User talk:CyberAnth - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CyberAnth (talk | contribs) at 17:10, 31 January 2007 (→F*** WAD?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:10, 31 January 2007 by CyberAnth (talk | contribs) (→F*** WAD?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Talk archives

Regarding your strict interpretation of the BLP and Verifiability policies

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Keep up the good work. Perhaps there is hope for the "Quality, not quantity" mindset after all. Frise 14:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletions at Rush Limbaugh

I think you aare mistaken when you said that DO NOT place uncited material into a BLP. What is "controversial" is irrelevant, not to mention susbjective.. The actual phrase from WP:BLP is "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately "). Note the word CONTROVERSIAL in the sentence. Please dont keep deleting blocks of uncontroversial text from the article. I don't want to get into something unpleasant here. We can discuss this further if you like. Caper13 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you have deleted the text again. Are you not interested in talking? Caper13 01:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't waste your time talking. Cite it. That is non-negotiable in a BLP. CyberAnth 01:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No it isnt. Citing controversial items is required. There is NOTHING that says every statement must be cited. If there is, why dont you show it to me. Educate me please. Caper13 01:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversial to whom? You? Who makes you the authority on what is or is not controversial to Limbaugh? Cite it and you will have no worries. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. I am not going to discuss this further. Cite it or it will be removed. Period. CyberAnth 02:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages says "controversial" for a reason. You are the one ignoring that policy and deleting ANY uncited items. You seem to have made yourself the authority on what is controversial, while the consensus on that article seems to have felt it is not. Caper13 02:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I could give a rip if the consensus at the talk page says you can go against WP policies. You cannot. "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus 'are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's basic policies and principles. See Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus_vs._other_policies. I do not know what is controversial to Limbaugh or not. Neither do you. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. This is heightened when it is a BLP. I suggest instead of bitching at me for applying WP policies, and instead of trying to get around them, you spend your citing the material. Then I will go away. CyberAnth 02:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You are violating Misplaced Pages policies. You admit that you don't know if the item is controversial or not, but you delete anyway. WP:BLP talks about deleting controversial items. Furthermore, by saying you don't know if the items are controversial, you have very weak grounds for challenging the item and your edit has more to do with making a point than improving the article. Incidentally, how are you improving Misplaced Pages by stubbing all those other articles. They don't seem to be particularly controversial either. This is looking an awful lot like WP:POINT or simple vandalism. You seem to have a lot of valid edits, so I don't want to assume vandalism but this makes no sense to me. The person who placed the citation tag there even agrees that he doesnt want those items removed. He placed the tag to encourage someone to get around to finding citations. Caper13 02:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's make it real simple. "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives.: See WP:BLP. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. You added material about someone's personal life. I challenged it. It needs a cite to go in. Whatever you continue to add that is unsourced will continue to be removed. BTW, if you simply cite while you write you will never have these problems. Beyond this, I am done. Take it to the Admin noticeboard. However, be forewarned you'll find them sticklers on this one, too. CyberAnth 02:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know that Caper13 did, in fact, take it to AN/I. Jkelly 02:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 1 week due to your edit warring on Rush Limbaugh, so has Caper13. Please use this time to cool down. In the future discuss any significant article changes on the talk page. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Alkivar to reconsider this. Please feel free to use {{unblock}} to encourage further review. Jkelly 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Outcome of several hour block is here. CyberAnth 09:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits based on WP:BLP

