User talk:Bulbous
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New page for 2008. Bulbous (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Speedy deletion of Chekist (film)
A tag has been placed on Chekist (film) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe it is redlinked, but creating a stub with no context whatsoever won't help matters. Find some information about the film, then write an appropriate article. Otherwise it would be better for it to remain as a redlink, so that someone who knows about the film will see that an article is needed and create it. As it stands now, such a person might ignore the blue link, thinking the article already exists in a proper form. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. I honestly felt that a stub would serve the article better than a redlink. I'll take your good faith word that it is not! I saw this movie one time, and it seriously messed with my head. I've been checking for sources, but as it is a foreign film, I have had little luck personally. Bulbous (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Citation tags
Hi. I've recently encountered several instances of your superfluous use of citation tags - mainly in instances of uncontroversial common knowledge. I'm curious if there is a reason you are adding citation tags. Are you unable to find sources for the information, or are you just unaware of the subject? —Viriditas | Talk 13:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you provide an example so we can discuss it? Bulbous (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- One recent example were your addition of cite needed tags to Freedom of thought.[1] I'm curious why you added them. From what I can tell, it was made in bad faith, with your edit summary implying you were going add cite tags for "future removal"; in other words, you have decided to remove non-controversial, common knowledge with sources found in daughter articles, because it didn't have a cite needed tag in a summary style description? That's not how we use those tags. —Viriditas | Talk 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm suspecting a bad-faith attack. Are you referring to any other edit than the "Freedom of Thought" article, which I edited almost a month ago? Bulbous (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let me first apologize. I'm just curious as to your reasoning. You added the tags to the section, claiming you were going to remove the information a priori in the edit summary. Can you explain why? —Viriditas | Talk 22:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I felt I was being generous in not removing the unsourced statements outright. I'm sure you are familiar with WP policy - unsourced statements can be boldly removed. In asking for sources, I was hoping that an editor such as yourself (who feels that this is "common knowledge") would quickly find sources to support these edits. Does the fact that you simply pulled the tags down mean that you have been unable to source these claims? Bulbous (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be playing games rather than answering my simple and direct question. Unsourced statements cannot be boldly removed. You have misinterprted the policy. Unsourced statements that infrige upon certain policies (such as BLP) but more importantly, those that are challenged can be removed. How have you challenged or presented a challenge to this information? The former is supported by the linked articles, and the latter is supported in the same manner; neither statements are controversial or in dispute. So, I await your challenge. Hint: it might help if you actually read the linked articles and make note of their sources. Again, I notice that you planned on removing this material merely because it was unsourced, and that's not correct. —Viriditas | Talk 22:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I fear you have been misinterpreting the tolerance level allowed in WP:SUMMARY. In fact it is quite plainly stated that when using summary style, any material that is likely to be challenged *must* be sourced. And these edits have been challenged. Bulbous (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wonderful! I can't wait to read all about your challenge on the talk page. Look forward to it. Of course, as you know, merely saying "this material is challenged" does not consitute a challenge of any kind. —Viriditas | Talk 22:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it does! I disagree with this edit. I challenge you to prove it. The onus is not on me to disprove it, it is on YOU to source it. As a gesture of good faith, I have just searched the articles of all three authors, and not a single article mentioned "entheogens". As for the suggestion that the first citation was "uncontroversial common knowledge", that is just ludicrous. The next time you are in the supermarket, ask the first person you see in the produce department who isTerrence McKenna, never mind his position on Entheogens. You're not being at all reasonable here. Bulbous (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- You want me to prove what someone else wrote? Sure, I would be happy to do your homework for you, but this will be the last time. Saying that something is "challenged" does not constitute a challenge in any topic nor in any debate. You need to actually say why you are challenging something. You finally did this in the above comment after I requested you to do so five separate times. So, you are claiming that the author who wrote the material should not have used the word entheogen, is that correct? Is there anything else you would like to challenge at this point before I address your problem, or is your challenge complete? Unless you want me to copy your comments to the talk page, it is good form to explain why you are challenging the contentn on the talk page. I see you have commented there, but you have again, not explained why. Your argument from ignorance doesn't work; just because you aren't familiar with the topic doesn't mean the content should be removed. In the future, you need to actually do research before adding cite tags and implying in the edit summary that you are going to remove the material, without ever making a challenge to the material itself. You need to actively involve yourself in research if you are going to edit Wikipedia. Simply saying "I challenge it" doesn't work. I would also like to take a minute to point out what I see as hypocrisy on your end. In August of 2007, User:Angusmclellan removed unsourced material from the same article, which you promptly added back in without references.[2] Since you have the onus to prove that this material is relevant to the subject, I have added a cite needed tag and await your forthcoming references. —Viriditas | Talk 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I guess we'll have to disagree on the matter of policy then. A "challenge" to a statement does not have to involve anything other than an editor saying, "I disagree". It is then incumbent upon the defending editor to source his claim. I've been through arbitrations recently and I can unequivocally tell you that sources rule the day. I don't have to do research to back up my claim. Again that's the responsibility of the person ADDING the information in the first place. Bulbous (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, a challenge involves much more than saying "I disagree": it involves an explanation so an editor can respond to the challenge. Merely having a source does not merit inclusion. Evaluating and supplying sources are secondary to formulating a problem, making an argument, and collecting evidence. Obviously, sources are used for all three, but in typtical discussions, we assume we are dealing with opinion, and then move on to providing sources. Then, we evaluate those sources for inclusion. I've been going over your edit history edit by edit, and you seem to think that merely having a source justifies inclusion. That's false. You also seem to think that "major media outlets" represent "the best sources", which is again, false. For example, in