User talk:CyberAnth/Final

I may consider any and all contentious posts from certain individuals an
unwelcome attempt to harass and/or bait me.
Any such comments may be removed at my discretion in accordance with WP:TALK.

Talk archives[edit]

Regarding your strict interpretation of the BLP and Verifiability policies[edit]

		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)[reply]

Deletions at Rush Limbaugh[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia's basic policies and principles. See Wikipedia: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)[reply]

You are violating Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

Recent edits based on WP:BLP[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Well, basic career information for one thing is not controversial. Did it occur to you that it might be useful to Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. "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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia and sourcing problems can be addressed progressively- there is no need to do it overnight. WJBscribe 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

{{unblock|1=I was blocked for one week by [[User:Alkivar]] for "revert warring" on [[Rush Limbaugh]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:CyberAnth] Page history is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&action=history here]. 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 [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living people]], and such edits are explicitly not included in [[WP:3RR]]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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/w/index.php?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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request for source[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

stubs[edit]

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)[reply]

The talk page? You have made a scad of these same articles for individual detainees. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Recent WP:BLP work[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey[edit]

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

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)[reply]

User page[edit]

I'm afraid that I felt compelled to remove the section "Windows into Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I disapprove of the "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, and people can freely edit it if they feel some parts do not belong. Thanks, Nishkid 64 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for creating the essay, but I care to differ about you over whether it belongs on my userpage per Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Excellent points, Frise. As far as inflammatory userpages go, I have seen much more egregious examples elsewhere on Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

Mind telling me what page? I personally would like to know, Jeff. Nishkid 64 22:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Kidman[edit]

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)^talk 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit summaries[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your help with Edith González[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your good efforts. It is better to simply have a stub of a living person if reliable sources cannot be basis of the article. The fansite is not a reliable source, so I had to remove all info based upon it per WP:BLP. CyberAnth 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undercover Mosque[edit]

CyberAnth, might you be willing to take at recent discussion on this article? There is a debate regarding BLP, and I'd value your input.Proabivouac 02:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to, and thank you for asking. I'll have a look in about 45 minutes. CyberAnth 02:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It frankly does not seem problematic enough as regards WP:BLP to warrant me interjecting myself into the serious content dispute going on. It looks like the article is surely a lot like grabbing a tiger by the tail, and wish you luck. CyberAnth 04:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look. You're right about the tiger's tail; I'm having a really difficult time figuring out what I think is neutral - every approach that strikes me as right seems wrong to me later. Would you mind me copying your statement re BLP to the talk page?Proabivouac 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free. :-) CyberAnth 09:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP stubbing[edit]

I really think that you should work on perhaps referencing articles instead of forcibly applying WP:BLP to them. I've found references for Mark Turgeon and that could have been done by anyone, including you, by simply googling his name, or looking him up at the website for Wichita State University. I think this would improve you in the eyes of various others who feel that your aggressive style is disruptive to the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I evaluate dozens and sometimes up to a 100 or more BLPs articles per day. It is the author's burden to establish verifiability, not every editor concerned with BLPs that comes along. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence.

But "it seems like something that could be true" must not be sufficient cause to re-introduce questionable material into Wikipedia, and if all that someone has time to do is nuke a bad article, the right response to those who want to restore it, is to restore it fact by fact, piece by piece, making absolutely certain that the quality is right.--Jimbo Wales 07:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (Talk:Ron_Jeremy#WP:BLP).

I think you should simply cite while you write to avoid any problems in the future. CyberAnth 08:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're an author, too. Maybe you should lay off the "hundreds of BLP" articles and focus on improving the articles that are directed to BLP instead. A simple google search would provide you with at least one reference, and not every instance of BLP is a Ron Jeremy situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

I only author article's I have expertise on. Incidentally, I spent about two hours tonight working on a problematic BLP article. I cannot do it with every one, however.

And I have never once had a BLP verifiability problem with any of the BLP articles I have authored principally. See Mary Pride and notice how everything is assiduously cited.

Again, it is the author's burden to establish verifiability, not every editor concerned with BLPs that comes along. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence.

To avoid problems, cite while you write.

I did not come seeking your article. I found it at the BLP noticeboard, where people express concerns over BLPs. To keep your BLPs out of there, you know what to do.

By the way, on your apparent dislike of aggressiveness with BLPs, please consider this:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

The point is to keep BLPs out of noticeboard in the first place - and to head of Wikipedia ever having to go to court in the first place because of BLPs.