CyberAnth, it appears you are under a slight misapprehension about the above policy that has led you to make a series of edits which, while in good faith, are little better than vandalism. The BLP policy is geared towards making sure wikipedia articles steer clear of defamation, which is why it requires items of controversy to be properly cited. While ideally everything on wikipedia would be cited, this has not yet occured and is not considered a deletion-worthy problem in most cases unless such a controversial fact exists in an article on a living person. In all other cases, a "citation needed" tag is all that is required, or perhaps a header stating the article does not cite sources. I am reverting your recent spate of edits that have no actual basis in the BLP and will inform an administrator if this action continues. I hope this clears up this issue and wish you happy editing in the future. Indrian 02:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears that instead of responding to me you have decided to revert my corrections to your vandalism. I am sorry you have decided to take such an unhelpful and destructive stance on wikipedia. I will be informing administrators of your actions and, if necessary, beginning an RFC against you. I truly hope it does not come to that last bit, but your nonsensical interpretation of wikipedia policy is not productive. Please feel free to respond on my talk page if you actually want to engage in dialogue. Indrian 02:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dialog about what, allowing BLPs that do not adhere to WP policies? Good luck. CyberAnth 03:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BLP requires immediate deletion of uncited material on contoversial issues relating to living people. As one example, you have deleted the fact that Hank Aaron was elected to the hall of fame and that he guest-starred on Futureama! These facts are not in dispute by anyone and uncontroversial. They already had citation needed tags. You are violating policy, engaging in (inadvertent) vandalism, and being sarcastic about it instead of engaging in dialogue. I think you will find that there are people that actually do care about that sort of thing. Indrian 03:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"that Hank Aaron was elected to the hall of fame" - I do not know hardly a thing about Aaron, so that can absolutely be a controversial statement, given that it is not verifiable. Cite it. That shows you care. CyberAnth 03:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversial is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "of, relating to, or arousing controversy." Controversy is defined as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views." Verifiability does not enter into it. Indrian 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial" in whose perspective? Yours? Mine? Someone else's? The subject's? We do not know. You do not know. If it is possible that something is controversial to someone, it is therefore controversial. CyberAnth 03:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, basic career information for one thing is not controversial. Did it occur to you that it might be useful to Misplaced Pages if you decided to have a look into references rather than blanket deleting vast amount of contents other editors have probably worked hard creating? You seem to show a sad lack of respect for the contributions of others. WJBscribe 04:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, people who write BLPs without strictly citing their sources show a serious lack of respect for the subject, their readers, and other Wikipedians. The Burden of evidence is not on me to find sources for every article on Misplaced Pages. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article" (WP:V#Burden_of_evidence). This is especially so with BLPs. If something can be controversial to someone somewhere it is therefore controversial. For all I know, or someone else not knowledgable about the subject, the "basic career information" could have been made up in school one day. Cite the material per WP:CITE and you will have nothing to worry about. Sorry if you have been let to get away with this heretofore. CyberAnth 04:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not been let to get away with anything. You will see that I have written none of the articles you have targetted. I simply point out that this wikilawyering you are engaged in this evening is extremely heavy handed. There are better ways to solve this problem. The material poses no danger to Misplaced Pages and sourcing problems can be addressed progressively- there is no need to do it overnight. WJBscribe 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Careful with the charges, there. This is about policies, not one's feelings about how things should be run. CyberAnth 04:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and things could be run perfectly satisfactorily if you decide instead to moderate your approach and only remove controversial material. By all means tag other information but WP:BLP does not require mass deletions of the type you are undertaking. I suggest that an approach more respectful to your fellow editors who have worked in producing those article would be more beneficial to the community. A sledgehammer is simply not needed to crack this nut... WJBscribe 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial" according to whom? You? Me? The subject? If something can potentially be controversial to someone somewhere, especially the subject, it is "controversial" and must be removed. Per WP:V, "the burden of evidence is on the editor adding or replacing the material." The best way to crack this nut is to strictly cite all material in the first place. Not me. I can only add sources to so many articles. CyberAnth 05:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have stretched the meaning of controversial to mean any material whatsoever. I guess deleting material must be a lot easier (and quicker) for you than sourcing it. As you seem to be enjoying your deletion spree so much I'll leave you to it. Have fun.... WJBscribe 05:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Cited material? CyberAnth 05:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=I was blocked for one week by ] for "revert warring" on ]. Page history is . In point of fact, I was removing ''unsourced statements'' from the page, including one that asserted that Limbaugh dropped out of university and another where he was said to have admitted he was wrong about a statement he made. That seems well within the instructions at ], and such edits are explicitly not included in ]. Even so, I only reverted the page TWICE. I suggest I have been blocked for good faith efforts at following policy. Please remove it.}}.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

See below.

