User talk:Flatscan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Flatscan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini 08:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] Taser and Taser controversy articles

Last week, after hearing several recent news stories about Taser deaths and other incidents, I looked up "Taser" on Wikipedia, only to find that there was no article titled "Taser." Rather there was a section under "Electroshock Weapon" about Taser to which Taser redirected. Given the high profile nature of the Taser, I went and created a separate article called "Taser" by copying all the information from the Electroshock Weapon page, and adding various sections on the controversial aspects of the weapon, including some notable Taser deaths. Unbeknownst to me at the time, there was already an article called "Taser controversy." When I discovered it, I found both articles had some overlapping information, some of that was contradictory (not because sources were inaccurate, but because some were out of date). I promptly suggested merging these articles.

Fact is, if I entered "Taser" looking for information on the topic, so would many others, therefore, it makes sense to have an article titled "Taser" as the basic source of information on Tasers.

Here are some ideas as to solving this problem:

  1. Merge "Taser controversy" into "Taser" and clean up
  2. Make the "Taser" article's focus about what the Taser is, with a "main article" or "see also" tag directing readers to the "Taser controversy" article for information about the controversy
  3. If the list of notable Taser deaths grows to be quite long, make that into a separate article.

Which do you think is the best approach? Shaliya waya 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Copied message to Talk:Taser#Suggested merge with Taser controversy at 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taser content

Hi, Flatscan. I'm not accepting your unilateral decision to quarantine Taser from justified critical content ("controversial" or otherwise.) Please review your action or prepare to face full scrutiny and criticism yourself. See my discussion proposal. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will discuss at Talk:Taser. Flatscan (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Study

Comments from Flatscan originally made at and copied from User talk:Canyouhearmenow#Reverted edit to Study (historical revision)

Hi, you reverted an edit I made to Study. I had reverted edits that I felt were unencyclopedic and informal. My revision is identical to a revision that has been maintained since July 2007. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks.

By the way, your header link points to junebug52. Flatscan (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Flatscan. Yes, I did make an edit reversal to the study article. [1] That statement is not encyclopedic and it is POV. Now, if you could cite it where the statement has been used by a third source, then it can stay in the article. Otherwise, I feel the edit was appropriate and edit should remain. When we are writing these things, we have to make sure that we are doing it in a non POV fashion and that everything we put in has a cite or source. Thank you for contacting me and bringing it to my attention. I hope you will enjoy your time here at wikipedia. Canyouhearmenow 12:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I do not follow your reasoning, in particular, why my edit fails WP:NPOV. The Study article is a disambiguation page, and it seems odd to require citations on brief descriptions. I was not able to find any relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). The revision isn't really mine — as I noted, it is a reversion to a long-standing previous revision. I can see that the revision that I reverted ("Studying, an excuse used to eat and hang out with friends") could be considered humorous or tongue-in-cheek, but it clearly lacks the primary definition of studying. Flatscan (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Flatscan, I appreciate your passion on this matter, however, even by definition the disambiguous page tells us, "There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation". The link that you added the verbiage to links right to an article on studying. You would have to link it somewhere so that your statement makes sense for the disambiguation. Canyouhearmenow 02:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for continuing this discussion and putting up with my persistence. I can see your latest point, particularly when comparing my revision to your latest revision (diff), as the description is better with "study skills" removed. However, I still fail to see why my edit merited outright and unexplained reversion. Did you use the Wikipedia:Rollback feature?
In consideration of my difficulty in understanding your points, would you mind if I asked CBD to help us? I noticed that you've contacted him in the past. Flatscan (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have submitted this issue to CBD and I will wait on his response. I do feel that my edit is proper unless I am misunderstanding the rules, but they seem clear to me that if you are goingn to add verbiage and then link it, there has to be a union of the disambiguation and the link. In this case, I am not sure as to how the verbiage that you added had anything to do with the link for studying. If one searches for studying, I do not think it will link to the statements or additions that you made. This is why I made the original revert. Yes, I use the rollback feature. Thanks for your attention. Maybe you and I will learn something new here? Canyouhearmenow 03:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued after 1-month hiatus

