Misplaced Pages

User talk:Spearmind: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:48, 6 March 2015 editMyNameIsVlad (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,501 edits →Rocky Dawuni← Previous edit Revision as of 02:42, 6 March 2015 edit undoSpearmind (talk | contribs)1,782 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 41: Line 41:
::: I came to the book becauser its citing Goddard.] (]) 12:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC) What do you think "". Did not look deeper. "Emotionally written" or the books big picture or what is more grounded or not will alwys be personal views. Our job is to represent all perspectives in the game built around facts. The specific user doubts self published stuff fine, but it does not concern his view about Guy Span. There are different factors what did make the streetcars no longer attractive. I cited a bit already. One editor does not seem to understand that there in fact was a conspiracy to get rid of street cars. He favors "dubious" Guy Span over others. Is the authors real name known in public? Goddard using ""Sloan and his fellow auto makers". Lets see what else we can find.] (]) 12:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC) ::: I came to the book becauser its citing Goddard.] (]) 12:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC) What do you think "". Did not look deeper. "Emotionally written" or the books big picture or what is more grounded or not will alwys be personal views. Our job is to represent all perspectives in the game built around facts. The specific user doubts self published stuff fine, but it does not concern his view about Guy Span. There are different factors what did make the streetcars no longer attractive. I cited a bit already. One editor does not seem to understand that there in fact was a conspiracy to get rid of street cars. He favors "dubious" Guy Span over others. Is the authors real name known in public? Goddard using ""Sloan and his fellow auto makers". Lets see what else we can find.] (]) 12:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
::::A good discussion, and thanks for responding. Let's pick it up on the articles talk page when we either have Anmccaff working well with the community (which seems very unlikely) or he is out of the picture and we can carry on a rational conversation on the correct venue. Are you ok with that? I did however want to discuss this with you briefly ahead of requesting a topic ban. Thanks again. ] (]) ::::A good discussion, and thanks for responding. Let's pick it up on the articles talk page when we either have Anmccaff working well with the community (which seems very unlikely) or he is out of the picture and we can carry on a rational conversation on the correct venue. Are you ok with that? I did however want to discuss this with you briefly ahead of requesting a topic ban. Thanks again. ] (])

== Copyvio on Patrick Awuah ==

Please let an admin decide whether there is ground to delete the article. There is a quite obvious copyright violation problem on this article, which I believe is enough to delete it. If it is decided that there is not enough information to delete it, it should still be cleaned up. ] (]) 22:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:Also please see for this article. ] (]) 22:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
::Disagree with speedy deletion. The report is one point. The person is notable and several material to find on the web. If there is a copyright issue a solution can be found. Speedy deletion process is not the right answer.] (]) 23:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Please use the "Contest this speedy deletion" button in the banner and make your point. An admin will read it and decide what needs to be done. ] (]) 23:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:: Dont tell me what to do. I removed the speedy deletion box since I dont agree with such process.] (]) 23:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

== Rocky Dawuni ==

Dude, read the goddamn thing you just reverted, or better yet, read ]. If there is a copyvio report, the page '''must''' be blanked and replaced with that if there is no history without that infringing content. Considering that large swaths of the page is taken from that site (as seen in the copyvio report), it should be blanked. ]<sup> ] <span style="color: #FF9912;">|</span> ]</sup> 00:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
: You are wrong on that. Let an admin decide this.] (]) 00:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

:: No, I am not. Even the very first (real) edit of that page contains a copy and pasted article in hopes of not getting SD'd. I have already given you ''references'' to show that you are unequivocally in the wrong here. The article at this point is full of copywritten work and has a pending copyvio request out. It ''should'' be blanked as per the instructions that I have already linked to. Please '''stop''' improperly reverting what is not vandalism, and let an admin actually deal with the issue in an appropriate manner, as defined by the procedures which you are not following. If someone wants the content that is being reported, they are free to view it in the page history, and the copyvio notice even has a handy link to said history. ]<sup> ] <span style="color: #FF9912;">|</span> ]</sup> 00:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

::: I will add that, once a copyvio report is submitted, "Any contributor is welcome to help investigate articles listed for copyright concerns, although ''only administrators, copyright problems board clerks, and OTRS team members should remove copyvio tags'' and mark listings resolved." (emphasis mine, from the same link). If you do not agree with the copyright violation, for whatever reason, then you are free to contest it where it was reported ], but reverting the page is '''not''' a valid form of contestation. ]<sup> ] <span style="color: #FF9912;">|</span> ]</sup> 00:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:42, 6 March 2015

Printz Board

Hi, I saw you made a bunch of edits to Printz Board. Could I encourage you to comment and vote on the heinous and unwelcome AfD entry for this article? ].

Thanks!

"Citations are needed....