issues related to science and technology, major media outlets would probably be at the bottom of the list. This is especially true when we are dealing with scientific and medical studies, which only a specialized group of reliable sources can accurately report and explain. —Viriditas | Talk 09:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I guess we'll have to disagree on the matter of policy then. A "challenge" to a statement does not have to involve anything other than an editor saying, "I disagree". It is then incumbent upon the defending editor to source his claim. I've been through arbitrations recently and I can unequivocally tell you that sources rule the day. I don't have to do research to back up my claim. Again that's the responsibility of the person ADDING the information in the first place. Bulbous (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- You want me to prove what someone else wrote? Sure, I would be happy to do your homework for you, but this will be the last time. Saying that something is "challenged" does not constitute a challenge in any topic nor in any debate. You need to actually say why you are challenging something. You finally did this in the above comment after I requested you to do so five separate times. So, you are claiming that the author who wrote the material should not have used the word entheogen, is that correct? Is there anything else you would like to challenge at this point before I address your problem, or is your challenge complete? Unless you want me to copy your comments to the talk page, it is good form to explain why you are challenging the contentn on the talk page. I see you have commented there, but you have again, not explained why. Your argument from ignorance doesn't work; just because you aren't familiar with the topic doesn't mean the content should be removed. In the future, you need to actually do research before adding cite tags and implying in the edit summary that you are going to remove the material, without ever making a challenge to the material itself. You need to actively involve yourself in research if you are going to edit Wikipedia. Simply saying "I challenge it" doesn't work. I would also like to take a minute to point out what I see as hypocrisy on your end. In August of 2007, User:Angusmclellan removed unsourced material from the same article, which you promptly added back in without references.[2] Since you have the onus to prove that this material is relevant to the subject, I have added a cite needed tag and await your forthcoming references. —Viriditas | Talk 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it does! I disagree with this edit. I challenge you to prove it. The onus is not on me to disprove it, it is on YOU to source it. As a gesture of good faith, I have just searched the articles of all three authors, and not a single article mentioned "entheogens". As for the suggestion that the first citation was "uncontroversial common knowledge", that is just ludicrous. The next time you are in the supermarket, ask the first person you see in the produce department who isTerrence McKenna, never mind his position on Entheogens. You're not being at all reasonable here. Bulbous (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wonderful! I can't wait to read all about your challenge on the talk page. Look forward to it. Of course, as you know, merely saying "this material is challenged" does not consitute a challenge of any kind. —Viriditas | Talk 22:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I fear you have been misinterpreting the tolerance level allowed in WP:SUMMARY. In fact it is quite plainly stated that when using summary style, any material that is likely to be challenged *must* be sourced. And these edits have been challenged. Bulbous (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to be playing games rather than answering my simple and direct question. Unsourced statements cannot be boldly removed. You have misinterprted the policy. Unsourced statements that infrige upon certain policies (such as BLP) but more importantly, those that are challenged can be removed. How have you challenged or presented a challenge to this information? The former is supported by the linked articles, and the latter is supported in the same manner; neither statements are controversial or in dispute. So, I await your challenge. Hint: it might help if you actually read the linked articles and make note of their sources. Again, I notice that you planned on removing this material merely because it was unsourced, and that's not correct. —Viriditas | Talk 22:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I felt I was being generous in not removing the unsourced statements outright. I'm sure you are familiar with WP policy - unsourced statements can be boldly removed. In asking for sources, I was hoping that an editor such as yourself (who feels that this is "common knowledge") would quickly find sources to support these edits. Does the fact that you simply pulled the tags down mean that you have been unable to source these claims? Bulbous (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Let me first apologize. I'm just curious as to your reasoning. You added the tags to the section, claiming you were going to remove the information a priori in the edit summary. Can you explain why? —Viriditas | Talk 22:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm suspecting a bad-faith attack. Are you referring to any other edit than the "Freedom of Thought" article, which I edited almost a month ago? Bulbous (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- One recent example were your addition of cite needed tags to Freedom of thought.[1] I'm curious why you added them. From what I can tell, it was made in bad faith, with your edit summary implying you were going add cite tags for "future removal"; in other words, you have decided to remove non-controversial, common knowledge with sources found in daughter articles, because it didn't have a cite needed tag in a summary style description? That's not how we use those tags. —Viriditas | Talk 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11
Dear Bulbous,
At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:
-
- "The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.
I would appreciate it when you could take a look. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitration
I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for adding your sane and pertinent statement at the main case page here. I'm finding this business pretty horrible and it's always good to be reminded that I'm not alone here. You say that you are "not sure what the purpose of this arbitration would be". I think that the reality is that whatever it ought to be, it is now a witch hunt. The alleged instances of incivility by me are so trivial, if not nonexistant, that the only possible reason for including the diffs would be to give the illusion of having a case when there isn't one. Unfortunately there are so many editors involved in this lynching, all repeating the same lies over and over again, that they are likely to be taken for the truth. Therefore anything you can add to the evidence page to puncture the wall of lies and flagrant hypocrisy would certainly be a great help. I can't say the prospects of winning this look good, based on the opening statements of some of the arbitrators, but I don't want to say I didn't try. Regards. ireneshusband (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, man. There are some zealots over there with simply too much time on their hands. I had started to compose some evidence, but it just sapped too much of my energy. Good luck! Bulbous (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Haile Selassie I and Rastafari movement
Hey, thanks for the encouragement you offered on this issue a couple weeks ago. I meant to thank you but let it slip. It's a shame for me to come into conflict with people who share my affection for the subject. I think my sentiment is universal, and we all do better every day! Cheers, DBaba (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