CyberAnth 08:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's been discussion to get you banned because people feel that your BLP stubbing is getting WP:POINTish. A Google Search in another window or tab isn't that difficult to add to your usual line of "duties"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there has been, and I was banned. Here is how the matter was resolved.

Incantations of "POINT" are divinations of one's motives and bantered about because people do not like what someone is doing. That has nothing to do with BLP content policies.

Yes, a Google tab is certainly not hard to use when you write your articles. It is the author's burden who is adding the material to cite it, not someone who is going through the entire voluminous category of WP's BLPs.

Again, who among editors will find fault with your BLPs if they adhere to policy? Most, most certainly not me.

You can complain all you want about someone following BLP policies, but the real power concerning the BLPs you add material to is right in your own hand. As it should be.

From Jimbo:

I think social policies have evolved in recent years, I mean the recent months, to actually handle this problem a lot better. A lot of the admins and experienced editors are taking a really strong stand against unsourced claims, which is always a typical example of the problem.

So my feeling of it is, my sense of it is, that the living biographies part of Wikipedia, which is one of the most difficult and most important areas, is one where we're really seeing a really massive movement towards higher quality. A lot of people in the community are really committed to that.

And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, "Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ", yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.[1]

CyberAnth 09:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the fact that you spend so much time and effort deleting info primarily on politically conservative Christians, or apolitical figures displays strong POV. Could you point out any liberals who you favored with you hard work? How about liberal Christians? The Jimmy Carter article needs your handiwork. He's a good Christian. Could you explain why you are primarily scrubbing info from the bios of conservative Christians, and how that is not POV? Thanks - Fairness & Accuracy For All 09:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the alternate interpretation that your words comprise either a personal attack or hasty words not based on knowledge.

If you care to research my contribs so you can redact your statement, you will find I have gone through the first 600 pages at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Living_people . The ones that begin with the letter "A".

That is enough to illustrate. There are scores of others, all in my contribs. With last names that begin with "A".

In addition, I have worked through Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Including a liberal Christian.

And on 3 or 4 pages of Christians long on my watchlist and 2 U.S. democratic politicians thereon, George Miller and Bill Nelson. I suppose you watch your watchlist, too, eh?

Incidentally, who the heck is anyone to say I cannot make it my project to cleanup the BLPs of a certain group even if I want to???? Has someone made an arbitrary rule that I have to do it alphabetically???

BTW, I researched your contribs. You appear to have very strong political leanings and focus on articles in kind.

I am curious, did you happen upon these articles by randomly clicking on links from alphabetically listed pages?

Or from just hitting the Random Article button and then saying, "Aha! So those are my projects!"?

Or did you maybe choose those articles for personal reasons?

Is there some reason you have not made your work on Wikipedia focus instead on things you are not interested in? Care to explain why not?

Since in your post you have applied a standard to me that articles chosen for personal reasons constitute work from a "POV", shall we now expect your admission that you have a "POV" so you are no longer worthy to focus on such articles you choose for personal reasons? If not, why not? Care to explain how that is not POV? Care to explain how this is or is not Hypocrisy?

Kindly retract your statement with strike throughs and indicate an apology. Or at least - sheesh - please cease wasting my time with this sort of nonsense.

CyberAnth 10:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you I don't go deleting massive amounts of easily sourced critical info from the articles of subjects I support. Carry on. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 11:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for that "critical info" you mentioned, you must mean things like unsourced material that people's parent were crack addicts, that the subject is gay or bisexual, that they take this or that potentially controversial position, that they have been alleged as a child molestor, that they were arrested here or there, that their children's names and ages are such and such, apparent original research, and so forth. And gosh, if it was so easily sourced, and if WP has very clear policies that all claims must be sourced (especially in BLPs), and if it is the burden of the person doing the addition to source material, you'd think it would have been, uh, sourced. CyberAnth 11:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just my take on things[edit]

I have no problem with removing un-sourced material from any article and especially BLP articles. I mean I could with some expectation that it is true (I have personal sources) add that George W. Bush is bisexual. But I cannot source it. And were I to see that in his article, I would remove it at once EVEN though I believe it to be absolutely true.

Another issue is the Killian Memos. While these cannot be proven to be authentic, there is no *proof* that they are forgeries that is in any RS-V source. You can write that they were alleged to be forgeries. You can write that they cannot be proven to be real. But you cannot write that they were proven to be forgeries because they were not. In fact, a forensic experts says that they were typed on some sort of typewriter, not MS-Word, but he cannot prove which type. He has prepared a forensic fingerprint such that any future documents can be compared to the Killian Memos. However, that still does not prove them real. They could still be forgeries and done on a typewriter. See how complicated it is? --BenBurch 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...editorial decision, editorial decisions, editorial decisions. :-)

I think WP:BLP is very clear on these sorts of things. "Biographies of living people should be written...conservatively".

CyberAnth 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I think I like you... --BenBurch 01:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this part speaks to such dilemmas, too: "The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view." CyberAnth 01:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wells[edit]

Can you please explain what you mean on the talk page? Thanks. Guettarda 01:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't quite follow your edit summary. What previsely is the issue that prompted the removal? JoshuaZ 07:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was prompted to the page from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jonathan_Corrigan_Wells. I will explain more clearly on the article's talk page. CyberAnth 08:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't make sense out of your rationale. Can you clarify things? Guettarda 06:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Onan.jpeg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Onan.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of ifd[edit]

Image:Conflict Onan by Anton Brink.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:''Conflict Onan'' by Anton Brink.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Atom 14:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Onan.jpeg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Onan.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Atom 14:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you have listed the fair use rationale, per Wikipedia policies, but the usage in the articles are not fair use. Indeed you have given a paragraph of criticism, which is similar to that which is required by fair use, but the criticism must be of the work, or of the artist itself. Such criticisms in unrelated articles (not about the work, or the artist) would result in deletion of the text, and orphaning of the image. In this case, An article about the artist, or about the style of art or specific expression used by the artist would possibly be proper fair use. An art image regarding masturbation with an Onan image, or an article about Onan with a screen shot from a movie about Onan would be very similar to the list of things specifically not qualifying as fair use in the Wikipedia policy. Thanks, Atom 14:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of this image for deletion frankly seems like a lot of wind and perhaps is bad faith. I say this because a permissible fair use rationale is so plain-as-day. The rationale says that such a piece may be used for critical commentary on the work in question. The articles both specifically and deliberately discuss the work in question. CyberAnth 20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it really is not bad faith. I base by reasons, as I said, on Copyright law, and then the Wikipedia interpretation of it. The fact that an image is used for criticism is not by itself sufficient. When they say the work in question, they mean the artwork itself. Within an article about that artwork, the artwork in queston could be criticized. Consider the counter examples given in the Wikipedia policy. "A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war." Just because you add critical comments of some nature to the article, using artwork to illustrate the topic of the article, or some sub-topic is not fair use. The artwork *itself* must be the subject of the criticism or comment. The difficulty in an article about Onan, or Masturbation, is that a critical review of a piece of art is off-topic for the article, and should be deleted. The only place it is on-topic is on an article about the artwork, or perhaps the artist, or stretching it, maybe an article about the art technique used as compared to other artists, or perhaps possibly the genre of art itself and how this piece fits into that genre (or not.)

"If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes"[2]

It would not be ethical to use someone elses intellectual property by just suggesting that use of the image involved the general application of fair-use since we had some form of comment and criticism in the same article. The purpose of the fair use of comment or criticism is so that a film reviewer, book reviewer, or newscaster can show a small part of a work to make critical comment about the creative work. For them to use someone else work in another context is both unethical, and illegal since it is not fair use. A five second cut from a popular film to talk about how it has been controversial (think Da Vinci Code) would be fair use for the purpose fair use was intended. For them to show the movie on their channel, and attach a small segment on the end discussing how religious values have changed, and call it comment or criticism of the movie, would not be fair use.) Our use of these images in these two articles, with an excuse of comment or criticism thrown in is no different. We are using someone elses intellectual property, we must tread lightly to remain ethical. Unless we are fairly trying to critique the artwork or the artist in some way, we are using someone elses property improperly. Atom 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For you[edit]

For whatever reason, as I sat meditating today, and felt the need to share this with you, for whatever it is worth.

People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies. Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you. Be honest and sincere anyway.

What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight. Create anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous. Be happy anyway.

The good you do today, will often be forgotten. Do good anyway.

Give the best you have, and it will never be enough. Give your best anyway.

In the final analysis, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway. -- Mother Theresa

Proposed policy[edit]

Regarding you edits here. Perhaps you would consider authoring a proposal, tagging it as a proposal at WP:BLP Admin or some other acceptable title. Once authored in complete form, you could list it a BLP talk and Village pump proposals. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here are a few located here, here, and here. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 12:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left you a reply. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 00:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP question[edit]

I've noticed you're generally well regarded in some quarters with regards to this policy. Can you take a look at the Aurelian Smith article please? I'm slightly worried that he's being accused of rape based solely on the word of his son, especially considering the admitted strained relationship between Aurelian and his son and the latter's self admitted drug and alcohol problems at the time the documentary was made. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 22:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even in its stubbed version, it looks problematic to me from a WP:Undue Weight perspective. One way to solve that is to add some real biographical material about the subject so the scandal does not overwhelm the article. CyberAnth 06:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

Greetings in return :) --Davidkazuhiro 22:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP Admin[edit]

Hello! I suspect that WP:BLP Admin is in the wrong namespace. Wikipedia:BLP Admin perhaps? Can you move it to wherever, and tag the resulting redirect with {{db-r2}}. Many thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! CyberAnth 21:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP[edit]

Major change will likely have to come from the top. In the meantime, I think slow progress is being made Frise 07:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Frise, and thanks for your support. I fear that top-down change will only come after a truly major "incident", which I have been hoping to prevent. Either way, let us hope that a major incident is prevented irregardless. CyberAnth 11:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to leave a reminder that you cannot do it all yourself. Please be careful not to burn out on fixing Sisyphean problems, and try to spend most of your time doing things that are actually enjoyable. It's simply true that you have repeatedly been treated very poorly, and that's very unfortunate. I hope that isn't the entirety of your experience on the project. Jkelly 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current BLP issue[edit]

Hi, I know that you're interested in BLP issues so thought I would alert you to this. An example of original research and libelous information posted in the guise of the results of "professional research". I thought it may help as an example for your BLP admin project. Malla nox 09:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :-) CyberAnth 11:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CCM Collaboration[edit]

Hi, quick message from WikiProject: Contemporary Christian music!

We are currently in the nomination and voting stage for our first project-wide collaboration. Please stop by and nominate which article you believe we should focus on for the period of February 12-25, 2007. We look forward to your involvement! -- Pepsi2786 00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making categories work[edit]

To make user categrories work you need to just add it to your user page as [[Category:YourCategory|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] rather than subst:username. If you look at your cat you are listed under { rather than C. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

It is unacceptable to characterise good-faith edits as vandalism. Please consult Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not. Your actions are even more egregious since you appear to have made no attempt to justify your drive-by tagging. Guettarda 21:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber:I do not not engage in vandalism. I would advise you to refrain from calling any of my edits vandalism -- I have little patience for fools and my patience with you has been exhausted. I am also putting you on notice that you have forfeited any assumption of good faith I would otherwise have applied to your edits in accordance with the provisions of assume good faith. Jim62sch 21:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unacceptable to call good faith edits vandalism. Despite the fact that you are inserting what appears to be unreferenced original reference, in violation of Wikipedia policy, makes the fact that you are calling my edits "vandalism" is highly amusing. Nonetheless, your behaviour is totally unacceptable. Guettarda 21:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summary[edit]

This [3] was not 'vandalism' [4] Why the misleading edit summary? 151.151.73.169 21:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism when there is a conflict over it someone just removes it. CyberAnth 21:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Were it not considered by some on Wiki to be uncivil to ask you if you were truly as clueless as you seem, I would do so. Jim62sch 22:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Vandalism it's vandalism to misuse dispute tags, which is what more than half of the people there think you and Excumember are doing. 151.151.21.99 23:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down[edit]

I understand you have strong feelings here, but you need to accept that (a) editors like Guettarda and Jim have a very long history on Wikipedia, are well thought-of, and are not vandals, whatever you think of their edits; and (b) the dominant world view is that evolution is scientific fact, whereas creationism is religious belief - Wells disputes this, but he is generally considered to be wrong. To reflect that fact is not, in itself, biased, per WP:NPOV. The challenge is to work with those whose views you do not share to make a better article which is accepted by both sides as accurate and fair. Accusations of vandalism and bad faith do not advance that goal. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could give a rat's hind parts about the longevity of an editor, and no one should care about that. If anyone thinks a characterization, based upon original research, that there is a unified the scientific community against Wells; that an article can depict a susbject's views primarily from his or her critics; etc.; then there is little hope for any semblance of NPOV in this project. I am increasingly convinced that the only thing that can happen to awaken WP as regards BLPs is a long, costly, nasty lawsuit. Carry on as you were - carry on with these sorts of efforts such that grade schoolers get "F"s on papers just for quoting WP - but when the inevitable worst happens, have the grace to thank me later with a "you were right". CyberAnth 00:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you admit that there are NPOV problems...but the best way to start fixing those problems would be for you to stop making edits that violate our NPOV policy. And while you're at it, stop making false accusations of vandalism against other editors. While you may have been unaware of the actual definition of vandalism before I pointed it to you earlier, you can't claim ignorance with regards to this edit summary - so it would appear that you are intentionally making false accusations. Like WP:NPOV and [[WP:V], WP:CIV is official policy. Guettarda 09:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, messianic delusions are a cause for concern. You, Cyber, are not some saviour destined to grab Wikipedia from the maws of the demon, riding your white horse into a battle against evil with trumpets blaring and the cries of long-suffering Wikipedia editors cheering you on. Jim62sch 13:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, are you a psychic? A clairvoyant? Who taught you these divination techniques? You might want to try a different school of thought. Because they are not turning up any truth. CyberAnth 08:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, stubbing and related issues[edit]

You appear to have removed many details on articles which are a) not BLP issues since they are not negative and b) are easily sourced by a few quick google searches which turn up reliable sources. In the future, please check with a few searches before removing unsourced non-negative info. When you do remove possibly negative info, please take the time to then search for sources. JoshuaZ 22:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to make statements based solidly upon policy, not your private interpretations thereof. Thank you. CyberAnth 04:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above was meant as a request in light of particular removals you have done such as at Jim Carlton where the basic facts were easily sourced and not negative. To be more blunt: BLP calls for the removal of "controversial" information. Completely blanking an article which has no negative info (and that can be easily sourced) accomplishes nothing and is disruptive. Do not do it again. JoshuaZ 04:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton's article was referenced from the first version. Repeated blanking of it to make a point was tantamount to vandalism --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 05:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me very much, but why are you trying to practice divination over what I did or did not do, and my motives. My blanking of the page stems from the fact that I cannot find any reliable source for the info. Plenty of people by the name Jim Carlton, yes, but not of the fellow apparently the subject of the article. Besides, any editor is fully within policy to remove any and all uncited material, and you know it. CyberAnth 07:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat. There was a reference, a reliable source, in the article from the very start. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 07:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SourceWatch is a reliable source? You're kidding, right? In case you did not know, SourceWatch can be edited by anyone. Check here. You or any troll can sign up right now and start editing right away. CyberAnth 09:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the second blanking, at 09:32, 11 February 2007, the Australian Red Cross Website, as well as the website of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation were listed as sources. Yet you nevertheless blanked the page. There can be no justification for this. To prove the point further, I have included links from the Adam Smith Club, an Adelaide University PHD Thesis, The Website of the Australia New Zealand School of Government, The website of the PNG Sustainable Development Program , ASPI and the Harvard Business Review. All of this was easily accessible by a very simple google search. LibStu 11:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't be making such obviously incorrect assertions like "Google turns up nothing". A google search on "Jim Carlton" australia -wikipedia -sourcewatch, which excludes most Wikipedia mirrors and sourcewatch material turns up plenty. Guettarda 15:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, in your view, for articles that lack sourcing, should Wikipedia end-users be expected to use advanced boolean search techniques to verify an article, or is it the responsibility of "the editor who adds the information to cite materials"? Did or did not Jim Carlton have sourcing befitting a BLP before I came along?[5] [6] [7] CyberAnth 07:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above search hardly constitutes an "advanced bollean(sic) search technique" and in any event ignores what Libstu pointed out- by the time you blanked it again, it already had additional sources. You have furthermore ignored the point that none of the information was in any way shape or form negative. JoshuaZ 08:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not advanced" according to who? You or a high schooler or less-than techie "average" person using WP? "Controversial" according to who? Your subjective impression as a private, self-styled editor/admin, or according to the (non-existent) sources that were (not) in the article? Perhaps in the future we can simply footnote uncited or poorly cited BLPs, "Anonymous Wikipedia editor JoshuaZ has said that nothing in this article is controversial. The content is therefore exempt from Wikipedia's policy of verifiability". CyberAnth 08:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concede the fact that when I origionally wrote the article there were insufficient sources there. However, the proper reaction to this would have been to note this in the discussion section, and to request further citation. To claim that it was a hoax and blank immediatly is without justification. What makes it even worse is the fact that you blanked a second time even AFTER relevant citation was provided. You have neither attempted to repond to this, nor apologise for such clearly inappropriate behaviour. By the way, most of the references were found by me simply by scrolling down on a simple "Jim Carlton" post, and thse that wern't were found by simply linking Jim Carlton to the claims - eg Jim Carlton Malcom Fraser or Jim Carltton PNG or Jim Carlton Australia New Zealand School of Government. Hardly advanced boolean searches. (apologies for previously not logging in) LibStu 08:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve! The innapropriate behavior is writing a BLP without citing sources. Question: would we even be having this discussion if you had cited the material while you wrote it, which is your clear and unequivocal burden per WP:V? Of course not. CyberAnth 08:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be pointed out to you, again, that I didn't write the article. Please continue. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 12:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, my name is not steve. I have no idea who Steve is. Secondly, I have admitted that the initial sourcing was not adequate - it was, in my defence, only the second Wiki article I had created. I have apologised for this. This however does not justify your actions, a problem compounded by your inability to admit your mistake. LibStu 10:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only BLP mistake here is that the article did not adhere to 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" (WP:V, emphasis added). And, "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, [or that] relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources" (WP:BLP). Do you deny this or assert that I violated the plain reading of this policy? Should someone apologize for following it? But please accept my sincere thanks for your apology, and I do accept your edits were done in good faith, yet naively, during your early days on WP. I am sure you are now very aware of these matters through this...so as we all do, live and learn. :-) I'd suggest you go into your history and proactively fix any similarly problematic articles, if such exist. The new heightened awareness of BLPs, that they must be gotten right,[8] is a notion from the top down[9] [10] and will never in our lifetimes go away but will only strengthen...despite the apparent adolescent-like efforts of certain editors' and admins' (read above and below) to the contrary. CyberAnth 10:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congradulations on your ability to use bold. I genuinly am astounded by the arrogance displayed here, and your inability to admit error. You acted completly inappropriatly by blanking an article about someone, demonstrated your complete inability to use google, and threw all sorts of editorial guidlines down the drain, with no appology, and you have the gall to blame me? I repeat once again - your second blank was made AFTER APPROPRIATE CITATION WAS MADE. The sources were there. The Australian Red Cross. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The whole article was VERIFIED. Yet you STILL blanked it. There is neither reason, nor justification for this. And you have still not responded. Whilst the first blanking, whilst I believe still incorrect and contrary to protocol, you can at least justify, the second blanking has no defence for it whatsoever. LibStu 13:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to belabor the point that the article had sourcing at your second blanking since LibStu has dealt with that. I'm also not going to bring up the issue of WP:BITE in regard to LibStu being a relatively new editor since I find BITE claims generally unpersuasive. However, there is one issue that must be addressed: your ability to parse text: For all your attention you are paying to this policy you are missing an important word in it. "controversial." Let me repreat the relevant section you quoted above. "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, [or that] relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources". If you notice the word controversial is between "any" and "material." Do you understand what this word is doing in this policy? JoshuaZ 13:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out I am going to belabor the point of your blanking after there is sourcing since apparently you had done that before with Nicole Kidman. There isn't any excuse for that. Not even your personal interpretation of BLP supports it. Don't do it. JoshuaZ 13:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest we go over CyberAnth's edits as the evidence against his/her ability to edit properly is rather overwhelming. Jim62sch 22:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trollish words, spoken as retaliation for my pointing out very problematic BLP content at one of your favorite articles, where you are a true champion of POV pushing.[11]. CyberAnth 07:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is likely that Jim noticed this discussion due to your earlier disagreement with him, your editing behavior is cause for sufficient concern that his response is completely reasonable. Furthermore, I think many editors are of the opinion that if anyone was POV pushing at the Wells article, it was you: Pot. Kettle. Black. Cyber, you are a relatively new user to Wikipedia, I suggest you spend a few months writing articles before you attempt to get involved in policy-intensive, controversial issues like general BLP concerns. JoshuaZ 08:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course cabals of POV pushers view and discursively frame each other's stalking as "reasonable", and view NPOV as "POV pushing". It does not mesh with their agenda. Is there any surprise here? CyberAnth 08:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Josh - wow, those are awfully empty yet very big words from someone who highlights his most prideful primary authorial BLP contributions as stubs.[12] Are we supposed to presume that you are an expert on WP:BLP based upon this record?

But do feel free to go through all the BLPs where I am the primary author. You might start with Mary Pride. You will note how each and every statement is cited and many are multiply cited. I will certainly return the favor of the scrutiny, of course.

Based upon your own application of your (apparently deficient) understanding of WP policy above (reference posts above starting with the the post above beginning with "'Not advanced' according to who?"), we actually might have cause for concern in the inverse - not with me, but with you.

No surprise. Many WP admins are very well known in the press and various blogospheres for helping make WP a source 1st graders cannot cite. Might I cordially suggest you have a look in the mirror if this fact troubles you?

Oh, but to you I am the bad guy, right? Here we have an admin who has never once written an exemplary BLP, and who exhibits a novice understanding of the policy, who is nonetheless trying to bully his morally empty weight around to an editor who has written exemplary BLPs and, certainly commensurate, actually understands the policy in depth.

CyberAnth 08:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

[13] Do at least try to be civil. And, BTW, though I've never edited there, I can tell from reading it that the article is filled with OR. FeloniousMonk 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Carlton[edit]

Just for the record, Jim Carlton isn't *my* article. Not that I tend to have ownership issues, but I didn't create it and merely added a couple of links. Your assertion that I am deliberately trolling and enlisted others are unfounded, so please do not make such accusations. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 21:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another article added to my watchlist. I'm certainly begining to see a lot of evidence for an RfC (at the very least). Jim62sch 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re you comments[edit]

Since they pertain to article content, I moved them to the appropriate article talk page. I willl be responding to your concerns when I get a chance. In the mean time bear in mind that, unlike editor conduct issues, article content issues should be discussed on the appropriate article talk page. Thanks. Guettarda 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, regarding this comment of yours: was the biblically mandated. '''This displays complete, total ignorance of the worldview of the subjects'''. bear in mind that we are not supposed to be writing from the worldview of the subjects. We are supposed to be writing from NPOV. Guettarda 22:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, when one is summarizing the views of an author with a worldview ... one summarizes the views of an author with a worldview. Or, I don't know, maybe we should re-interpret the whole Quiverfull and Christian thing, and its authors, with a worldview of Darwinian Marxism. What do ya think? CyberAnth 00:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one perspective from which Wikipedia articles can be written - NPOV. Out of curiosity - what's "Darwinian Marxism"? Marxism is incompatible with a selectionist agenda - hence the conflict over sociobiology. It was the Marxists who couldn't accept the application of selectionist principles to humans. Guettarda 02:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, Darwinian Marxists fight a whole lot. By NPOV one summarizes authors from their own POV, not the editor's. CyberAnth 03:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm...no. NPOV does not say that it's ok to write articles from the perspective of the subject. It's to be written from a neutral perspective and present all opinions fairly and in perspective. Unless it's a quote or an otherwise attributed opinion, material cannot be presented from the perspective of the subject. "NPOV is non-negotiable". That's the governing principle of Wikipedia. Guettarda 06:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get it clear since we seem to be flying past each other over a crucial distinction. An article and an article portion that summarizes a specific work by a specific author are different. We do not re-interpret an author's views through a worldview pulled from a hat. We depict an author's views as they depict them. See now? "Biblically required" is extremely common phraseology among conservative Christians and those depicting their views as they depict them.[14] It's like saying textually required or lawfully required. Also, I was expecting you to laugh over "Darwinian Marxists". :-) CyberAnth 06:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why does that mean that you should use Biblically rather than biblically, simply to satisfy the worldview of the subject? As for "Darwinian Marxism" - I have heard that sort of nonsense said in complete seriousness. I no longer assume that things that sound nonsensical are. Guettarda 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go through all of the Christian articles and change "God" to "god". CyberAnth 06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, these have nothing to do with each other at all. The use of caps in "God" stems from it being essentially a proper noun and thus capitalized. Biblically is not a proper noun. JoshuaZ 06:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christians capitalize "Bible" when referring to what they perceive as the Word of God, the commonly held Old and New Testaments. Christians view in the Bible that it is described in John 1:1 as "the Word" (greek logos), and that is described as Christ according to Christians.[15] Something Biblically required is something Christologically required, one and the same. The Bible is a proper noun in the worldview. This differentiates it from something like, "That almanac is like a bible". When it is the Bible being referenced, it is frequently capitalized, without exception in my knowledge, by conservative authors like Quiverfull authors, which is who was being summarized in the article. CyberAnth 06:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whether the Bible is a proper noun doesn't reflect what the adjectival form is and whether or not it should be capitalized. Adjectives are not in general capitalized. (And yes, if I had time and considered it a high priority I might try to deal with the catholic articles) The only argument I can think of in the other direction is that in general when using proper nouns the accepted Wikipedia style when using an adjectival form is to capitalize it (examples are "Euclidean" and "Mendelian"). This might be a strong enough argument for using a capital B. I will take a look at the MOS when I have time. JoshuaZ 07:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mendelian, Kantian, Hegelian, etc., are helpful analogies. CyberAnth 07:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Kate Mulgrew and how they impact WP:BLP[edit]

Hello, I have seen some of your edits on other bios and noted your comments concerning the WP:BLP impact. On an article that is on my watchlist, Kate Mulgrew an edit war has broken out concerning the adoption of a girl (hers) that she did long ago. The material has been presented, cited, and IMHO, is favorable to her meaning the NPOV meets Wikipedia standards. Another editor and I have concerns which we have posted on Talk:Kate Mulgrew.

Could you provide a neutral perspective? If I am out of whack, give me a whack! Ronbo76 05:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. Can I safely assume my behind is relatively safe? (Just kidding!) Ronbo76 05:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think so on the issue of the adoption. :D I am still looking over at the rest of the article. CyberAnth 05:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else seems potentially controversial. I tidied up the material that seemed your concern with a quote from her and added another ref. As for the uncited basic career info, sources listed on the talk page just need incorporating. :-) CyberAnth 06:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CyberAnth. I was getting antsy about what was going on. You and Ronbo76 really helped - both with the article and showing me how to work BLP-related problems out. Glad you stuck around to finishing "cleaning-up." And we do need to put some work into the article; it's a bit...basic. ZueJay^talk 06:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A screenshot of her confronting the Borg Queen in the last episode - oh, that's too classic to not go in with description. And anytime I can offer a perspective, please do feel free! :-) CyberAnth 06:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - After doing some more in-depth looking, apparently Mulgrew's husband has been the one reverting the information about the adoption.[16] I wrote a response to Mr. Hagan on his IP talk page here. While I do not think it is libel to keep the info, I support simply removing it as a concession to his preference and because the info is not crucial to her bio. But I certainly do not think we need to remove it. CyberAnth 07:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your diffs. An anonymous IP editted both here and at Kate Mulgrew's talkpage the IP number. Makes you wonder. Ronbo76 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sheesh. At any rate, I think we are safe as regards the content. CyberAnth 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Nelson[edit]

Thanks!. --BenBurch 11:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... The effect of your recent revert might not be what you intended. It moved the partisan material to the head of the article. --BenBurch 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is gone from there on the same grounds. CyberAnth 02:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it should. Were I to do it, I'd take nothing but grief as evidenced by the ArbCom going on against me. :-( Thanks! --BenBurch 03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent question on my talk page[edit]

In regard to your question, this makes me fairly sure I was an admin at some point, and I don't think I've been desysopped since then. Now, I looked at the talk page before reinserting the material, and I don't see anything relevant there. Now if you can a) address what I said on the talk page and b) point me to where these previous discussions are, I'd appreciate it. Also, note that whether or not the content is there, it is not a BLP issue since it is well sourced content to what notable others have to say about him. At most there is an NPOV concern. And NPOV disputes are not an exception for WP:3RR. JoshuaZ 05:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you are an admin and you are still so ignorant of these things? A NPOV problem is a BLP problem. Read WP:BLP. It is there is plain English. CyberAnth 05:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I didn't state things well. BLP states that "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately" (bolding, punctuation suppressed). This gives an exception to 3RR for unsourced or poorly sourced material. There is no BLP 3RR exception for well sourced content on a bio where the inclusion of the content may create an NPOV problem. JoshuaZ 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you want to take it from that angle. The material is poorly sourced because it is from exclusively partisan groups. Let's only continue this on Bill Nelson talk. It is tiring to hop back and forth. CyberAnth 05:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:3RR on Bill Nelson[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job[edit]

Nice link to the history of WP:FAIL. I think what is going on there is ridiculous. MetsFan76 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]