Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:11, 29 December 2007

Original research

You wrote at

...

"that would be OR, because the textbooks you want to use have nothing to do with the film." -- I feel like I must be misunderstanding something here. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Statements about facts are statements about facts, and any reliable source on these facts is germane, and is not "original research" by any natural interpretation of that expression.

Whether or not the sources have something to do with the main topic of the article is irrelevant, or should be -- i.e. our policy should state this.

A policy that says that the source has to be about the main topic of the article is inappropriate.

Thanks for your attention. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position where this is explained. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I do not agree with your position on this as I understand it. (I believe that the policy itself probably needs to be modified.)

You wrote at User_talk:Writtenonsand#Your_note:

• "The reason the policy disallows this is that people could constantly add sources not directly related to the topic to present their own view of whatever the subject was." -- I believe that people do "constantly" add sources "not directly related to the topic" (sic) to present their own view of whatever the subject is. I don't believe that the policy at Misplaced Pages:No_original_research, as it currently exists, is an appropriate remedy. I believe that all assertions of fact in articles should be supported with cites from reliable sources, even if those sources aren't about the main topic of the article. We can control people overdoing this by stating a policy that there's a limit on the number of cites per assertion, and other more-or-less commonsensical related policies. Additionally, as always on Misplaced Pages, the issue is not "the views of editors about whatever a subject is", but the views of reliable citable sources on whatever the subject is. It's irrelevant if I think that the moon is made of green cheese, but if a reputable expert on the subject states this theory in print (in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Reliable_sources), it's entirely reasonable to cite this.
• " You wrote above that any reliable source of any fact is germane, but what is germane on Misplaced Pages is what secondary sources have written about the topic." -- Yes, we agree here. However, as I understand the current debate, it isn't about whether sources are secondary or not. This may be the crux of the continuing disagreement. On the other hand, maybe I'm missing something.
• "Otherwise, in the example given, someone could add a source saying that time travel isn't possible under quantum physics, someone else could add one arguing that it is, someone else another one saying something else -- and on and on, until the article would no longer be about the film." -- The appropriate remedy would be to state a guideline (or a policy, subject to Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules as appropriate) stating that a maximum of, say, three sources may be cited for any given assertion.
• "To prevent that, we (generally) publish what other people have published about films (or whatever the topic is), even if we disagree with it or feel that they've left out something important." -- Again, I agree.

I feel like the two sides of this disagreement are talking at cross purposes. I don't feel like your comments, and the policies you're citing, actually address the concerns you raise. I feel that the policy is mis-stated and is being mis-applied, and that it would be highly desirable to re-word the policy.

Again, thanks much for your attention. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Can you please explain why you unblocked Zeraeph; an editor who has a long history of harassing SandyGeorgia, and has posted vicious attacks on her offsite? Ceoil (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I don't get the logic, but fine, we'll see. This editor needs to be monitored closely. Has there been a change in policy, bty. Ceoil (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking long term disruptive stalkers. What with bad sites, the wheel war over Miltopia, etc etc, I'm just puzzled. Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this was an extreamly unwise unblock. It can only end one way, and it is severly disrespectful to the productive contributors that have been attacked on and offsite by this editor. Within hours of return the account is being disruptive. What gives? Why was the account unblocked? Makes no sence to me. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WikBack account created

Someone, perhaps you, recently created an account at the WikBack. If the account was created by an imposter, please let me know as soon as possible so that it can be disabled. Otherwise, welcome! The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Zeraeph question

Since you seem to have developed some repertoire with User:Zeraeph, I was hoping you would help out now. Her 28 day block expired today, and she immediately made 19 contentious edits to Psychopathy, making edit summaries like, "this is wrong", "incorrect", etc. but refusing do discuss on the article talk page, as she says she is right and that is that. I reported her to 3-RRR but it was declined as "malformed". I do not know what that means. Do you have any advice as to how to handle this? Now she is taking information I put in the article and mistaking it, and she is moving citations around in a misleading way. Is it true, as everyone says, that none of her article's can be edited by anyone else? Regards, Mattisse 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

same subject

It is my understanding (possibly wrong) that you were involved in Zeraeph's unblocking. I have been contacted by Mattisse regarding this matter, and I have left comments with User:Mikkalai here and User:Zareaph here. I have suggested to Mattisse that the article may be protected until Mikkalai (or you?) can get the parties to agree some working conditions. Your advice will hopefully prove useful here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not 'involved', please. SV was the unblocking admin. Why the (possibly wrong)? Are we children. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And its just not Sandy, SlimVirgin; this user has also harrassed A Kiwi, TRCourage, Soulgany101, Mattisse, Penbat and Psychonaut. Were they consulted, or warned. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on Talk:Psychopathy hoping someone can explain the dispute to me. Cheers, SlimVirgin 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Am, 'hoping someone can explain the dispute to me' and on Psychopathy's talk: 'not aware of the background'? You were the unblocking admin. Excuse me? Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right, Ceoil, I'm not familiar with the details of content dispute. Nor is there any need to be to block or unblock someone for behavioral issues. SlimVirgin 00:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, SlimVirgin, that is meaningless. And you know this was not down to a content dispute. This was on and off wiki harassment. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the circumstances around the block and I saw no harassment that led to it. I did see a few very unpleasant anon posts about the user, after the block. But regardless, she is unblocked now, and I will keep an eye on it. If you see any specific problems, please let me know. SlimVirgin 00:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

please let me know: I'd like to inform you of Mattisse's posts, above. Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychopathy etc

Hi, there were some very serious factual errors (not disputes, real errors, like the one about Washington State Legislature) in the article I just could not leave. As well as a lot of blatant POV and conjecture where there was once a decent article. From ok, it had been turned into the kind of thing that people use as evidence against Misplaced Pages. I made no 3RR, nor even close...surely she cannot harass me by making things up like that and get away with it? I wouldn't get away with it (actually I wouldn't try, it isn't in my nature, I'd feel like an idiot if I did that). --Zeraeph (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just glancing at the previous lead, one thing that jumped out at me is the claim that psychopathy can be used to describe any mental illness, but so far as I know that's not right. Maybe the editor got it mixed up with psychopathology. SlimVirgin 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable. So its just a content thing? Ceoil (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Psychopathy WAS once used in English to describe any mental illness (that is what it literally means) but it hasn't been since the 40s, except insofar as the archaic use was retained in the British Mental Health act until 2001 (I did some work on the act at the time and was quite shocked to find it tucked in the old act in that way - very few people were aware of it). In German the term Psykopathy STILL means "any mental illness". It was, however totally inaccurate to claim that Psychopathy is still used to denote "any mental illness", the UK Mental Health act was the last vestige gone in 2001, when the term, was redefined in law.

Here are the actual changes I made in total, as you will see, very little of anything has been removed from the article. here is one interim change made by User:Mattisse and here is another --Zeraeph (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sovient (slavic) Sivilians reference from M. Berenbaum's edited book

Book: ed. M. Berenbaum, "A Mosaic of Victims. Non-Jews murdered by Nazis." - the book as you may call it of the most recognized in the area. Page 117: "All this, however, would remain an idle dream unless a planned policy of colonization and depopulation are carried out. Yes, a depolulation policy..." Page 118: "Germans were true to their policies. They depopulated the Ukraine though mass execution, deportations and famine. Page 140: " the scale of German extermination of the population of Soviet Republics:

Ukraine 4.0 million
Belorussia 2.5 million
Russian Federation 1.7 millions

And finally page 147 last paragraph: "it was not part of German Army tradition to kill defenseless prisoners of war by thousands ... The popular explanation is that the entire Wehrmacht had adopted the Nazi concept that all Soviet citizent are subhumans and that German soldiers acted accordignly. "

Please correct me if I am wrong: - Slavs (Soviet) were mass killed for racial reasons. - Slavs were scheduled for complete anihilation (Leberbaum plan). Just Nazi couldn't plan right as easily to kill 150 millions as 15 millinons they planned in case of Jewish people. It would be unfeasable to do this at once. - Slavs were killed in concentration camps (even Ukrainian presiden's father), forced labor camps, starved to death, burned alive, shot and finally sterilized. - Some authors even give number of Slavic Holocaust (W. Churchill) 19.7 - 23.9 millions !!!!!!!!

Please let me know your opinion if this confirms my editing. my email if you need: vkilchyk@yahoo.ca VS

I have done what I can re Psychopathy - other than doing another months work over again

You can deal with it now, since you like Z. So it is hopeless for me anyhow. She even got Jimbo to overturn her community ban. I believe you are close to Jimbo and I have already wasted too much time on this political foolishness. Mattisse 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Truth

Why is this Kant quote not discussing the correspondence theory of truth, as you said here? It seems plain to me that it is. MilesAgain (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your very quick reply. Kant did at first accept, but later criticized the correspondence theory. Here is a secondary source which makes that clear. He wrote in 1787, "The nominal definition of truth, that it is the agreement of with its object, is assumed as granted." But when he addressed the subject directly in 1800, he rejected it as circular, in the same text that you had originally said was not a discussion of the correspondence theory. ("But Kant didn't discuss the correspondence theory of truth.")

Would agree with reverting this edit to the Truth article which was done "per" you, given the above? MilesAgain (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I wrote, he took it for granted in 1787. Let me ask this: Do you think that the text deleted from Truth per you is supported by this excerpt of that secondary source:

It is typically pointed out that we cannot step outside our own minds to compare our thoughts with mind-independent reality. Yet—so the objection continues—on the correspondence theory of truth, this is precisely what we would have to do to gain knowledge. We would have to access reality as it is in itself, independently of our cognition of it, and determine whether our thoughts correspond to it. Since this is impossible, since all our access to the world is mediated by our cognition, the correspondence theory makes knowledge impossible (cf. Kant 1800, intro vii). Assuming that the resulting skepticism is unacceptable, the correspondence theory has to be rejected.

? "Kant 1800, intro vii" is the same text. MilesAgain (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. User:Kenosis -- a long-time and prolific editor of Truth -- reverted the deletion, and decided that the user who had made it, User:Babe Sanger, is a suspected sockpuppet of John Aubrey. I don't know why, but Babe's contributions begin on the 24th and comprise four edits. MilesAgain (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

troublesome unblock

Hi SV

I probably don't know all of the facts, but I'm extremely concerned at the angst surrounding the unblocking of Zeraeph. I've seen nothing but trouble in Z's participation in a number of pages on medical/psychological issues, and when I see my wikifriends becoming hopelessly depressed at her return (retirement?), alarm bells ring.

I have no axe to grind WRT to Zeraeph on a personal level.

Trusting that you're keeping an eye on this, especially now that Sandy is performing a critical role at FAC. Tony (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:MyattIslam.png

Thanks for uploading Image:MyattIslam.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot 05:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:DavidMyatt2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DavidMyatt2.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot 05:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes made to Psychopathy today, minutes after your friend being unblocked

• first revert 17.20 December 28
• second revert -Revision as of 17:41, 28 December 2007
• third revert - Revision as of 17:43, 28 December 2007
• fourth revert -Revision as of 17:46, 28 December 2007
• fifth revert - Revision as of 17:47, 28 December 2007
• sixth revert -Revision as of 17:55, 28 December 2007
• seventh revert - Revision as of 17:56, 28 December 2007
• eighth refert - Revision as of 17:58, 28 December 2007
• ninth revert - Revision as of 17:59, 28 December 2007

• 10th revert - Revision as of 18:00, 28 December 2007
• 11th revert - Revision as of 18:07, 28 December 2007
• 12th revert - Revision as of 18:12, 28 December 2007
• 13th revert - Revision as of 18:14, 28 December 2007
• 14 revert - Revision as of 18:16, 28 December 2007
• 15 revert -Revision as of 18:17, 28 December 2007
• 16th revert - Revision as of 18:22, 28 December 2007
• 17th revert - Revision as of 19:17, 28 December 2007
• 16th revert - Revision as of 19:20, 28 December 2007
• 17th revert - Revision as of 19:22, 28 December 2007
• 18th revert - Revision as of 19:26, 28 December 2007
• 19th revert - Current revision (19:43, 28 December 2007)

I hear you were the one that unblocked her. Thanks! All the best! Mattisse 06:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not an undoing of an indefinite block, but one due to expire anyway, AFAICS. That said, the user is clearly in no way capable of interacting constructively at this point (see the latest creepy retirement post on her user talk). If this goes anywhere, it should probably be to WP:AN. Marskell (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ew, I see it's already there. I must say that "...the situation seems to be that there are allegations from a number of sides about harassment" is a little mind-blowing, Slim. I'd expect you know it when you see it. Marskell (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, I've seen inappropriate posts on both sides. I think this was a personality clash that escalated -- though I admit that I've not poured through every single edit, so it's possible I've missed something of significance. If it was more serious than that, it will soon reveal itself, and then I'll deal with it. But what I'm seeing here is a huge fuss over a block being cut short in a perfectly standard way, namely because the blockee requested it and the blocking admin had no objection. This wasn't an indef block that was overturned, or one overturned over the blocking admin's head, and the people protesting would have been facing this situation anyway in a few days time when the block expired. So I admit to being perplexed, and all I can do is ask people to AGF if at all possible, and see whether doing that makes any difference. SlimVirgin 07:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't indefinite, as I noted. And yes, even if the extra fifteen days or so had gone through the editor would likely have done exactly the same thing: gone straight back to the last article they were working on and made massive changes/reverts with no discussion. (That's sort of the point—her behaviour today was predictable.)

"I've seen inappropriate posts on both sides." I haven't seen inappropriate posts on both sides (though I haven't pored over every diff either). I see a clearly unstable editor with persecution fantasies who's run to WR when her shouting on-site failed. "Everybody's made mistakes, move along" does not seem an accurate judgement. Marskell (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But do you know that the edits she made to the article today were inappropriate? That's what the issue is, surely -- whether she's making good edits or bad ones.

All I can repeat is that I've seen inappropriate posts on both sides, including some from Sandy alleging that I'm part of some conspiracy and have a conflict of interest, when in fact I have nothing to do with it, and no background knowledge of it. As I said, people are upset and are saying things, on both sides, that would be best left unsaid. That's why I've asked both to stop commenting on each other, and it would be helpful if Sandy's friends would stop too. If, in two weeks time, the situation continues and there is more of what anyone feels is harassment, it can be revisited. But in the meantime, I'm asking you to AGF and to ask others to do the same. If Z stays out of Sandy's way, and Sandy stays out of Z's way, that will help a lot. SlimVirgin 07:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I did look at the edits. Given the near certainty that they were going to create a conflict with Matisse, yes they were inappropriate. (That is, disruptive even if they happened to be "good".) The editor has given zero indication that they're going to properly utilize article talk. More generally, Sandy's med edits (many to FA) run above ten thousand at this point, so I trust them, as one does with good editors in unfamiliar subject areas. There is nothing in Zeraeph's history to suggest that she has ever provided lasting, useful content or that this should be treated as an ordinary content dispute.

As I'm perceived as Sandy's friend, I've never commented on Z before. The unblocking prompted me to. As Sandy perceives you (presumably) as having an animus against her, she might not have viewed the unblocking as disinterested. Certainly, "don't worry, Slim will watch" doesn't make much sense. Z has already come close to a ban in the past and the community should discuss remedies for her editing. And "Z stays out of Sandy's way, and Sandy stays out of Z's way" is rather insulting for a well-respected, 50k editor who has obviously been subject to stalking. Marskell (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me an edit you felt was inappropriate? I looked at them and they seemed good, but I'm no expert in that area. As for the other point, maybe you ought to spend some time looking through the histories. There really have been inappropriate comments on both sides, some of them highly inappropriate. Whether it's more weighted to this or that side, I don't know and it would take hours to find out. But there is definitely fault on both sides, at least to some degree, though speaking about it in terms of fault isn't helpful. It has simply been an unpleasant dynamic, which I hope you'll help to end, and not by throwing one of the parties out the door. SlimVirgin 08:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's very late where I am (why Wiki? why?!) so I'm not digging through histories now. I'll leave you with what you've already read tonight. This re Ceoil: "I have just realised that he also seems to live within 30 miles of me." And this: "In September 2006 I sincerely mistook her for a sockpuppet of a woman who has stalked me since 1999. I made this mistake for the very simple reason that User:SandyGeorgia behaves just, uncannily, like her."

Do you not see it? Slim, you have been a victim of this. Editors we both know have been. It's unstable, Amorrow-style, STALK bullshit. It's as clear as the colour of my socks, from where I'm typing, friends with Sandy or not. I see nothing like this in return from Sandy (maybe from random IPs, but not from her)—nothing as clearly creepy and fantastic, and this just since you unblocked Z. No Slim. If you think you can seriously mentor this one, OK. But make sure your goggles are on straight. Marskell (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On a related note

I have removed a personal attack made on an another editor from Zeraeph's talk page. Here's the diff. She really should be blocked again. Jeffpw (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

RfAr for Zeraeph

Is there a case for us jointly promoting this directly to ArbCom, even if Z is unwilling? I recognise that both of us may attract criticism as regards perceived motives, but our two records regarding each other - civil but intransigent disagreements over application of some (proposed) policies - should counter any suggestion of collusion in the matter. The only current alternative is the community ban discussion, which is taking place far too soon (and at the same venue) as the original discussion. I am willing to work with you on this one if you believe it worthwhile. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)