Wikiwand AI

User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Easter Rising - warring

Tag-team edit warring by Aatomic1 and R fiend continues on this article:

  1. (cur) (last) 14:57, January 1, 2008 Aatomic1 (Talk | contribs) (40,178 bytes) (Synthesizing states that Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing.) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 13:48, January 1, 2008 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (39,905 bytes) (→Planning the Rising - As per discussion, please read WP:SYN, and WP:OR. Please provide a definitive statement) (undo)
  3. (cur) (last) 21:46, December 31, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) (40,178 bytes) (clarify opening (plus grammar)) (undo)
  4. (cur) (last) 08:55, December 31, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) m (40,162 bytes) (→Planning the Rising) (undo)
  5. (cur) (last) 01:17, December 31, 2007 Aatomic1 (Talk | contribs) (40,158 bytes) (Reinsert referenced material) (undo)
  6. (cur) (last) 00:58, December 31, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (39,885 bytes) (Please read WP:SYN and WP:OR, please use the talk page) (undo)
  7. (cur) (last) 23:00, December 30, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) m (40,158 bytes) (Reverted edits by Domer48 (talk) to last version by R. fiend) (undo)
  8. (cur) (last) 22:43, December 30, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (39,885 bytes) (Please read WP:SYN and WP:OR, please use the talk page) (undo)
  9. (cur) (last) 19:08, December 30, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) (40,158 bytes) (see talk) (undo)
  10. (cur) (last) 20:00, December 29, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (39,885 bytes) (Says no such thing. Put it up on the talk page, and let editors see what it says) (undo)
  11. (cur) (last) 19:43, December 29, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) (40,158 bytes) (undo)

(Sarah777 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

My recent edits

Hello Rockpocket. I appreciate your support & patience. I'm sorry to take up more of your time, but I'd like to answer the constructive criticisms you've made on my talk page.

"Even if the other editor is rude to you, replying in kind is not acceptable." My harsh words have been restricted to those who, in my opinion, have gratuitously vandalised my edits, for example by repeatedly removing both article content and the reference I'd provided for it at the same time as accusing me of never providing references. Where editors with doubts about my contributions have dealt with me courteously I've responded politely and constructively.

"Please not that WP should state facts, not explain, justify or reason... value judgements and reflect your opinion." I realised that this passage was likely to cause problems on these grounds & so replaced it with one that only reports fact & does not contain judgements of mine some time before you contacted me about this. I had previously made a similar voluntary revision to a potentially problematic passage I'd added to another page.

"Finally, when adding controversial or historical content, you must cite a reliable source." I *have* been doing so, other than for the Sands football song & where I've linked to other articles. *All* the info I've added has been verifiable by reference either to works that were already in the articles' bibliographies that I happen to have read or to books that I've added to said bibliographies. Unfortunately, I can't prevent other editors from repeatedly claiming in edit summaries, entirely falsely, that my info is unsourced, or prevent them from deleting the references I've added.

"A link to another article is not sufficient." I'll take this on board as of now. I had only relied upon links to other WP articles where I was 100% confident from my knowledge of sources outwith WP that the info in the other articles was accurate & verifiable.

I'm sure you've spent enough time on me as you care to, but I felt I had to respond as you seemed to have been taken in by the false, & I believe malicious, accusations that contributions weren't covered by works that had been referenced.80.229.9.98 (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks again, & sorry for asking for more of your time & energy. I don't plan to make a habit of this, but I'd like to ask how you suggest I proceed in the case of a particular difference of opinion...

I recently edited the William Wallace article. I now find that RiverHockey has removed the text...

"One very prominent error is the depiction of Wallace as a kilted Gael rather than the Anglophonic lowlander that he was (the 'nationalisation' of Gaelic culture and popular generalisation that Scotland as a whole is 'Celtic' date from the eithteenth century).[1][2]"

...& given the edit summary "remove biased entry from troublesome user...".