Request handled by: Sandstein 07:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the unblock request; see User talk:Alkivar for some preliminary discussion. Since Alkivar and I seem to disagree, a third admin reviewing this block strikes me as a good idea. Jkelly 06:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I emailed User:Alkivar the following:

Yea, let's be real clear about this.
My fist edit to the page removed uncited material from the section "Education".
My second edit to the page, SUBSEQUENT and about one minute after the first, removed uncited material from the "Public life" section.
That totals my initial removal of uncited material.
A user came along and restored the removal.
My third edit, MY FIRST REVERT, reverted the restoration of uncited material.
The same user came along and restored the removal.
My fourth edit, MY SECOND REVERT, reverted the restoration of uncited material.
My fifth edit was to copyedit material another user restored WITH CITATION.
Thus, this did not even violate 3RR.
Verify what I am saying at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rush_Limbaugh&action=history
If you wish to demonstrate integrity in this matter, you may do so by striking out the entry you made at your userpage, ~~"CyberAnth still violated WP:3RR"~~, and indicate I reverted the page TWICE.

CyberAnth 06:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've granted the unblock request. Irrespective of how to characterise the edits at issue to Rush Limbaugh, I can see only two reverts. A one-week-block appears both premature and excessive to me. This is especially the case because the blocking administrator also protected the article for a week, requesting discussion take place on the talk page. This is probably a good idea, but obviously can't take place if one of the participants is blocked. Sandstein 07:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 72.153.2.202 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Sandstein 08:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for source

Hi!

I noticed you declared Abid Ali for dead in your edit to that article, and was wondering if you have a source for that claim? I reverted your edit pending a source, since I can't find one and it's news to me. It's rather important that we don't make statements like that (people being dead) without backing them up with a source. I suspect you have heard about his death somewhere since you wouldn't make that edit otherwise, and in that case just add a link to where you heard/read it in the references section, and preferebly add his date of death in the header per standard style. Thanks! Shanes 03:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I got confused with names in the article. Apparently, Ali was connected with someone who died. Going a bit slower now. CyberAnth 10:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

stubs

I got your note.

You believe that wikipedia is not a battlefield, don't you?

Then how about discussing your concerns on the talk page first?

Cheers! — Geo Swan 05:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The talk page? You have made a scad of these same articles for individual detainees. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia whose contents are policy-based. Look, we can banter policies all day, but these articles just don't cut the mustard of WP:BLP. While you wrote the above, I posted another idea on your talk page. CyberAnth 05:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent WP:BLP work

Despite our disagreement the other day, I'd like to say that I support your recent more focused work in removing contentious unsourced material from biographies of living people. I was wondering, would you mind leaving a short note on the talkpages of these articles linking to a dif of the material you delete? That would help in providing an easy record of the removals for people working to source them and replace them. Otherwise, there is a risk that the content will be lost in the edit history of the article. Obviously, you are under no obligation whatsoever to do so, I just hoped you would consider it. Best wishes, WJBscribe 15:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A fair suggestion and thanks for the support. I will try to do your suggestion on pages that have showed no activity for > 1 month or those with no apparent pattern of editors who watch the page. CyberAnth 10:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Don't post random garbage to my talk page. Artw 14:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have earned a place in my Hall of Shame at User:CyberAnth#.22Random_garbage.22_.3F CyberAnth 18:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

F*** WAD?

Who's the F***Ward myself or coelacan Please respond here User talk:Janusvulcan--Janusvulcan 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

E-mail me. CyberAnth 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could explain yourself in public, if you're going to do your namecalling in public. — coelacan talk — 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks can avoid coordinating in back channels, too. CyberAnth 10:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you have two statements to explain. 1) Quit avoiding the question. Explain why you called me a fuckwad. Explain why you called Janusvulcan a fuckwad. Explain whether you believe this constitutes a personal attack; if not, why not. 2) Explain your cryptic statements here. Who's "coordinating in back channels" and what are you implying by this? — coelacan talk — 10:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps both of you are confusing name-calling with argumentation referencing the psychological dynamic pointed out in John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (also see here). CyberAnth 10:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What's to confuse? Your words: "Surprised? And make sure you check userpage. All of these sorts of things are best described by reference to John Gabriel's "Internet Fuckwad Theory". It is inherent in the Misplaced Pages system. I suggest you are unbeknownst being afflicted by the malady as well." This is not peripheral discussion of process. You explicitly reference me, and then say I can be explained as a fuckwad. So speak up, let's hear your explanation of whether or not this is a personal attack. And, who is "coordinating in back channels", where? Doing what? Speak up. — coelacan talk — 10:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Proof of concept. CyberAnth 10:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how this started, but referencing a Penny arcade joke and insinuating that 2 parties in a dispute are behaving like dicks is pretty much the furthest thing from helping the situation that you could do CyberAnth.--Isotope23 14:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's all just Coelacan. Trust me. CyberAnth 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User page

