User talk:EditorInTheRye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is your source for assessing the Fugelsang blog as fake? User:Pedant 22:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] No, that's not the way it works.

I used it as a source, with no evidence that it is not fake. Spelling errors in English are very common when a person writes in other than his native tongue. The blog was maintained during the mission at appropriate times, and all the other information was consistent.

You deleted content based on it being fake, without a source for its "fakeness". That's pretty precipitous action. Which seems to be your style, as you immediately went to vote on my adminship, without any evidence that I was up for adminship, and ignoring the text that plainly states it is an old RfA, and all the dates being from 2005.

I think you need to come up with something other than your original research to support calling the blog fake. User:Pedant 22:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Also please note that the user who you mention calls the blog a fake, is a former 'bad user' who has abandoned his user account after numerous Wikipedia policy violations. Not a reliable source. User:Pedant 22:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe 'bad user' is a bit too harsh, but look through his contribs. I personally don't trust users who make comments like "If it wasn't fake" in an edit but in the summary "Smells like a fake".
To me a 'good user' (besides being currently active) is someone who sources everything and doesn't make allegations without providing evidence. I don't have to 'trust' a source, but only reference it... if the source is bad then its easy to delete the relevant info.
The blog appears legit to me, at least on the surface. The point I'm trying to make is, maybe it is a fake, but where is the evidence, or the reference? 'Obli sez it smells fakey' isn't a reference. He posted a fake looking video is a bit better, but still is original research unless there is some definitive proof that the vid is fake and in which case, I want to see it.
I am not trying to have an argument with you, you are relatively new and I am just trying to help you become a 'good user'. I have pretty high standards, but I'm sure you would want your actions to be unassailably correct. I'm just pointing out that you speedied a redirect, and deleted information, without reliably sourced third party information. Show me good evidence or third-party references and I will make efforts to have the blog itself deleted.
I hope you understand: this isn't about you deleting info I posted, just about the right process for deleting it. Neither of us, at this point, can say one way or the other whether the blog is fake. If either of us can find a reliable source that answers that question, we should let the other know.
In future, please discuss changes, before making them, if the change is based on "smell". That's my recommendation. You could be a good user, which I think is a higher calling than becoming an admin.

User:Pedant 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More from the birdsong incident...

No, reliable sources are expected for making any edit in the article namespace. Note I am not disagreeing with you, I'm finding more that leads me to believe that 1)the blog is not genuine; and 2)that I was in error to rely on it as a source. Nonetheless, some evidence that it was a fake would have been more appropriate than speedy-deleting the redirect and summarily removing the text. If you were going to remove the text, without evidence, it would be more appropriate to remove the text by copying it to the talk page, stating that you feel it was not sourced appropriately, that it came from a blog which looks to you to be fake. (I'm talking about impeccable behavior, here, which I assume you wish to strive for, since you are willing to spend this much effort talking about it). Also, it might be worthwhile to contact me, as the editor who added the info, to see if I had some comment on the issue, before you dash off to bad-mouth me on RfA. I don't care about becoming an admin, but I do care about the Wikipedia, and so I have to care about its individual editors. I hope you understand that all of this is advice along the lines of 'wanting you to be the best editor you can be', and that it is of some use to you.
Thanks for your patience and efforts to keep wikipedia free of bullshit... it's good to meet you. User:Pedant 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood the 'put it on discussion page part': I was suggesting you put the text on the talk page AND remove it from the article. That way the discussion all takes place on the talk page, if there is any, and its easier to get collaboration on the 'fake/not fake' issue. Yes, definitely let 'be bold' and 'use common sense' be more of a guiding light than any sort of 'process'. Wikipedia wouldn't need rules if everybody would use bold sense. Putting it on the discussion page is a good thing in the case that it's a major change, such as excising any mention of 'Fugelsang Syndrome'. This one might qualify for Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, but I prefer it didn't go there, as that would reward the hoaxer... and writing a hoax blog as a public figure is something I definitely want to discourage. I'll see you around... maybe you might vote for me as an admin after talking to me... which is another good reason to discuss edits first. User:Pedant 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Dickman

There are far less notable media presenters who have wikipedia pages than Dicko. Look at for instance bid up.tv presenters and the like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reni's Drums (talk • contribs).

[edit] Some brand of bourbon

Ok, but if you want an article to exist on a brand of bourbon, the burden of notability falls on you. The article as it stood gave no reason for why that particular brand of bourbon deserves an article. Jack Daniels having an article is not justification. I could distill my own bourbon, make an article for it, and you would be fine with that? Murderbike 03:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Murderbike Bourbon? I'd have one of those with ya for sure! And the article looks much less deletionable now. Good job! Murderbike 23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bulliet Bourbon

That's much better now. Good work on that! Thanks for the improvements, and sorry if we stepped in too soon with the deletion notices. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 210.235.209.39, 19 October 2007

The license you provided was invalid. Because, indeed the copyright of Mona Lisa is expired. But the graphic effect that was generated was not generated before 100 years and is subject to copyright. --210.235.209.39 18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Adobe is not going to sue him for using an Adobe Photoshop swirl. If that were the case, the entire field of graphic design would not exist in this day-and-age because no one would create anything because the exercise of one's creativity in using software would result in copyright infringement lawsuits from said company. That's like saying Tim Berners-Lee (co-inventor of the World Wide Web) is having his intellectual property violated every time someone clicks a hyperlink. Copyright law exists not only to protect but to promote the exercise of creating works. - Ageekgal 22:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Mona Lisa+Swirl may be a new artwork. So, I think you should release one of these: GPL or CC Public Domain or GPL CC PD dual license. Please see: Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags. --210.235.209.39 01:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 60.49.68.37 (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be lovely if you wouldn't run around deleting additions just because they lack a good source. It would be much nicer to flag as reference required for a while, make a note on the article's discussion page, and if nobody can help; remove the information. An encyclopedia is, after all, about information and it is always better to have extra info and mark it as unsourced than to remove it.

[edit] Newcastle University

Sorry, I seem to be ignorant of that. Could you perhaps provide a source for me? Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if you're sure. I always thought Newcastle University was just used as shorthand. On the prospectus in the small print it said Univeristy of Newcastle upon Tyne trading as Newcastle University though. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Yo. You removed my stand alone complex comment on the Project Chanology page. This isn't to bash around, and I'm certainly not interested in getting into an edit war, so I'm not putting it back. And I see that there is a strong argument that on controversial and unfolding topic its important to have accurate information.

But its also true that on a controversial and unfolding topic, the issues unfold faster than mainstream media and in ways that mainstream media doesn't see. Wikipedia allows users to Wikipedia:Be bold so that users can build a page together. One person lays a foundation and over time others can add. Wikipedia doesn't expect every little thing added to a page to be well sourced by impeccable sources the moment its put on a page.

I noticed that at least one other person (see your talk page below) has commented on the fact that you seem to delete things that are unsourced without leaving any time for anyone to add or change them. You deleted what I wrote less than 12 hours after I posted it... if someone wanted to add sources I guess its too late! Please give people a little more time to work on eachother work and build an encyclopedia together; expecting the first person to post to set everything up perfectly is asking to much and doesn't give enough credit to the collaboration that makes wikipedia great. Michael.passman (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Passman

Hey. I don't know much about this talk page stuff, but I assume I'm supposed to respond on your page, so I am.

You are absolutely right that it would be a problem if mainstream media picked up something from wikipedia, then it was in turn used to justify wikipedia. I never really thought of that. On the other hand, I could have found a blog written by some claimed to be an expert (or written the blog myself), then cited the blog, which unfortunately I think happens a lot on wikipedia, and is essentially as bad as your proposed scenario. So I guess I agree with you.

As to Stand Alone Complex being an obscure anime reference, yes and no. First of all, I assumed you knew what Stand Alone Complex was because you responded to my post and because of your name, EditorInTheRye. The anime that delves into SAC is Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. The main "bad guy" (sort of) copies all sorts of lines and styles from Catcher in the Rye, A Perfect Day for Bananafish, Laughing Man, etc. (all by JD Salinger, but I assume you know that). That said, stand alone complex may have gotten that name from the anime, but it is a documented philosophical/socieological thing.

Basically, stand alone complex is a situation where many individuals act alone but produce a complex and cooperative action, each one not knowing about the other and all trying to copy an original that may not exist. The documented cases that are best known (and sort of picked up in the anime), are the ones I cited in my post.

The first, the Glico Morinaga case was a kidnapping in Japan. To summarize shortly, some big exec was kidnapped from his house in what was a fairly horrific home invasion scare tactic kidnapping. Then his company was blackmailed. He was eventually returned but the blackmailing didn't end. In fact, other related companies were blackmailed. And companies were even told their products were poisoned and they had to be taken off the market. The supposed kidnapper or kidnappers were never caught. Eventually, people realized that maybe there wasn't one person behind all of this. There were probably copycats upon copycats. Some of the companies involved were probably faking blackmails to ruin their competition, etc. And there were just randoms going out for the fun of imitating a famous kidnapper and blackmail-artist. But to the police, at least at first, it looked like a well organized cooperative criminal enterprise. But it probably wasn't. In the end it was probably just a lot of individuals trying to imitate an original who had stopped (or had toned it down) but the original could never be found.

The and public reaction to the May 15 Incident is another example. Some young japanese naval officers rebelled against government policy and were sentenced to death. But after their sentancing, single chopped off finger kept getting sent to the prison from around japan. Along side were often notes stating that this was a personal sacrifice to preserve the prisoners lives. At first, to the government, it looked like rebel sympathisers had organized a nation wide protest. But when they investigated the people who sent the fingers, they found that they had no connection to one another. They had all undertaken this personal sacrifice (rather grusomely) on their own, without prompting or organization. Essentially, all of their unrelated individual actions "imitating" what they thought was the right thing to do produced the appearance of a cooperative protest.

A more academic explanation of what a stand alone complex might look like can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard#Simulacra_and_Simulation

   - the era of the original
   - to the counterfeit
   - to the produced, mechanical copy, and through
   - to the simulated "third order of simulacra", whereby the copy has replaced the original.

Internet meme's are also sometimes considered a stand alone complex. No one tells you to download the video of the star wars kid, but a ton of people do it. It might look from the outside like there is a plan to download star wars kid videos. But there isn't. Everyone's individual action forms a collective whole on its own.

Some might also consider religion to be a stand alone complex (though obviously some religions are more organized than others). If we accept for the purposes of this post that the historical Moses or Jesus or Mohammad (or whoever, please don't be offended if you are religious, this is just a hypothetical example, no insult intended) is not the same as the one we remember in our religious books, many people are trying to imitate an original that never really existed.

My point with my post was that because of this one anonymous post on youtube, many other people posted very very similar posts, claiming to be supporters of anonymous. those people went out to protest. those people helped hack Scientology's website. those people spread the word. all of them appear to be a cooperative mass. but they aren't. they are a bunch of individuals imitating some anonymous individual or group of individuals, who may or may not exist as a real organization, or may just be a joke, or may simply be someone's fun afternoon project. there may be no core group that wants to destroy Scientology. but now a bunch of other want to be just like anonymous, or be anonymous, and therefore make anonymous appear to be an organized conspiracy.

Anyway, thats about it. If you read through this entire thing, thats incredible. one thing that is amazing about wikipedia is that it brings together so many viewpoints from all over the world. anyway, just so you dont think i'm a crazy anime freak who does nothing constructive on wikipedia, i am also the guy who added project chanology to the the disambiguation page of anonymous because i'm sure a lot of people were searching for anonymous and had no clue it had a more formal name (for example, me until i found it through the Church of Scientology page. So I am constructive and I am not really an anime freak (though if you can tolerate anime, I recommend Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex because it really does make you think about the world in interesting ways).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.passman (talk • contribs) 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my essay of a response. I found a source for linking "Anonymous" with Stand Alone Complex. Its a blog, but its a source. So I'm going to add it back to the page. You should feel free to tinker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.passman (talk • contribs)