I don't understand the accusation of bias because I really can't see what bias is being alleged. In the light of what I've put in edit summaries, I'm not about to complain about being called a "troublesome user" - its significance here is that I don't believe I'll get a reasonable response from RiverHockey if I just ask for an explanation. I did have a spat with RiverHockey on the Battle of Culloden talk page, but I've since attempted to improve the tone between us on that page & it certainly isn't something that need spill over into discussion of an unrelated article.

My instinct is to undo RiverHockey's edit with "See talk" in the summary & ask on the talk page what the problem is, but I'm not sure at what point reverting becomes an edit war. An alternative would be for me to leave the article as it currently is for the mo', but ask for an explanation of the allegation of bias on the talk page & say that if bias can't be established reasonably swiftly then I'll restore the text.

Thanks in anticipation for your advice.80.229.9.98 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply here simply to keep the conversation together. There is not really a good justification for his reversion, so I have reverted back and asked RiverHockey to discuss his problems on the talk page. If you adopt a collegial tone with him and try to work with him to address his issues, then he should reply favourably. If he doesn't then he is the one being troublesome, since you appear to had added good sourced content. I find WP:BRD a really good way to edit. Be bold, but if someone reverts then don't re-revert, instead engage with them, ask then specifically what the problem is and how you can address it. Work them around, then make the agreed change with their support. That way you build relationships, which builds trust, which builds good articles.
I note that on the same article you and RepublicanJacobite worked together to add some material. Thats how it should work and will go some way to show other editors of your intentions. I may take time, but stay patient and turn the other cheek to comments like the "troublesome user" one. Rockpocket 08:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi!

Thanks for watching the debate. I have just joined wikipedia (new years vow of all things) but followed the meta-stuff for years. But in practice it is a bit different. I am kinda worried about how RS, FRINGE, UNDUE and NPOV (amongst others) are being used to detract from content and rather push an overall POV of the article. It seems you are doing a great job on focusing on this aspect, so kudos. In this case Hrafn has been editing the biopsychiatry controversy article singlehandedly for a too long time and already chased away the "owner" of the article. Not a good start on my wiki career this. : \ --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

William Wallace

His edits are based on an online source that holds no merit. I can make 10 such pages and upload them online tonight. Since I can not upload any books for you, this site seems to hold more truth. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, my edits are actually based on the knowledge I've acquired as a proper, academic Scottish historian - the online source was already cited when I began my editing & just happens to mention the basic facts that I've added. Also, there seems to be some confusion on RiverHockey's part about the actual meaning of what I added. I described Wallace as an Anglophonic lowlander, i.e. someone from the lowlands whose first language was [Middle] English (what a modern commentator might call 'medieval Scots). I made no comment whatsoever on his ancestry. Incidentally, the account on the website to which RiverHockey has linked ignores the very good possibility that Wallace's family got their name from being descended from the native Brythonic population of southern Scotland - the so-called 'Strathclyde Welsh' - rather than because they'd migrated from Wales to Scotland. That's not especially surprising as that account is decidedly amateurish in tone & was probably written by someone with such poor knowledge of the ethnographic history of early medieval Scotland that they'd never even heard of the Strathclyde Welsh.80.229.9.98 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That was one of many sources that I pulled up for convenience. I will work with you on Wallace, but your Battle of Culloden edits seem to only provide justification for the Hanoverian atrocities. I don't care if you've cited books related to Covenant Theology, they are obviously going to defend their faith and it's advocates reputations. I can publish a book that claims that the World is Flat, but that does not make it any more true. I believe this to be an example of "History being written by the winner." Of course atrocities were committed on both sides, but unconfirmed excuses shouldn't be incorporated such as you did within Battle of Culloden. Lastly, the Jacobites did not routinely rape, burn families from homes, or provide no quarter like their English enemies. Although I am Catholic, I am not Scottish, of Jacobite ancestry, and my partner happens to be a Presbyterian, so I have no deep seated hatred for Covenanters, etc. (as you've implied such sentimental attachments may have clouded my judgment on my talk page).-RiverHockey (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You've made much the same claims & allegations on the Culloden talk page & I've responded there. I suggest that we no longer clog up Rockpocket's talk page as it was only the Wallace issue that brought us here & that's now settled. As for what pro-Stuart thugs routinely did, I strongly suggest that you do a lot more reading on Scotland under the later Stuarts.80.229.9.98 (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cesar Tort pulling out