I'm afraid that I felt compelled to remove the section "Windows into Misplaced Pages Hall of Shame" from your user page, per WP:NPA and WP:RPA - the effect, even if not the intent of said section is not conducive to Wikilove, but instead distrust and concern.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

James F. (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes love is tough. Otherwise it is not love but gooshiness. The section levels fully legitimate citicisms of Misplaced Pages in a creative manner, and against users with problematic records. Restored. CyberAnth 22:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It just stuns me how people feel free to change others userpages based on their own little whims. I had this problem with an admin, who was roundly criticized in ANI for doing it. Good for you in restoring it. Jeffpw 23:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Jeff. I enjoyed your userpage, by the way. :-) CyberAnth 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind moving your thoughts to an essay page as others have done? You can feel free to link to it from your userpage. Somitho 00:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I disapprove of the "Misplaced Pages Hall of Shame" at your userpage, as it is offensive to those who are in it. However, I do understand that it is your userpage, and you may want it to be there. Jdforrester does have a point, though. Some people may think of it as a personal attack, and may be offended by your comments. By the looks of it, you are using your userpage to "expose" or "embarrass" other users for their missteps or incorrect statements. I would appreciate it if you would consider removing this material from your user page. By the way, Jeffpw, even if it is your userpage, this is Misplaced Pages, and people can freely edit it if they feel some parts do not belong. Thanks, Nishkid 64 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Goldberg, Carl, "The Role of Shame in Constructive Behavior". Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, Volume 29, Number 3 / September, 1999. Enjoy. However, the idea of an essay is one I might follow when I have time. CyberAnth 02:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you were unable to find the time, I have created an essay for you to express your thoughts at. It does not belong on your main userpage. You may link to it from the front page of course. Good luck with it. Somitho 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the essay, but I care to differ about you over whether it belongs on my userpage per Misplaced Pages:User_page#What_can_I_have_on_my_user_page.3F. It is by no means a personal attack. CyberAnth 06:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Where was all the concern over personal attacks when CyberAnth was the target? I guess since CyberAnth's good-faith efforts were backed by Jimbo, people have to start looking for other ways to harass him. If you're looking for libelous statements on userpages, perhaps you should start here: Zoe. Or do admins get a pass? Frise 06:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, Frise. As far as inflammatory userpages go, I have seen much more egregious examples elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Do I like or agree with everything on everyone's userpage? No, I don't. But I support people belong able to say what they want, as long as it is not a clear violation of policy. Cyberanth's page does not violate policy that I can see. And yes, I, too have seen admin's userpages with worse violations. Jeffpw 08:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman

I re-added the paragraph you deleted, added references, and you promptly deleted it again, and listed it on the talk page. Please take time to read what you are deleting, thanks --Steve _(Slf67) 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I see it is all cited now. :-) CyberAnth 09:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Will you calm down? The reason you're getting so much heat is because of these summaries. Just post something on the talk page, and then DON'T USE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL IN THE EDIT SUMMARIES, K? Have a good night :) And remember, stare at cute things for a while.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Edith González

González is a popular actress. Like some other articles I have editted here, I like to discuss changes first on the talkpage so that other users can see what my intent is. I want to see the best article being put forward. The rumor about her pregnancy seems to have died down. In Spanish, there is a word called chisme which basically is a funny half-truth that often gets stretched in the rumor mill. The chisme about her was very negative and never has been proven with reliable sources.

I have begun cleanup of her page. I removed the controversial link to a rumor site about the pregnancy and the links to many of the fansites. The remaining sites reflect reliable sourced links with the last a telenovela database similar to IMDb that focuses on Spanish-languaged telenovelas. Like IMDb, it is not the best but it fits the bill in following somewhat accurately the actors and their careers - a little more detailed than IMDb.

I still need to find some better references. One fansite was used for the references and one might be a self-published. I would also like to add one of those rem type sentences to her article that will appear when someone tries to add a link or reference. I have seen on other articles that rem sentence but will have to review my watchlist to find a suitable one.

Again, thanks for your help. Morenooso 14:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)