....because you deleted them. The citation you removed directly covered the question at hand.Anmccaff (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Then put it right in the text instead in reference tags! Furthermore 25 is not covered by source. So "a number of cities" is a solution harming no one. Dont try to guess numbers.Spearmind (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Yes, the number is covered in the cite, page 172, if memory serves, Comes right up if you hit the Hathitrust url.Anmccaff (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem if you put the reference directly behind the claim. No footnotes (and inline citations) inside reference tags just linking to a real reference! You can link repeatingly to the same source by putting the refname in tags.Spearmind (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy article

Thank you for your engagement with General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy article. Could I however ask you to respond to my note about the lead length and citations in the lead on the article's talk page? Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I notice that you also think we would be better off without Anmccaff's inputm based on your comments on Bejnar's talk page. I have already stopped responding to him on talk, other than in relation to behaviour. I would urge you to ignore the DRN page and only discuss content issues on talk, and only do that if you think it will achieve something. Nothing should stop you continuing to edit the article however. I will pick up with you on the article when the Anmccaff behaviour issues are resolved one way or other. PeterEastern (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Well this not just a one night edit. The subject is very interesting and I will keep it watching. Conspiracys and conspiracy theories are one thing and when I hear the term "conspiracy theorist" it goes directly against a person with no way to argue about, no matter of what perspective editors should be on alert. Any perspective is welcome. You see I added William Garrison which confirms also the public transportation and its staff have interests and not every time a public transportation has an economical problem its to blame on a conspiracy. Anmccaff creates masses of bytes on talk pages and DRN board but its not helpful for the article. He delivers no reviewable facts for his claims and dont expect answers to your quesions.Spearmind (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I am not following all your edits in detail. I do love this topic, I like the mystery of something that happened a long time ago and is a bit hazy and I love that period in american transport history. I love the process of discovery and don't care at all as to where that leads and if GM or anyone else comes our well or badly in the process. I will get properly engaged if/when I don't have to engage in what has proved to be completely unproductive activity with Anmccaff. As I say, I have not formed a view as to wether every change you make is a change I would support, but you clearly respect the process, the sources and the community and that is at the core of what makes WP work. Anmccaff appears to think he can ignore that if he wants to. As soon as we are done with the DRN I proposed to request that Anmccaff is required to stay away from this topic for a month while others see what they can do with it. Sounds as though you will be around to edit during that period as well. PeterEastern (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Anmccaff (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what happens next re the edit warring incident, but I suggest that while we wait to find out it will probably be best not to respond to posts by Anmccaff anywhere else, even if he tries to provoke a response with comments like 'Please add any lols you need to help understand that'! PeterEastern (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, he did write such nonsense I could not resist. Will be working on myself not commenting his one man show anymore besides when its subject on noticeboards.Spearmind (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I believe that the edit warring discussion is now over - the page has been locked for a week for people to reflect on the issue and their behaviour and I believe that that is all that will happen this time.
I do think you need to be a bit more thoughtful about how you respond to Anmccaff. He is unable to behave in a civil manner and I am confident that he will be given a topic ban for a period of time very soon unless he stops his childish behaviour very rapidly. Don't worry about that. It is a shame at one level because he does know a lot about the subject, however his knowledge is offset by his inability to work with others. While he is still engaged I do suggest that you need to stop responding (I notice that you have responded again to his challenges on the article's talk page which will probably only lead to another fruitless loop round the block). Fyi, I am not going to respond to any content issues until he is out of the way.
I am not even paying a lot of attention to your edits. However.... I couldn't help noticing that you briefly added and then removed a reference to Cities Back from the Edge: New Life for Downtown: New Life for Downtowns (Architecture). ISBN 978-0-471-36124-4. in your response to Anmccaff. Personally I wonder if the author is presenting the 'GM streetcar myth' on page 106 rather than fact. It is emotionally written and paints a picture that loss of streetcars was all GM's fault in the way that Bianco, 1988 describes, The book doesn't give the more grounded explanation that this was the inevitable result of many other factors, aided and abetted by GM and their actions for sure, but inevitable all the same given that the relevant policy makers and authorities were not able or prepared to act to limit the restructuring of urban life that mass car use was leading to. As such I don't think we can believe its factual claims of the number of cities involved or use it as evidence for what happened in the 1920s or if GM's NCL connections were secret or not. This is what makes this story so interesting to me and makes establishing what happened so difficult.
Anyway... I am not intending to create another forum to discuss content, but simply to discuss our approach to writing this article that we will take when we are able to discuss such things on the article's talk page again. I will ask Bejnar's advice in a few days about how we proceed. Possibly we have a break during the block period and see if the the chaos starts again when it is lifted and then act. PeterEastern (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I came to the book becauser its citing Goddard.Spearmind (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC) What do you think "NCL secretly formed". Did not look deeper. "Emotionally written" or the books big picture or what is more grounded or not will alwys be personal views. Our job is to represent all perspectives in the game built around facts. The specific user doubts self published stuff fine, but it does not concern his view about Guy Span. There are different factors what did make the streetcars no longer attractive. I cited a bit already. One editor does not seem to understand that there in fact was a conspiracy to get rid of street cars. He favors "dubious" Guy Span over others. Is the authors real name known in public? Goddard using ""Sloan and his fellow auto makers". Lets see what else we can find.Spearmind (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
A good discussion, and thanks for responding. Let's pick it up on the articles talk page when we either have Anmccaff working well with the community (which seems very unlikely) or he is out of the picture and we can carry on a rational conversation on the correct venue. Are you ok with that? I did however want to discuss this with you briefly ahead of requesting a topic ban. Thanks again. PeterEastern (talk)