Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Jim Bell |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 20:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
My name is James Dalton Bell, the subject of the article "jim bell". I only quite recently (December 24, 2009)returned to 'cyberspace', and I am very rusty concerning the use of computers. I have never before had access to Wikipedia. Yesterday, I added a new paragraph to the article, "Jim Bell", concerning my discovery that only about 1.2% of carbon dioxide molecules (the ones with Carbon-13 and Oxygen-17 isotopes) actually contribute to the 'greenhouse effect'. This is a monumental discovery, and it should be publicized. However, today I read the article and this paragraph was not present. I had read it yesterday, and the new paragraph WAS present. Unfortunately, this is an EXTREMELY unusual case: It is quite possible that my efforts to publicize this are being suppressed. Please do not chalk this up to mere paranoia: There are some truly frightened people who may want to prevent me from getting the scientific credit. Because I have just recently (2 days) begun to use Wikipedia, and the Internet in general, I don't yet know how to determine WHY the paragraph I added disappeared, or who did that. Please tell me WHO erased that new paragraph.
Just a list of the users involved. For example: not known "Gogo Dodo" is one of the repeat offenders.
A paragraph that I added to article 'jim bell' got deleted.
put the added paragraph back. Tell me who deleted that paragraph.
Simple. Ban "Gogo Dodo" from Wikipedia. And, insist that all 'editors' apply THE SAME rules to all articles, not selectively and in a biased fashion.
We are here to help you, but we need to know how. Sometimes mediators will look at a dispute and have no idea where to start, so please help us out. Do note that we will not "take sides" in any dispute.
This is not an issue for MedCab. Please read WP:MEDCABNOT to see that we do not handle user conduct issues loke this, nor are we arbitrators. The Wordsmith Communicate 03:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Questions for Jim:
-- Xavexgoem ( talk) 23:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC) The editor who removed it is inconsequential. For what it's worth, it's User:Gogo Dodo, and his reason for reversion was that the added paragraph wasn't sourced. When you source it, you're likely to run into problems with the wording.
Check out that, and THEN explain how anybody would justify at least four times deleting material, WITHOUT actively bringing it to the attention of the community!—Preceding unsigned comment added by James dalton bell ( talk • contribs) 01:36, January 2, 2010
1. Deleted INSTANTLY non-libelous, non-controversial content, FOUR times! 2. That was added BY THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE. 3. Did not attempt to obtain, and did not obtain, the consensus of the community before doing that. 4. Did not attempt to obtain, and did not obtain, the consensus of the community even AFTER doing that. 5. Has failed to explain or justify the double-standards involved. James dalton bell ( talk) 01:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It's quite unusual to be directly talking to someone as famous as you about their own article! As others have mentioned, the biggest issue by far right now is that the edit you want to make actually *is* quite controversial on Wikipedia - anything that relates to global warming is hotly contested. That can be a bad thing in that it makes it into a bit of a war zone, but it can also be a good thing in that it forces every new piece of information to be strongly backed up by independent evidence before it is allowed to stay.
Of course you're right that the rules about verifiable sources are not always consistently applied, but that's not an argument against applying them in this case. I think you'll find it very difficult to get other editors to agree to keeping that information in the article without at least one independent source that confirms your information. Was there any news coverage for example? Or did you have your findings published in a scientific journal? I realize that can be difficult for independent scientists who have ideas that might go against the scientific consensus to get a fair hearing in the media, and I understand that you want to get the word out about this - but the truth is that Wikipedia is not intended to be a place where new ideas get published. The job of an encyclopedia is to be very conservative, and publish what is verifiable - not to break major news stories, no matter how important.
For what it's worth, if Al Gore wanted to add something to his biography page, we'd be asking for a verifiable source for it too!