It seems Cesar is quitting the project again (as he says on my talk page). It is sad, because he is certainly a more focused editor I am. (Especially since I am still learning how to cite properly). I think the core of the issue is that Hrafn thinks only scientific literature counts as valid in this debate, but I am unsure on how to characterize the debate. Perhaps the best option is after all to turn it into a generic "Controversies in psychiatry" since this could include more facets of the debate, especially since the critics are known to criticize many aspects of psychiatry, not just the bio-psychiatry aspect. This could also help keeping out controversies out of the otherwise good psychiatry article. Anyway, it seems like I have to do the reintroduction of sources that Hrafn removed. Though this will be problematic since I myself can't do verification. Especially I disagree with his opinion that the sources are "partisan" considering; obviously people criticizing the hegemony won't be mainstream, that's the point! Caser Tort has a critique on this on his talk page. Thanks for the help again. :) --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was recently researching on journals, and came a across several articles. And since found many interesting articles done by informed skeptics. I looked up the organization but when I look up the diff between now and a random old one I feel it is heavily biased. I didn't know SCICOP was an RS, since I feel they usually just give out opinions. diff

When I read the old version, I looked up the journal and figured out that this was right. I even saw they were featured on a science program here in norway. They do generate new empirical evidence so I don't see why they are criticized. For example I found an highly interesting article on analysis on errors done in telepathic research that lead me to a stub on economics here on wikipedia.

Anyway, it does seem we are slowly improving the biopsychiatry controversy article. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point

Nice one. I will try to have more faith in the ability of the community as a whole to deal with these problems. I've been getting back into editing Irish and troubles related articles and allowing myself to get annoyed by the unreasonableness of some people. See here for example. Must every Irish article become a battleground and achieve consensus only at the expense of sacrificing article quality? I appreciate your voice of reason, as always, in this fraught area. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

