Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:34, 20 November 2009

BLP and Patrick Michaels

I understand your argument that consensus doesn't apply to problematic content in biographies of living persons, but in this case aren't we dealing with a matter of public record? --TS 22:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If no relevance is indicated, doesn’t it seem like someone is trying to poison the well with information that is designed to bias the article and is not directly related to the subject?

Does the WCR have any other funder and why arent they mentioned in the article's lead.

I believe they call this guilt by association. BluefieldWV (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Patrick Michaels

Your current editing at Patrick Michaels is completely unacceptable. Please familiarize yourself with WP:EW, including the three-revert rule. Use the talk page to work this issue out. You risk being blocked if this behavior continues. Oren0 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a BLP issue as I have explained, I don’t have to justify its removal on those grounds, other editors have to justify its inclusion. I am just trying to get editors here to play by their own rules. BluefieldWV (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP is sometimes an exemption from 3RR but not in this case. As far as I can tell, it is not the factual accuracy of the material that is under dispute, but rather its relevance. That is purely a content matter and not one where it is acceptable to edit war. If you believe that this is in fact a BLP issue and the talk page isn't working for you, may I suggest WP:BLPN? Oren0 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your message. I replied on my talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi BluefieldWV, I've had a look at the BLP/N issue and whilst I sympathise, I don't think you're going to win this argument. (See my response at Michaels' talk page.) I'd be interested to discuss it here though if you think I'm wrong. FYI, I am an WP:SPA editor largely devoted to BLP issues that are inflicted on climate change skeptics. I believe that Oren0 is also skeptical of climate change theories, and I think he's giving you good advice about the edit-warring. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It does seems like a tough argument to make. The threshold for what constitutes legitimate criticism here seems to be awfully low for some topics and inversely high on others. BluefieldWV (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Watts

Regarding this edit. Perhaps you should take some time and actually read the reference instead of assuming? Watts ran as a conservative (Quote emphasis mine: But the race took a turn when conservative candidate Anthony Watts opted out last week, saying there was “not enough Anthony to go around.”) - and that isn't opinion - it is a fact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no where in the article does Watt's self identify as a conservative or that he ran as a conservative so its the opinion of the reporter that Watt's is a conservative. Thanks for trying. BluefieldWV (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You will have to learn to differentiate between Op-Ed's (opinion), editorial (opinion), columns (part opinion) and a newspapers regular journalistic articles (not opinion). But if you really really want Watt's confirmation of what is a fairly regular and completely non-controversial item - you can find it here, where Watts makes fun of someone who is implying that he is "..a conservative, he can't possibly think for himself..". (notice how that one was an editorial) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey look at that, you found a reliable source. Now go put it in the article. BluefieldWV (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that one is actually not a reliable source. Where as the other one is. You really need to read and ponder WP:RS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR on Anthony Watts

You've broken the WP:3RR rule on Anthony Watts, i suggest that you revert yourself, and be more careful in the future. Also consider using the talk-page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

its a BLP issue and not subject to 3RR ... or thats my understanding. BluefieldWV (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it was for you would be wrong (whereas if it was to delete an obvious allegation about the individual you might get away with it seeMisplaced Pages:3RR#Exceptions_to_3RR). However I cannot see a clear 3RR violation. I strongly advise you to post alleged BLP violations on the noticeboard and not try 3RR yourself especially for relative trivia. --BozMo talk 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It was for that, and I honestly dont see how I was wrong. Any material on that page must be accurately sourced, and if not sourced properly, must be immediately removed correct? BluefieldWV (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm Bozmo, with regards to "However I cannot see a clear 3RR violation" - i see it as a clear 3RR violation against two different sets:

• Set A: version reverted to - 1st 2nd
• Set B: original version reverted to - 3rd 4th

Which is clearly 4 reverts within 24 hours on the same article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Its BLP related, and not covered under 3RR. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)As Bozmo says below, using BLP as an excuse for breaking 3RR is a very bad idea. And in this case the only even remotely BLP related issue is the "conservative" title - which is sourced to a reliable source (even if you wont accept it as such). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The policy says you can get exemption for "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." That is worded as a double test. In this instance, in my judgement there is only a very faint and subjective degree of "libellous, biased, or controversial" in this statement and not enough to justify a 3RR violation. I have certainly seen people blocked for 3RR much more obviously biased material being reverted into BLPs and most admins on 3RR would only excuse you if the content was so harmful as to make minutes matter. Personally I would have blocked for it and I would have refused an unblock for it but perhaps I am more aggressive on 3RR than some. --BozMo talk 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I did try the BLP board, but there doesn’t seem to be much action there, at least from disinterested parties. I will try and find another way the next time I run into a situation like this. I would add that an editor is adding material that he knows and admits cannot be found in the reference he is linking to, but adds it because he "prefers" it. What is the recourse in dealing with an experienced editor who is deliberately flaunting the rules? BluefieldWV (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Kim, Sorry that's too technical for me, perhaps I am old and out of date. I would only block if someone did the same revert or partial 4 times but I guess others are better at technicalities. --BozMo talk 19:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Its just 2x2 reverts, nothing really technical. The two first reverts where of "conservative" (which had earlier been reverted by others), and the 2nd two reverts where of a sentence (regarding what surfacestations purpose is) that had also been reverted earlier. Therefore 4 reverts in total. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And as I stated, the term "conservative" was used by the reporter to describe Watts, not Watts himself and was not phrased as such, a violation of NPOV. The purpose of surfacestations was being deliberately misinterpreted as the source material was not reflective of the articles text. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The phrase used by the referenced article (which isn't an op-ed or any other opinion article) is this: "But the race took a turn when conservative candidate Anthony Watts" - you seem to have the mistaken idea that if something isn't stated by the subject itself, then its opinion, this is incorrect. As for the description of surfacestation, i very much disagree that its an incorrect description of the project, in fact it is completely in-line with what Watts and Pielke Sr. have described it as. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is an opinion and needs to be stated as such. And like I have told you several times before, if you beleive that your description is accurate, you should have no problem finding a source that agrees with you. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly in your view makes it opinion, instead of news-reporting? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Newsreporting is void of opinion is it? BluefieldWV (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Try not moving the goal-posts and answer the question instead? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is an opinion because there is no verification in the article and no information given to back this statement up. Its best to state the facts and let people make of them what they will. Why do you have such a hard time with that and feel the need to interject your opinion so often? BluefieldWV (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no requirement in WP:RS or WP:V that requires a secondary reliable source to have verification or to back up their statements. We rely entirely on the secondary sources editorial process for that. Please once more read up on what is and isn't considered opinion sources on Misplaced Pages.

We differentiate between pure opinion sources such as Op-Ed's and editorials, and regular reporting (which isn't considered opinion). Thats how an encyclopedia works. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

NPA

Re : please see WP:NPA William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean as it applies to this kind of edit? A model Wikipedian and fine example to others you are. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually on my rather pedantic definition I don't think calling someone's single edit "bullshit" counts as a personal attack because it is playing the ball not the man. If you had said "another BS edit" or similar implying something about the individual I would have agreed. Lack of courtesy, civility etc etc fair enough but not a NPA violation I feel. I am not very impressed on how anyone is behaving on that page. --BozMo talk 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bluefield, it's uncivil and inappropriate to call another editor's actions bullshit. Although I disagree with WMC's actions on that page, please do not cross the line into incivility. ATren (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Template:Z9 per a complaint at:WP:AN3#User:BluefieldWV reported by Verbal (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WVBluefield (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edits were made to correct what I believe was a clear cut BLP issue involving the use of original research in the article. There currently exists a debate on the BLP board about this, and the consensus from several uninvolved editors is that this is a BLP violation. At the very minimum I should have been warned, along with all other involved parties but not blocked for enforcing what has been advertised as a guideline in which there is to be no compromise. BluefieldWV (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The content you removed was not an obvious BLP violation. Whether or not it should be included is a content issue to be decided via WP:DR. Your block is a correct application of WP:EW.  Sandstein  19:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bluefield, it was very disappointing indeed that an editor who was violating every rule in the book took this action to have you blocked and that an administrator actually listened and acted. The consensus is finally that the material was violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and WP:V and there's no doubt it was inside a WP:BLP. By any literal reading of the WP:BLP, you did the right thing. Please don't be disheartened as change happens slowly. As I said above, you just need to accept that 3RR has teeth and is a lot easier to enforce than BLP. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

How exactly was Verbal "violating every rule in the book"? And why exactly was the block wrong? BluefieldWV had been warned several hours before the block happened, but chose to ignore it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I see, I wasn't aware of that a warning had been given but even so, the policy is clear that material should be removed when a good faith editor objects to it and that 3RR doesn't apply when unsourced material is repeatedly re-inserted into a BLP. As you'll note I am not endorsing edit-warring, even if the BLP does state that it doesn't apply in this scenario. In fact, I believe that the BLP policy needs to be changed so that it no longer states that 3RR doesn't apply. I can't imagine any scenario where that advice could lead to any outcome other than the most unfortunate one where a good faith editor who was defending BLP ends up being blocked. Further, it would also stop a lot of edit warring disputes from occurring in the first place. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would advice that you take another look at this, then consider whether your statement about "unsourced material" is correct or not. Then think abit about why the request for unblock was refused. Perhaps you may even want to consider appologizing to Verbal. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My statement about "unsourced material" is absolutely correct. You cannot support a statement by appealing to non-existent statements in an FAQ. Not asserting P is not the same as asserting not-P. Not listing an intention to publish as a goal of surfacestations.org at the FAQ is not the same as stating positively that there is no intention to publish. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well allow me to ignore 50% of the reverts as well, and ask you how is conservative not sourced? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Its actually comical to see the way shit goes down around here. The notice board’s consensus was that the inclusion of the material was a violation of WP:BLP’s policy, and somehow I was still blocked and my appeal for an unblock was also rejected. “All BLP’s are equal, however some are more equal than others” should be the policy around this fucking asylum. BluefieldWV (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning removed with apologies. Jusdafax 17:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! BluefieldWV (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please please

Please tell me you are accurately portraying these (very hard to find) sources ? Can you provide a copy? --BozMo talk 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The book reference can be found in google books: , as for the Washington Times, I don’t think there is a free version online, but yes both do reference the Singer Sagan debate on the aftermath of the Kuwait oil fires and both comment on Sagan’s inaccuracy and Singer’s more realistic prognostication.

I am frankly quite surprised that there isn’t more to be found on this particular tit-for-tat. BluefieldWV (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not see this "tit for tat" first time around but then I had never heard of Singer before I found the article here when reverting a sock. Incidentally I notice you say you were a deputy Sherrif. I had to look it up because I could not believe the title Sherrif still existed as a non ceremonial thing. --BozMo talk 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The book does not say anything about Singer being more realistic than Sagan, I just read it. --BozMo talk 21:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You must not be from the US. Every county (that I can think of at any rate) has a police force headed by an elected official known as a sheriff. A “Deputy Sheriff” is an individual granted police powers by the Sheriff commensurate with the compact of the Sheriff’s department. I was a “Deputy Sheriff” in a smallish ruralish county in Northern Illinois until 87 when I was shot 4 times in the leg and stomach, spending 3 weeks in the hospital and 6 months in rehab. I then decided on a new line of work and used my GI benefits to get a chemistry degree.

I had guessed you were from the US. Looking around the Global Warming pages the Atlantic divide is very striking. I have been to the US (along with approaching 40 other countries) but not come across Sheriffs or realised your policemen were elected. Judges being elected is a bit infamous of course (but I think thats not everywhere). --BozMo talk 05:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you go to a more rural area, you wont see deputies much. In large urban areas they serve mainly at the courthouses and as CO’s (correction officers). As most of America is rural, Sheriffs departments serve as the primary police force in these areas, patrolling unincorporated areas and lending support to local municipalities. Aside from local police, and the county police there is also a state police force in each of the 50 states. They mainly patrol highways and provide support to county and local municipalities if either does not have the resources for a particular case, like a highly publicized murder case or some kind of organized crime activity. State police are also called in to support “distressed” communities that require it. Some judges are elected in the States and some are appointed .. it comes down to local rules. And then there is an entirely separate level of law enforcement that is controlled by the federal government. The biggest difference between all these law enforcement agencies is where they have policing power and where they have jurisdictional authority. When I was a deputy, I had “policing power” all throughout the country but only jurisdictional authority in my county. A state police officer (not to be confused with “highway patrol officers” like in Wisconsin who have no policing authority off the highways) has policing power and jurisdictional authority throughout the entire state.