Flatscan, I wanted to wait until I was sure of my revert before I notified you about the addition that you put up on the Study page. I was thinking that it was going to have to be removed to to being unencyclopedic and I was correct. IN the disambiguation, it has to point to a direct article or subject and not just a ramdom thought or action of the disambiguation. I hope this makes better sense to you. I also appreciate your input on my talk pages in reference to the rollback issue. It was not clear as to how to edit with rollback since it does not allow you to enter an explaination of the edit. So, now I am going in manually and reverting the vandalism. Takes more time but hey, we have to do our part! Thank you for being civil with me and I think above all things we both have learned new things here! Let me know if I can ever help you. Canyouhearmenow 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am going to hold off on replying to some of them until we resolve the core dispute/discussion.

The definition the editor originally gave was attached to studying. I reverted that edit in the beginning and that is when the editor then linked it to study group. I never reverted the edit to that one. The edit I did was up ontop for studying. Then I put the correct disambiguation in there. I was waiting on CBD to get back with us so I never reverted the edit the editor placed back on which of course was study group. Thanks for fixing it for me. Canyouhearmenow 03:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC) (in response to Bibliomaniac15, diff)

From your comment, it appears that you attribute the following edit to me ("the editor"):

Studying, an excuse used to eat and hang out with friends (diff)

Is this a correct reading of your quoted comment? Flatscan (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope that you are not going to stop editing! That would be a shame. We need good editors and you are very passionate about your contibutions. Please reconsider being more active. Canyouhearmenow 04:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Taser has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Party!Talk to me! 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Taser

Well, i was a bit too fast on the trigger! *bad pun intended*. But i did a check, and found out you were right, so i used a rollback on A good faith :) --Party!Talk to me! 21:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to the original title. I agree with your reasoning. -- Longhair\talk 01:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back Flatscan!

I see that you are not editing that much, but you have been sneaking in from time to time! I do hope that you will come back and help me whip this place into shape! I would hate to think that an editor such as yourself would not devote time to what it is they love to do. I devote at least an hour a day to editing. It helps keep my mind active and it also stops my wife from killing me! She said I needed a hobby and now I have one! I just wanted to send you a little encouragement. Smiles! Canyouhearmenow 12:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it's about time! This place is crawling with vandalism and lack of committment to mainspace. Please try not to leave us like that again! It's very stressful! LOL Welcome back friend.. Canyouhearmenow 03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keep it up

You're doing a commendable job, especially at Taser controversy. Some editors can work hard on an article for a long time and not get any recognition, so I thought I'd drop a little note by to let you know you're doing great! Keep up the good work! ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excited delirium

I added the section since I couldn't find any reference to "excited delirium" in the Taser article. It's possible I just misspelled it when I was using the search function. In any case, in Canada, it has been a major issue relating to the use of Tasers and is mentioned in numerous articles I've read in the past few months and it seems clear, at least from the testimony given in Canada, and the defence given by Taser and its defenders, that it is an important aspect of the Taser story. Both articles that I cite discuss excited delirium in relation to Tasers (though I might not have pulled the most pertinent information from the source material). Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the main source article here. I had intended to write the paragraph in a way that gives both Taser's side and the critics' side of the issue but I think I leaned too far towards the side of critics since , to my mind, "excited delirium" looks like junk science. Since Taser is raising the phenomenon it does merit mention in the main Taser article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue weight?

I don't understand how a paragraph on excited delirium constitutes "undue weight"? If this were taking up 1/3 of the article then you'd have a point but one small section? I don't think that's a valid criticism. How is it justifiable not to have any mention whatsoever of the issue when it is so prominent in the Taser story? Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, this is what Undue Weight actually says: WP:NPOV#Undue weight: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." If anything this supports inclusion of much of the material that's been removed or that you've tried to exclude as they are "significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." Reggie Perrin (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)