Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:41, 22 November 2006

For old discussion, please see Archives 1, 2, 3, and 4.

My page

Why were you edit my page? It was really. Ojciec 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Administrator userbox was removed from your page because you are not an administrator, and users might mistakenly come to you thinking you could help them in that fashion. --Kuzaar 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing Hannity

Hi Kuzaar, in re to your request for ideas on dealing with the current friction at Hannity, I should first say that I believe the real source of the problem -- sidestepping the issue of editing based entirely upon political motivations, which is inevitable, and perhaps even a symptom of a healthy democratic society -- is specific Wiki guidelines, or lack thereof, pertaining to sources and their proper usage. If we allow Wiki criticism, we need to allow critical sources. This does not mean the inclusion of spin in an article - the partisan language should be filtered out prior to posting, but the pure facts should not be disallowed. The Fox News website in not going to have critical -- or even unbiased -- info on Sean Hannity, any more than Shell Oil's website is going to post a link to An Inconvenient Truth. MediaMatters and other "left-wing" sources (not counting blogs) are going to have the best access to critical information on a right-wing pundit. If a few editors don't like it, tough titty. MediaMatters and MoveOn have proven to be reliable sources based upon their history. They do not print factually erroneous content, irregardless of any spin. Otherwise Wiki should just not allow criticism on this website.--Jackbirdsong 01:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fan death

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fan death, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fan death. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re my edits to List of Internet slang phrases

Thank you for the clarification. I admit that I wasn't sure about whether to remove some of these or not. Misplaced Pages:Profanity does say that profanities should be used when there is no other alternative, and I guess that this is the case here. I apologise for any inconvenience. Thank you Steve Thiel 03:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I am still learning the ropes. Thanks for the offer of support also, I will keep you in mind. Regards Steve Thiel

Ava Lowery

Hi Kuz, I left you a reply of FAAFA's talk page (meant to leave that on my own, but mistakes happen). I trust that you will represent fairly the interests and content policies of the Project in your dealing with that article and editor. I just can't work with him anymore. Crockspot 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by User:Crockspot

(Migrated from FA's talk page) --Kuzaar 18:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• My concerns are all well documented on Talk:Ava Lowery, going back into last summer. I'm pretty much done with FAAFA. He has used up all my good faith. I won't work with him anymore. You guys do your thing, and when you're done, I'll take a look and make edits as I see appropriate. Good luck with that one. BTW, see the section in WP:RS about self-published sources in articles about the subject. From what FAAFA is claiming (of course, I assume he's misinterpreting what you said, since I now question any of his judgements), you may be mistaken about the use of self-published sources (like blogs) as a primary source in articles about the subject. If he has what you told him wrong, please straighten him out. If he's correct, then please reread that section of RS, and reconsider. Crockspot 17:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit: I though I was on my own talk page for some reason, I meant to reply there, but it doesn't really matter that much.) Crockspot 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • PS. I am talking about blogs in general, not in the Lowery article. FAAFA seems to think that any blog link must be removed, even when it qualifies under the section of RS and V that I pointed out above. (WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves) - Crockspot 18:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Copying reply to you from my talk page:

• The "anti-republican" stuff was another editor's issue, not mine. The only issue I have is that the "death threats" section's only "reliable" source, an article from the Progressive, is dubious at best. It states that a particular "death threat" came as the result of her WWJD article, and even implied that those threats came from CU. (Some have maintained that she was talking about a generic conservative underground, but that didn't stop lots of people, particularly from DU, from pointing at CU, and hammering us incessantly about it.) An archived post of Ava's on POAC from nine months previous shows that the particular threat occurred long before WWJD was ever produced, and had nothing to do with CU. As far as I have seen, that one threat was the only publicly documented text that could be construed as a threat. No one on CU ever threatened her, and certainly not in response to WWJD. If there were other actual threats against her regarding WWJD in particular, they have never been published. CU's involvement with Ava is pretty much limited to this thread, which Ava started on CU, and her mother contributed to, threatening us with legal action, etc. (Ava and mom edited out their posts, but others in the thread quoted them, so you can pretty much piece it together.) We didn't even know who Ava was when she showed up, so she was treated pretty much like all liberal trolls are who show up at CU, tolerated by some, vulgarly insulted by others. I think one member's sigline may have been misinterpreted by Ava as a threat against her, but that sigline appeared in all of his posts, so it was a simple misunderstanding. Another member made the masturbation comment, but that is pretty mild for that guy, and he did not know she was a teenager when he made it. The whole think conflated from there. In a nutshell, CU had nothing to do with death threats against her, and the Progressive article is too dubious to be used alone as a reliable source for any threats that may have been made by others. If you can find better sources, then by all means, write a good, well sourced section about it. Just leave CU out of it as far as death threats go. Being "vulgarly insulted" on the internet hardly seems like a notable enough event for encyclopedic inclusion, but if you feel differently, and it can be sourced by other than the Progressive article, I guess it could go in. Other than that, since FAAFA has been adding more sources, she does seem notable enough to me now to have an article. Before, notability wasn't asserted well enough in the article, but that does not seem to be the case anymore. Crockspot 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• In response to FAAFA's comments below, if you check the discussion about blog posts on Talk:Ava Lowery, it is pretty clear that FAAFA is trying to convince me that blog posts are never allowed ever, and even invokes your name over it. I'm not pushing to include any blog posts in the article. But I do think it is appropriate to use a blog post on the talk page to attack the credibility of a "reliable source" that others wish to include. The standard of WP is "verifiability, not truth". The Progressive article is neither verifiable, nor true. When you add that the Progressive is a left-leaning publication, I don't think you can consider it a reliable enough source to cite for this controversy. Crockspot 20:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by F.A.A.F.A.

response Only have a few minutes now - more later. 1) CP is misrepresenting my position. I have never said that ALL blogs, and forums are totally excluded in all cases. The link to Free Republics owner and founder Jim Robinson - a link to an 'article' about the history of FR, not 'in contention' is fine. Links however to forum posts, even if to the forum owner, are generally not allowed, and not in this case. I learned this on the PW article where a link to a forum post by Kifer was rightly excluded, and on the FR article also, when I wanted to link to a post by Jim Robinson admitting that the Anthrax Letter Hoax Suspect was a Freeper. Take a look at the article on Nov. 10, and now, as I linked to in my discussion. The previous version linked to a cache of a forum post, probably by Ava, describing an insult or threat she received, which seems to predate one of her videos, that she did receive threats and insults. An article on Ava whic describes the the threats and insults, seems to state that this insult was received at a date later than the forum post where Ava first described it. The Anti Avans ( and I will only mention that CU is the that forum CP and Jinx belong to,where the insult to Ava, 15 years old at the time, telling he to 'Go masturbate to a picture of Cindy Sheehan' was posted) The Anti Avans used a link to this post to form the OR claim : "Documented death threats were made against Lowery in response to an earlier animation and were apparently conflated into an article discussing the right-wing response to WWJD" - As I wrote earlier -:1)the 'conflated' bit is and was OR 2)Furthermore... Before I found this article 2 days ago, it was GARBAGE Last pre FAAFA version BIASED and POV, so please stop your specious claims that *I* have any other goal than to improve what was a piece of crap before I arrived. 4)I am not adverse to deleting ALL of the threats / insults alleagtions - the entire section- except for a brief mention in the opening paragraph, and suggest that we delete it now, and work on a version here in talk, that we, with the help of an Admin if nesessary, can agree on. I will do that now. -

Maybe CP got upset that I called the previous version that he worked on 'garbage' - but look at the version before 'we' started working on it 3 short days ago. Note also the insults on the talk page directed towards me, and Ava and her site also. All 'we' are trying to do is improve the article. I think we have done a good job. more later - F.A.A.F.A. 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

(As a preliminary comment, before I read the above) Please, if you could, limit your opinion to the discussion at the Ava Lowery page and any content issues you have, and don't use this space to respond to Crockspot's statement, I will not allow this statement to turn into a back-and-forth debate while it is on my talk page. Once I go through your comments I will speak up here and on the article's talk page. --Kuzaar 20:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, having reviewed the above statement, I will leave a brief comment on your talk page as I did for Crockspot. If you feel you have anything more to add before I recommend a course in the article's discussion, feel free to speak up. --Kuzaar 20:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Without intent to insult, I think CP may have a misunderstanding of what constitutes Original Research. Take a look at the page he is working on for the article which got AfD'd Consevative Undergound The majority of the article is OR, with no RS V sourcing at all - vast tracts of it. He may say it's a 'work in progress' - but why would anyone spend so much time compiling what is clearly exclusionable non RS+V OR, if they knew that wouldn't meet WP - F.A.A.F.A. 20:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated to you previously, I consider the CU article to be a dead issue, that I haven't worked on in a long time, and I will probably delete it myself soon. Please stop insulting me. Your intentions are quite clear. I've had just about enough. I've written plenty of opinions about OR as a member of the BLP patrol, which have been endorsed by Jimbo. Stop please. Crockspot 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I will agree, FAAFA, that your above comment could be easily construed as an insult to Crockspot, and, at a minimum, is uncivil. Please review the first point that I left on your talk page; I will not be able to mediate in this issue if you continue to be combative. --Kuzaar 20:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a point that I have mentioned to him on my response on his talk page. As I said to him, it is an exceedingly fine line (particularly in the world of words that is politics!) between using language descriptively and implying motive, value, or anything not explicitly stated in writing an article. --Kuzaar 20:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)