Things may have changed, but thats the way it was taught to me 20 some years ago. BluefieldWV (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed the follow up, that’s what I took away from pg 147 and 148. I am on my way home now but will address it more tomorrow if need be. BluefieldWV (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other thing. No rush but what you take away from a page may not exactly be what it says. --BozMo talk 05:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reposted the Times articles here and will address the rest on the talk page. I am a bit pressed for time this morning. BluefieldWV (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR and Kim

I have been wondering about blocking Kim for 3RR but I have left it to someone else to decide. I thought I would explain the trickiness of the decision since I am anxious that you understand how things work and become a long term contributer here rather than an embittered heckler. The main reason is that the reason for blocking in general is clearly not revenge, but to prevent re-offending. In theory for example we never block if the article is already protected. Here Kim acknowledges the mistake and is clearly not going to re-offend. If he had self-reverted he would be completely safe and he says that he wishes he could. Contrast your case where you kept saying you had done nothing wrong and looked likely to re-offend (not that I blocked you, I block very rarely and normally for socks). I do not know which admin will deal with it but this is something they will bear in mind. --BozMo talk 07:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As another note in the spirit of friendly advice, in the block appeal above you talk of "a consensus of uninvolved editors". Please be careful using words like this. I cannot see this consensus in any of the discussions (also it is unclear who you regard as uninvolved; uninvolved is a technical term on WP) and although another editor refers to it you should not copy his words unless you wish your reputation to be intertwined with his. Over time people will pay a lot of attention to how faithfully you describe interactions as well as how well you use references (there is a record here of every edit forever so think of it like being under oath). Beware people who agree with you are not always the best people to copy. --BozMo talk 07:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It would seem as if the primary function of a block for 3RR is to stop edit warring and not as a punitive measure. Since none is occurring right now, and has not over the past day, I don’t see a need for a block. BluefieldWV (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To your other points. I was referring to Nil Einne as the uninvolved editor because he hadn’t made any edits to the article. As for the use of sources, I have reposted them and do believe that I used them correctly. In light of what is now on the Singer talk page I believe even more strongly in this. BluefieldWV (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But what Nil says in this edit is that it is a clear cut violation of policy (which is quite plausible) but not that it justifies crossing 3RR (which requires a strong BLP reason). I am trying to get the BLP guideline made clearer so people don't misunderstand it but not having much joy. --BozMo talk 21:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats would seem reasonable. BluefieldWV (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I agree you are improving the Singer article. Thank you for helping the project. --BozMo talk 21:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say thanks to you as well. It has been difficult to find people who are patient around here. I realize that there have been quite a few contributors whose intent was less than pure and acted like pricks, and it’s a credit to your character that you have taken time to explain some basics and nuances around here to a newish editor like myself. BluefieldWV (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

High hazardous classification

Your criteria for "Highly Hazardous Chemicals" are unclear. This categorizing seems to have broad scope and implications for the manual of style for chemicals, see Misplaced Pages:Chemical safety. If you have ideas/plans that would affect more than a couple of articles, then you should probably communicate your thinking to the chemistry discussion group in an attempt to get advice and achieve some sort of consensus. The group has a lot of experience and expertise. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My sense is that the highly hazardous classification scheme is not needed. We have a direct link to the MSDS on all chem pages, and we highlight acute hazards in a separate safety section when notable, steering away from giving advice at the same time. Most of the chem editors seem to agree that we could overwhelm any chemical article with diverse toxicity info, so we tend to rely on the MSDS. On a related matter, you are encouraged to participate by consulting the link chemistry discussion group. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. BluefieldWV (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Aren't you one of the BLP zealots? How do you justify clear violations like this ? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it's in his autobiography and many reliable sources have noted it , . WVBluefield (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are dense. Nevermind, I'm sure you'll get there in the end William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

change of username

Hi Bluefield, out of interest, how did you change your username? I also want to change mine! Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I lost my password, got a new account and redirected my old talk page and user page back here. WVBluefield (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)