![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
If for example the software program A has a green button in its about box (let's assume, that it is a very important one :-), and it is not written about anywhere in the universe, but everyone can install A and check for herself, would writing about it still be illegal "original research"? | [[User observer] 30 August 2006
I too like ask few questions. Is forums or something alike is "Reputable publications"? Whey have openly partisan and can have large readership. Rikis 07:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
And one more: Is commenting movie is original reaserch, i.e., is there in movie explicit scenes or how many there is, or have one character affection to other if that demonstrative shown. Rikis 07:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The primary v. secondary sources discussion has been moved to /Primary v. secondary sources discussion to free up the main talk page for other discussions. All addition discussion on this topic will take place there. Any related posts made will be moved there. FeloniousMonk 07:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Requesting unprotection of the main NOR page:
JA: FM, the page was protected so that we could discuss the issue. Now you are saying that our discussion is "disruptive". You seem to regard anything that disagrees with your Consensus of One as "disruptive". So I see no point in continuing to protect a version of the Page which absolutely nobody can claim is "longstanding". Jon Awbrey 07:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
To everyone who feels the current version is not good enough and that this is not over but should be over please add one sentence that you would like to add to the current version at /Primary v. secondary sources discussion. Give it a try. Why not? WAS 4.250 10:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you sincere when you write, "The current wording is also satisfactory?" I ask because I have stated repeatedly that I am pleased with the current (protected) form - yet you have continuously attacked my position. How can you attack my position that the current version is good, and then also state that you are satisfied with the current version? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I could ask you the same thing. I have now stated about five times, the the currently protected version is fine with me. I have not wavered (much) in my position, I believe, from the beginning, and yet people were still arguing against what I was saying. So Slim why were you? Wjhonson 03:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: There is no consensus. It is simply that some people's continuing objections to the recent innovations of SLR have been swept under the rug so that some other people can claim a consensus for these recent changes. Jon Awbrey 15:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Recent discussions in the arenas of the WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VER pages have brought to the fore once again a recurring question about the integrity — the inseparable wholeness and mutual dependence — of Wikipedia's Triune Policy, traditionally marked on all three principal policy pages as follows:
Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three.
JA: I would like to discuss some of the consequences that this triple policy has on the arena of WP:NOR, specifically, why it is that WP must consider "Originality", in a very specific sense of the word, to be a "bad thing".
JA: There is one little thing that has to be mentioned before I can say much of anything sensible about that, however:
JA: A while back we had been doing what my old teachers called the "compare & contrast" exercise, examining in this case the related ideas of principle and policy.
JA: But it's Sunday, so I'll need to give this a rest until later in the day. Jon Awbrey 15:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: For the convenience of several discussions here and elsewhere! that have need of real data about the time evolution of local WP:NOR policy, here is a longitudinal sample of datapoints from WP:NOR's version history. The time series below lists the first non-vandal edition of each month since the incept date of the main page at 15:15 UTC on 21 Dec 2003. Jon Awbrey 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources. Expert contributors, however, should not abuse the openness of Wikipedia, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or co-opting existing articles to promote their own career and works (please consult Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines).