'Scuse my butting in but this conversation indicates why many Irish editors are so wary of Admins! Someone who feels that deleting a ref to "British Isles" in an Irish article as "surreal" really doesn't get it - and certainly could not be safely regarded as psychologically capable of neutrality in relation to Irish articles. And as for "improving the quality of the article"!!! Whoever tried to insert that term was the person attacking article quality. Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
John may be an admin but neutral he is not. He has shown his hand on a number of occasions. Take anything he says with a pinch of salt and just remember the slant and often intentionally provokative stand point that he comes from.--Vintagekits (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I was having similar discussion with an Irish friend in a bar last night. I honestly don't think we will be able to stop these articles resembling a battleground. Despite the speculation of those with an axe to grind, I am neither British nor Irish (nor, for that matter, American). I find it amazing that, on different occasions, I have been accused of being all three simply because of an edit I made to an Ireland related article. This tells me that, among certain editors on certain subjects, no edit will ever be assessed without attributing motive to the editor (a case in point in this very thread). With that inherent assumption, I don't believe we will ever see this ongoing situation resolved. The best we can perhaps hope for is a level of civility among those fighting those battles.
Whether or not that can be approached and resolved by the community alone, I don't know. But I guess was have an ArbCom remedy that, as the moment, is not really being widely implemented. This is due, in part I believe, to the fact that prior admin action under that remedy was turned into a cause célèbre by certain anti-admin activists. However, I happen to have faith in the system. I think the wheels will continue to turn slowly, but eventually those people who are unable or unwilling to adhere to community norms will be weeded out. I expect even then it will still be a battleground, but at least it might be a slightly more policy compliant one! Rockpocket 04:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Rockpocket; my comments were directed at John rather than you. I did not support the defrocking of R fiend (proposed) but I must point out it was for Admin abuse, not POV or edit warring. Some Admins seem to be gliding over that point. I would also reiterate (cos I'm not coy about naming names) that I could not regard John as neutral in Irish/British pov issues. I ask that yourself and John be equally open and name those you consider "unable or unwilling to adhere to community norms"; part of the "lynch mob" (John on the R fiend page); "anti-admin activists". When I read such wild talk from Admins (of whatever nationality) - I must wonder why anyone is surprised that some of us are a bit "Admin-wary". Sarah777 (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't consider the assertion that there are people involved in this may be "unable or unwilling to adhere to community norms" to be "wild talk". There was, you may remember, an RfAR naming a large number of editors for that very reason. Insults, revert-warring, threats, sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry are all in violation of community norms, and these were all documented. Those editors that continue with this behaviour are, I believe, the ones that will "eventually" be "weeded out". Exactly who, if anyone, this is remains to be determined. The comment was addressing John's concern about disruptive editors taking heart from the R fiend situation. The only thing one should take from that is that it is wrong to misuse tools, anyone who sees this as an endorsement of disruptive tactics will eventually get what's coming to them.
Regarding the "anti-admin activists", I was referring to Giano, in particular, and a number of his acolytes in general. Giano's self adopted role as advocate-to-the-wronged (in his opinion) appears to be reaching its inevitable conclusion. As righteous as his motives may be, his methods are disruptive. He too appears unable or unwilling to adhere to community norms.
I don't endorse any reference to a "lynch mob". I think the recent RfC and ArbCom has been a fair process. It shows that admins are not free to use their tools anyway they please, that admins do not "stick together", and that we serve the community and must listen to what the community says. Please don't misunderstand me: I don't believe poor behaviour from other editors in this (and I don't know if there was) in anyway mitigates the misuse of tools. R fiend lost the trust of the community and, rightly, needs to earn it again if he wishes to be an admin. However, if there was poor behaviour from others, maybe it should be addressed, and we have ways of doing that. Rockpocket 07:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Rockpocket, firstly I must point out that it was not John who implied the referrals of R fiend was the activity of a lynch mob; it was two others (one of whom recently failed to be appointed an Admin). Secondly I don't share your view of Giano and was one of the over 300(?) well-established editors who recently voted for him. We differ on many things but I do realise there are very good Admins around and obviously I'd count you among them as I've said before (I think). And as I would John btw; just not his neutrality on the whole British/Irish thing. Finally, while it appears R has a history blocking in disputes he is involved in (a pet hate of mine from personal experience) and that was what caused him the problems the actual edit that led to his problems was utterly faultless - so if the system works it works in mysterious ways. (Sarah777 (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC))
I thought that language was a bit extreme for John, I see you have said your lines in penance ;) I think Domer is taking the right approach, here. If there is concern about his role in all of this, a seperate RfC is probably the best place to discuss it. Rockpocket 20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

new RD-inspired article

Please apply the template (I forget what it is) to WP:RD/M#Automatic Center Punch, and update your index! —Steve Summit (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks! The index on the WPRDAC page is a bit out of date, I'll sort that out later this week. Rockpocket 04:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Attention please

Rockpocket, you have got to do something about this warring Admin - he is obviously angling for an excuse to block me. See latest edit:

   * (cur) (last)  11:12, 20 January 2008 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (40,766 bytes) (philip, PLEASE STOP edit warring) (undo)
   * (cur) (last) 11:08, 20 January 2008 Philip Baird Shearer (Talk | contribs) (39,194 bytes) (→List of known massacres - removed Fallujah for further discussion on the talk page.) (undo)
  • I'm out of reverts.

Sarah777 (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

List of massacres immediate edit requested

Can you advise?

Fear of fish

New Semester, New Appeal

Gerry O'Callaghan‎

Troubles

Problems, problems, problems

Anon IP

Let's try and kill the massacres (again)

Animal testing

List of massacres/ Greysteel

Request for mediation accepted

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks