on ANI are other science editors making the same sweeping statements about your articles, SYN, OR, all broad sweeps, while the discussion for sanctions against me for pointing out your errors continues.

Five days in a row of work is common in the US. What is the norm in Wales? --( AfadsBad ( talk) 20:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

This is a volunteer project, not work. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently I am required to stop my "full time job" as a "WalMart night clerk" to post comments on Cwmhiraeth's editor review, though. In spite of the writing being on the wall already about her science articles. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 21:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

? ....there are too many simultaneous threads... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. That source looks much better. AfadsBad is of course referring to the thread you initiated at AN/I, where you are indeed seeking sanctions against her. What's at the root of this dispute is scientific accuracy. AfadsBad criticised science content on her blog. Looking into several of these blog posts, I found the criticisms were justified. When I looked into the desert article on my own, I readily found problems of the same sort that AfadsBad had described, as discussed at the Editor Review. AfadsBad's statements are indeed sweeping and often lacking in specifics – she seems by now very annoyed – but the specifics I found within a very short time matched her sweeping statements. If AfadsBad's claims had been wrong, and you had been right, I would have said so. Andreas JN 466 03:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The sweeping statements are not helpful - that's for sure. Agree re desert. I am juggling a fair bit myself and am trying to look when I can. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made plenty of specific comments. But remember, I started by just doing some editing myself and making a few specific comments. For this I was scolded, scorned, and reverted. This wastes my time. I find a clear and obvious scientific error, remove it from an article, and I get scolded for it, and another error just gets put back in!

If we were merely correcting statements, it might be fine to require me to give specifics, but her errors are complex, due to the nature of the writing to mask or prevent plagiarism. The materials are all jumbled up, factoids vaguely resemble facts. In most of the articles of hers that I have criticized, other editors have found far worse mistakes than I have, as Cwmhiraeth rightly pointed out on a DYK Template recently. I don't think that spending days individually correcting her articles is going to benefit Wikipedia. I think that the taxonomy, description and geography sections of articles she wrote should be removed, and the taxoboxes should be verified. This would generally leave stubs, but they might not be inaccurate stubs. The alternative is finding enough editors willing to spend days checking her sources against articles times 1300. Removing just these three sections would be much faster and would remove detrimental and incorrect material from Wikipedia much faster. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 04:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

• Jayen466 wrote "AfadsBad is of course referring to the thread you initiated at AN/I, where you are indeed seeking sanctions against her." This is untrue. I made a complaint about her harassment of me, I did not seek to have her banned. She wrote of my articles "... the editor who attempted to correct them was first chased away from making corrections by you, the creator of the bad articles, then banned and attacked for pointing out the errors.". That's the past tense. Her comments about me are littered with just such inaccurate statements. Another one is the mention of "geography" sections in her most recent post. She can remove all of them if she likes as this is not a section heading I use in the articles I write about organisms. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The comments in question are here. The paragraph preceding the one you quote from makes it clear to me that she is talking about an imagined future.
  • Some general comments on the situation: You're both people wanting to improve this project. You're both annoyed, and under stress. That's completely understandable, and I have every sympathy. More importantly, you'll both get through this. If it makes you feel better, I recall one or two really bad, high-profile howlers I made in topic areas I was not sufficiently familiar with. It was very deflating at the time, but I learnt to avoid subjects I didn't really know enough about. To err is human.
  • As Cas says above, there are too many discussions going on in too many places. Let's please focus on the editor review and wrap this up here. Andreas JN 466 13:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your helpful comments. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 17:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

~

I would appreciate it if you could help to improve this MOS. I am asking you because you were one of the main authors. Thanks. Andries ( talk) 14:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)