Thparkth ( talk) 22:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
James dalton bell ( talk) 09:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
After James dalton bell has alleged sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, I have opened an WP:ANI discussion. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
James dalton bell ( talk) 09:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Jim Bell |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 20:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
My name is James Dalton Bell, the subject of the article "jim bell". I only quite recently (December 24, 2009)returned to 'cyberspace', and I am very rusty concerning the use of computers. I have never before had access to Wikipedia. Yesterday, I added a new paragraph to the article, "Jim Bell", concerning my discovery that only about 1.2% of carbon dioxide molecules (the ones with Carbon-13 and Oxygen-17 isotopes) actually contribute to the 'greenhouse effect'. This is a monumental discovery, and it should be publicized. However, today I read the article and this paragraph was not present. I had read it yesterday, and the new paragraph WAS present. Unfortunately, this is an EXTREMELY unusual case: It is quite possible that my efforts to publicize this are being suppressed. Please do not chalk this up to mere paranoia: There are some truly frightened people who may want to prevent me from getting the scientific credit. Because I have just recently (2 days) begun to use Wikipedia, and the Internet in general, I don't yet know how to determine WHY the paragraph I added disappeared, or who did that. Please tell me WHO erased that new paragraph.
Just a list of the users involved. For example: not known "Gogo Dodo" is one of the repeat offenders.
A paragraph that I added to article 'jim bell' got deleted.
put the added paragraph back. Tell me who deleted that paragraph.
Simple. Ban "Gogo Dodo" from Wikipedia. And, insist that all 'editors' apply THE SAME rules to all articles, not selectively and in a biased fashion.
We are here to help you, but we need to know how. Sometimes mediators will look at a dispute and have no idea where to start, so please help us out. Do note that we will not "take sides" in any dispute.
This is not an issue for MedCab. Please read WP:MEDCABNOT to see that we do not handle user conduct issues loke this, nor are we arbitrators. The Wordsmith Communicate 03:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Questions for Jim:
-- Xavexgoem ( talk) 23:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC) The editor who removed it is inconsequential. For what it's worth, it's User:Gogo Dodo, and his reason for reversion was that the added paragraph wasn't sourced. When you source it, you're likely to run into problems with the wording.
Check out that, and THEN explain how anybody would justify at least four times deleting material, WITHOUT actively bringing it to the attention of the community!—Preceding unsigned comment added by James dalton bell ( talk • contribs) 01:36, January 2, 2010
1. Deleted INSTANTLY non-libelous, non-controversial content, FOUR times! 2. That was added BY THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE. 3. Did not attempt to obtain, and did not obtain, the consensus of the community before doing that. 4. Did not attempt to obtain, and did not obtain, the consensus of the community even AFTER doing that. 5. Has failed to explain or justify the double-standards involved. James dalton bell ( talk) 01:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It's quite unusual to be directly talking to someone as famous as you about their own article! As others have mentioned, the biggest issue by far right now is that the edit you want to make actually *is* quite controversial on Wikipedia - anything that relates to global warming is hotly contested. That can be a bad thing in that it makes it into a bit of a war zone, but it can also be a good thing in that it forces every new piece of information to be strongly backed up by independent evidence before it is allowed to stay.
Of course you're right that the rules about verifiable sources are not always consistently applied, but that's not an argument against applying them in this case. I think you'll find it very difficult to get other editors to agree to keeping that information in the article without at least one independent source that confirms your information. Was there any news coverage for example? Or did you have your findings published in a scientific journal? I realize that can be difficult for independent scientists who have ideas that might go against the scientific consensus to get a fair hearing in the media, and I understand that you want to get the word out about this - but the truth is that Wikipedia is not intended to be a place where new ideas get published. The job of an encyclopedia is to be very conservative, and publish what is verifiable - not to break major news stories, no matter how important.
For what it's worth, if Al Gore wanted to add something to his biography page, we'd be asking for a verifiable source for it too!
Thparkth ( talk) 22:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
James dalton bell ( talk) 09:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
After James dalton bell has alleged sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, I have opened an WP:ANI discussion. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
James dalton bell ( talk) 09:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)