For what it is worth Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I made an edit to the paragraph above incorporating, in my fashion, Stephen B Streater´s suggestion. I propose that we wait for two or three more editors to comment and if everyone agrees (or agrees after further friendly ammendments) I can incorporate the change. Let´s give it a day to see what if any objections there are, okay? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, in an attempt to be succinct, are you suggesting youwould support my version if I deleted the last sentence? What do others involved think? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: That last bit about vanity is insulting in the extreme and has to go. Folks who already know the rules of research writing that apply in the real world don't need lectures about this stuff from people who write under funny pseudo nyms and [intemperate remarks deleted]. Jon Awbrey 05:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: The use of the word "vanity" here is simply inappropriate for reasons too numerous to mention, so I suppose I will have to:
JA: I will probably think of a few more reasons after coffee. Jon Awbrey 12:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how you get this reading from what Guy just wrote. It seems respectful and professional to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems like we are nearing a consensus. I find Jon Awbrey´s comments useless and inconsequential though. (1) he writes, "Folks who already know the rules of research writing that apply in the real world don't need lectures" which is silly as anyone can edit wikipedia, there are no entry requirements, and many editors do not know the rules of research rwriting - JA consistently thinks this policy is being written for him when in fact it is being written for a large and heterogeneous groups. (2) as others have pointed out, we have had problems with vanity pages and have every reason to think we will in the future, so there is no harm and some good in explicitly discouraging them. (3) JA thinks expert writers will take offense. As an expert writer let me say, "no, only insecure expert writers will take offense." Wikipedia is full of expert writers none of whom have complained about this and I doubt they ever will. (4) JA thinks this is a journal. It is not. It is sui generis. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The question is, do we have a stable enough agreement here (and concerning primary/secondary source) to unblock the policy page? An alternative is to unblock it only to admins for the purpose of making this one change. I of course can´t do that. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: I suggest that we return the main page to a its truly long-standing formulation of August 1st 2006, and start over from there. I suggest that the people who have been wasting all of our times for the last couple of weeks with their highly contentious and non-consensual alterations of long-standing WP:NOR policy cease and desist from continuing their hijacking and lockdown of the page. Jon Awbrey 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
We are on track - you keep disrupting a collegial and productive discussion in order to go off-track.
Here is a version of the paragraph in question:
It is based on a version I proposed, and has been changed to reflect comments by Stephen B Streater, Steven G. Johnson, and WAS 4.250 (this is what we at Wikipedia call a collaborative process) and it has the support of Jossi, Jitse Niesen, Slim Virgin, and Jayjg. Now, this is what I call staying on track. Let´s make this as good as we can and put it in. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: The WP:NOR is intended to define Original Research and to explain why it is not permitted in WP. It achieved that purpose succinctly enough on or about the Winter Solstice of 2003. The lion's share of the ensuing bulk is simply superfluous and off-topic here, being the proper business of other policy and guideline pages. If an editor cites a prior publication that is published in a reputable form, then that is not original research, and is not the concern of this policy. WP rules do not even permit us to speculate on whether an editor working here under the name of Pseu-Pseu-Pseudio (any dissemblance to the name of an actual WPean is purely coincidental) really is the author of that secondary source that he-she seems to like citing so much. The relevance and reliability of citations have to be judged on their own merits alone. It is hardly fair to be picking on editors who have been kind enough to disclose their day jobs at the Daily Planet when there are so gol-darned many caped and hooded usual suspects runing [sic] amok all over the place. Now, go chase the Riddler or Cool Hand Lex or somebody (standard disclaimer of unintended tychenyms). Jon Awbrey 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: The objective is to end up with a policy on Original Research that is clear, that makes sense to talk about, and that can reasonably be required and fairly be enforced within the current framework of Wikipedia. That means avoiding all sorts of extraneous matters that are a waste of time to talk about because they cannot be dictated ethically nor enforced with fair and equal effectiveness on all participants in this project. Jon Awbrey 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: It's a weekend, so this respondez-vous may take a couple of days.
JA: I suggest that you redirect your remarks to those editors who are trying to brute force impose a major rewrite of WP:NOR, because that ain't me. Jon Awbrey 13:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Two people object to a word which is only used to descibe a link, so why not use other words from that page to describe the link? How about this? (Only the label for the link is changed.)
-- WAS 4.250 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
WAS, you were being clear. So was I. I didn´t misunderstand you, I disagreed with you. The title does sound prejudicial which is a good reason to change it. But as long as that is the actual title of the guideline I think it is disingenuous to try to avoid controversy by masking its name. I think you are making a mistake to turn this into semantics. The trwo people who object - are you SURE they object just to the word "vanity?" If they do, tell them to go tço the Vanity page and argue to change the title, because that is where their criticisms belong. If they are not really concerned with the word but with the guidelines to which the word is attached, changing the name is not going to make a difference. Either way, this seemingly easy compromise is no sollution it just evades the issues. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, do not get hung up on my objection. WAS was appealing to two specific people who objected to my revised version. If those two people agree to WAS´s version, and no oine else objects, hell, I am all for it. It is then just a matter of an admin changing the protection to allow for admin edits, and another admin to make the change. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and brought up the idea of a name change at Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines#Name of this guideline. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just curious (and maybe this can be added to the policy page as additional rationale), but can the appearance of OR on Wikipedia also be considered legally dangerous? What I mean is Dr. X posts an unpublished theory on Wiki, Dr. Y who claims to have discovered the theory first get angry because Dr. X made the theory public before Dr. Y was able to publish his $100,000-contracted treatis, so Dr. Y sues Wikipedia. Or Dr. X posts a brand new formula for shoe polish on Wiki, someone decides to make said shoe polish, and ends up blowing himself up. Survivors sue Wiki. That sort of thing. That's actually the first rationale I thought of when I first heard of the NOR rule. Just a thought. 23skidoo 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. General "bragging rights", may be important, but have no legal status, the only legal claims anyone has to intellectual proprety are in the patent, trademark, and copyright laws. ----
JA: A more complete record, still somewaht in progress, is being developed here:
JA: Jon Awbrey 03:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Few people in the real world dream that consensus can be "neared" simply by dissing all dissenting voices. There's even guidelines a'plenty in WP that say the same thing, but they are constantly being dismissed by a number of folks who seem to think that sui generis means concensual suicide. Luckily, WP is not really such an i-land unto itself. Ding-Dong! It's for you. Jon Awbrey 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Just by way of checking that we are looking at the same page, are you the same Slrubenstein who wrote "It seems like we are nearing a consensus" above? Thanks, Jon Awbrey 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: I suggest that WP editors who have been gracious, responsible, and up-front enough to contribute under their real world names simply ignore all of the gratuitous but ungracious advice that they get from editors who don't. These are matters that cannot even be fairly discussed except within the separate rules of a peer-review subsystem. Jon Awbrey 17:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: That would involve us in an off-topic discussion, which I will be drawn into only so far as to say that it is an off-topic discussion for questions about WP:NOR. And so are discusssions of WP:RS, which is a separate issue to be linked here and passed by, and so are discussions of biography and vanity, which don't even deserve the distraction of a mention here. Jon Awbrey 19:24, 1 September 2006 (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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
If for example the software program A has a green button in its about box (let's assume, that it is a very important one :-), and it is not written about anywhere in the universe, but everyone can install A and check for herself, would writing about it still be illegal "original research"? | [[User observer] 30 August 2006
I too like ask few questions. Is forums or something alike is "Reputable publications"? Whey have openly partisan and can have large readership. Rikis 07:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
And one more: Is commenting movie is original reaserch, i.e., is there in movie explicit scenes or how many there is, or have one character affection to other if that demonstrative shown. Rikis 07:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The primary v. secondary sources discussion has been moved to /Primary v. secondary sources discussion to free up the main talk page for other discussions. All addition discussion on this topic will take place there. Any related posts made will be moved there. FeloniousMonk 07:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Requesting unprotection of the main NOR page:
JA: FM, the page was protected so that we could discuss the issue. Now you are saying that our discussion is "disruptive". You seem to regard anything that disagrees with your Consensus of One as "disruptive". So I see no point in continuing to protect a version of the Page which absolutely nobody can claim is "longstanding". Jon Awbrey 07:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
To everyone who feels the current version is not good enough and that this is not over but should be over please add one sentence that you would like to add to the current version at /Primary v. secondary sources discussion. Give it a try. Why not? WAS 4.250 10:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you sincere when you write, "The current wording is also satisfactory?" I ask because I have stated repeatedly that I am pleased with the current (protected) form - yet you have continuously attacked my position. How can you attack my position that the current version is good, and then also state that you are satisfied with the current version? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I could ask you the same thing. I have now stated about five times, the the currently protected version is fine with me. I have not wavered (much) in my position, I believe, from the beginning, and yet people were still arguing against what I was saying. So Slim why were you? Wjhonson 03:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: There is no consensus. It is simply that some people's continuing objections to the recent innovations of SLR have been swept under the rug so that some other people can claim a consensus for these recent changes. Jon Awbrey 15:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Recent discussions in the arenas of the WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VER pages have brought to the fore once again a recurring question about the integrity — the inseparable wholeness and mutual dependence — of Wikipedia's Triune Policy, traditionally marked on all three principal policy pages as follows:
Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three.
JA: I would like to discuss some of the consequences that this triple policy has on the arena of WP:NOR, specifically, why it is that WP must consider "Originality", in a very specific sense of the word, to be a "bad thing".
JA: There is one little thing that has to be mentioned before I can say much of anything sensible about that, however:
JA: A while back we had been doing what my old teachers called the "compare & contrast" exercise, examining in this case the related ideas of principle and policy.
JA: But it's Sunday, so I'll need to give this a rest until later in the day. Jon Awbrey 15:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: For the convenience of several discussions here and elsewhere! that have need of real data about the time evolution of local WP:NOR policy, here is a longitudinal sample of datapoints from WP:NOR's version history. The time series below lists the first non-vandal edition of each month since the incept date of the main page at 15:15 UTC on 21 Dec 2003. Jon Awbrey 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources. Expert contributors, however, should not abuse the openness of Wikipedia, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or co-opting existing articles to promote their own career and works (please consult Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines).
For what it is worth Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I made an edit to the paragraph above incorporating, in my fashion, Stephen B Streater´s suggestion. I propose that we wait for two or three more editors to comment and if everyone agrees (or agrees after further friendly ammendments) I can incorporate the change. Let´s give it a day to see what if any objections there are, okay? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, in an attempt to be succinct, are you suggesting youwould support my version if I deleted the last sentence? What do others involved think? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: That last bit about vanity is insulting in the extreme and has to go. Folks who already know the rules of research writing that apply in the real world don't need lectures about this stuff from people who write under funny pseudo nyms and [intemperate remarks deleted]. Jon Awbrey 05:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: The use of the word "vanity" here is simply inappropriate for reasons too numerous to mention, so I suppose I will have to:
JA: I will probably think of a few more reasons after coffee. Jon Awbrey 12:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how you get this reading from what Guy just wrote. It seems respectful and professional to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems like we are nearing a consensus. I find Jon Awbrey´s comments useless and inconsequential though. (1) he writes, "Folks who already know the rules of research writing that apply in the real world don't need lectures" which is silly as anyone can edit wikipedia, there are no entry requirements, and many editors do not know the rules of research rwriting - JA consistently thinks this policy is being written for him when in fact it is being written for a large and heterogeneous groups. (2) as others have pointed out, we have had problems with vanity pages and have every reason to think we will in the future, so there is no harm and some good in explicitly discouraging them. (3) JA thinks expert writers will take offense. As an expert writer let me say, "no, only insecure expert writers will take offense." Wikipedia is full of expert writers none of whom have complained about this and I doubt they ever will. (4) JA thinks this is a journal. It is not. It is sui generis. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The question is, do we have a stable enough agreement here (and concerning primary/secondary source) to unblock the policy page? An alternative is to unblock it only to admins for the purpose of making this one change. I of course can´t do that. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: I suggest that we return the main page to a its truly long-standing formulation of August 1st 2006, and start over from there. I suggest that the people who have been wasting all of our times for the last couple of weeks with their highly contentious and non-consensual alterations of long-standing WP:NOR policy cease and desist from continuing their hijacking and lockdown of the page. Jon Awbrey 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
We are on track - you keep disrupting a collegial and productive discussion in order to go off-track.
Here is a version of the paragraph in question:
It is based on a version I proposed, and has been changed to reflect comments by Stephen B Streater, Steven G. Johnson, and WAS 4.250 (this is what we at Wikipedia call a collaborative process) and it has the support of Jossi, Jitse Niesen, Slim Virgin, and Jayjg. Now, this is what I call staying on track. Let´s make this as good as we can and put it in. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: The WP:NOR is intended to define Original Research and to explain why it is not permitted in WP. It achieved that purpose succinctly enough on or about the Winter Solstice of 2003. The lion's share of the ensuing bulk is simply superfluous and off-topic here, being the proper business of other policy and guideline pages. If an editor cites a prior publication that is published in a reputable form, then that is not original research, and is not the concern of this policy. WP rules do not even permit us to speculate on whether an editor working here under the name of Pseu-Pseu-Pseudio (any dissemblance to the name of an actual WPean is purely coincidental) really is the author of that secondary source that he-she seems to like citing so much. The relevance and reliability of citations have to be judged on their own merits alone. It is hardly fair to be picking on editors who have been kind enough to disclose their day jobs at the Daily Planet when there are so gol-darned many caped and hooded usual suspects runing [sic] amok all over the place. Now, go chase the Riddler or Cool Hand Lex or somebody (standard disclaimer of unintended tychenyms). Jon Awbrey 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: The objective is to end up with a policy on Original Research that is clear, that makes sense to talk about, and that can reasonably be required and fairly be enforced within the current framework of Wikipedia. That means avoiding all sorts of extraneous matters that are a waste of time to talk about because they cannot be dictated ethically nor enforced with fair and equal effectiveness on all participants in this project. Jon Awbrey 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: It's a weekend, so this respondez-vous may take a couple of days.
JA: I suggest that you redirect your remarks to those editors who are trying to brute force impose a major rewrite of WP:NOR, because that ain't me. Jon Awbrey 13:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Two people object to a word which is only used to descibe a link, so why not use other words from that page to describe the link? How about this? (Only the label for the link is changed.)
-- WAS 4.250 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
WAS, you were being clear. So was I. I didn´t misunderstand you, I disagreed with you. The title does sound prejudicial which is a good reason to change it. But as long as that is the actual title of the guideline I think it is disingenuous to try to avoid controversy by masking its name. I think you are making a mistake to turn this into semantics. The trwo people who object - are you SURE they object just to the word "vanity?" If they do, tell them to go tço the Vanity page and argue to change the title, because that is where their criticisms belong. If they are not really concerned with the word but with the guidelines to which the word is attached, changing the name is not going to make a difference. Either way, this seemingly easy compromise is no sollution it just evades the issues. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, do not get hung up on my objection. WAS was appealing to two specific people who objected to my revised version. If those two people agree to WAS´s version, and no oine else objects, hell, I am all for it. It is then just a matter of an admin changing the protection to allow for admin edits, and another admin to make the change. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and brought up the idea of a name change at Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines#Name of this guideline. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just curious (and maybe this can be added to the policy page as additional rationale), but can the appearance of OR on Wikipedia also be considered legally dangerous? What I mean is Dr. X posts an unpublished theory on Wiki, Dr. Y who claims to have discovered the theory first get angry because Dr. X made the theory public before Dr. Y was able to publish his $100,000-contracted treatis, so Dr. Y sues Wikipedia. Or Dr. X posts a brand new formula for shoe polish on Wiki, someone decides to make said shoe polish, and ends up blowing himself up. Survivors sue Wiki. That sort of thing. That's actually the first rationale I thought of when I first heard of the NOR rule. Just a thought. 23skidoo 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. General "bragging rights", may be important, but have no legal status, the only legal claims anyone has to intellectual proprety are in the patent, trademark, and copyright laws. ----
JA: A more complete record, still somewaht in progress, is being developed here:
JA: Jon Awbrey 03:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Few people in the real world dream that consensus can be "neared" simply by dissing all dissenting voices. There's even guidelines a'plenty in WP that say the same thing, but they are constantly being dismissed by a number of folks who seem to think that sui generis means concensual suicide. Luckily, WP is not really such an i-land unto itself. Ding-Dong! It's for you. Jon Awbrey 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: Just by way of checking that we are looking at the same page, are you the same Slrubenstein who wrote "It seems like we are nearing a consensus" above? Thanks, Jon Awbrey 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: I suggest that WP editors who have been gracious, responsible, and up-front enough to contribute under their real world names simply ignore all of the gratuitous but ungracious advice that they get from editors who don't. These are matters that cannot even be fairly discussed except within the separate rules of a peer-review subsystem. Jon Awbrey 17:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
JA: That would involve us in an off-topic discussion, which I will be drawn into only so far as to say that it is an off-topic discussion for questions about WP:NOR. And so are discusssions of WP:RS, which is a separate issue to be linked here and passed by, and so are discussions of biography and vanity, which don't even deserve the distraction of a mention here. Jon Awbrey 19:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)