User talk:Really Spooky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Really Spooky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If 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. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 02:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "Alleged abuse" vs. "Abuse"

I believe you may have acted hastily and missed the point that I made in my edit summary about why "Abuse of the SP label" was an entirely appropriate section header considering the two different major items we had to discuss under that header. Please read my explanation on the talk page before reverting it again.

Also... please don't mark edits likely to be disputed as minor edits. Minor edits should be basically housekeeping edits -- if you can picture someone objecting to the edit, it's almost certainly not a minor edit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Have now read the guidance on minor edits -- point taken. Thanks. Really Spooky 07:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppet?

Really Spooky I am getting the impression you think I am a sock of Milo from this comment: Hi, Milo. Don't forget about this :) Really Spooky 09:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Anynobody 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

copied from talk page: Not until you answer the question I posted on your talk page User_talk:Really_Spooky. I don't know Milo but because he/she and I both think that the TRA is mislabeled under this list doesn't mean we are the same person. If you do not address my concern about your accusations I will be forced to ask for intervention by an admin. Request a checkuser be done on myslef or Milo, but I strongly suggest you stop making vague accusations. Anynobody 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Since you don't seem to want to respond, or prove your allegations I have approached Milo about registering an RfC on your behavior.Anynobody 02:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And I'm afraid I can only repeat (for the third time) that you haven't posted any identifiable question on this page. If you are expecting a response, you might start by formulating an actual question. As for your "concern", as you yourself well know, we have already discussed this extensively and in detail here. -- Really Spooky 09:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

Hi. I notice that you seem to have had some issues with Milomedes' alleged sockpuppetry. I'm having similar issues myself, and believe this may be part of a much larger pattern of behaviour. Would you mind taking a look at this RFC and making a contribution if you belive it's warranted. --Gene_poole 02:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I had a look at the page as you asked. I have not run across any of the users mentioned other than Milo, so I am not in a position to make any useful contribution to your RfC.
More generally, however, might I suggest that an RfC is not the most constructive solution to your concern. RfCs are for disputes about a user's conduct, not his or her identity. An RfC is only likely to produce a stalemate of speculative comments from one side and hot denials from the alleged sockpuppets, regardless of whether your suspicions are correct.
If the users in question are behaving disruptively and you believe they are sockpuppets of one user, this can be dealt with rather simply and directly through a checkuser request. Whilst these are not always conclusive, it is much more objective than just canvassing for others' opinions, which is not going to prove anything, I'm afraid. Really Spooky 21:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your response. It's a particularly difficult one, because the puppetmaster is using multiple socks to subvert a range of other WP policies, so you can come at it from either RFC or RFCU. It's just a matter of continuing to compile evidence until the weight of it becomes overwhelming, or until he slips up (as he did yesterday). I've archived the RCF here, and will continue add evidence to it until I'm ready to re-present the case. If you have any further issues/evidence, feel free to add to the page. --Gene_poole 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ECHR article

Hi, you seem to know what you are talking about (rare sometimes). Would you mind helping to wikify this article: Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia? CSI LA 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi CSI LA. Not sure what you have in mind, but I read the article and it looks OK to me, no doubt it was written by a lawyer familiar with the case. I don't think there is much I would do to change it. -- Really Spooky 22:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thought

Somtimes responses aren't necessary. Lsi john 13:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My instincts are to expose logical fallacies for what they are, whether or not they are intentional, mainly because of their potential to confuse others. But fair enough, sooner or later there comes a time to move on. -- Really Spooky 14:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Êàæäûé èç íàñ äîëæåí äîëæåí ñàì âûáðàòü - ðåàãèðîâàòü èëè íåò. Òå êòî ðàçâîäÿò áåññìûñëåííûé ôëåéì ðàíî èëè ïîçäíî ïîêàæóò ÷òî îíè èç ñåáÿ ïðåäñòàâëÿþò íà ñàìîì äåëå. Lsi john 15:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Хотя мне удалось прочесть Ваше сообщение с помощью другой программы, но на моей викистранице оно появляется лишь в неиспользуемых латинских знаках ASCII, а не в кириллице. Вы не знаете как это исправить? -- Really Spooky 15:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Будет проблемой с моей русской купелью. Lsi john 15:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. :-} Just saw this. I found it interesting. Lsi john 16:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Yeah. I hadn't been inclined to perceive this as a DNFT issue until I saw this and this. Editor in question is clearly not lazy or confused, and is almost certainly the sock or reincarnation of someone who has said it all before. -- Really Spooky 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The patterns are amazingly similar, having watched about 3 separate iterations now with different editors. It took me a while to confirm the conclusion for myself, so I certainly don't fault you for AGF. IRC has a nice /ignore feature that wikipedia might benefit from. Drop me an email sometime and we'll exchange pleasantries. Lsi john 21:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
взгляд! свой другой глист без tequilla. Я предпочитаю tequilla без глиста. Lsi john 02:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks For Your Help

Hi Really Spooky! Thanks for your response to me, explaining the WP:OR issue! I think I can now understand your point and I am grateful that you took the time to explain it to me! With Regards! -- AussieOzborn au 08:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and happy editing! :) -- Really Spooky 11:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert on Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia

What do you know about the Hamburg "Task Force" except for a flashy title? There is not even a lawyer working there and what they say has no meaning for the judgment at all. Following that logic I could write a "brief" about the ECHR judgment as well and get it broadly featured in that article as well. This section is misleading and spreading a lie in Wikipedia. Please help me understand our POV here. COFS 02:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, COFS. Did you look at my actual edit? It wasn't a revert. I only removed the comment that the Hamburg working group claimed the judgment was 'wrong', because that is inaccurate. They didn't claim it was wrong, they merely put their own spin on it. I did, however, add that the comments were the opinion of the group and that they did not identify themselves or their qualifications.
I also agree with you that the Hamburg working group's opinion has no meaning for the judgment, which is why I put it under a new heading entitled "Reactions to the judgment". I think readers will understand this is no more than the opinion of the Hamburg group.
If you wrote a brief about the judgment it could only be featured on Wikipedia if it met the reliable sources criteria, e.g. if it was published somewhere. It might be possible to challenge the Hamburg material on WP:RS grounds, but personally I don't think that's a good idea, because Wikipedia's task is to report on various points of view and let the reader decide. Removal of properly sourced information from Wikipedia is almost always a bad idea, because it smacks of censorship. The best approach is to provide additional context or other points of view to balance the article.
In time other legal commentaries on the judgment will appear and these can be added for balance. Besides, as you may or may not know, there is another European Court case that will be decided soon which will no doubt make it clear even to sceptics that the Hamburg group's opinion is flat wrong. Best, Really Spooky 11:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I got your POV now. You'll see my self-revert in the article. I guess this is just the judgment in Russian or is there a commentary on this page as well? COFS 16:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's just the judgment. --Really Spooky 20:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ugh, I understand why you just reverted me...this bias. PS. Of course a lawyer is employed in the work group. -- Stan talk 15:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the source for your assertion that a lawyer is employed in the work group? Did he participate in the preparation of the report or endorse it? Does he have any specialist knowledge or experience in European human rights law? Does he have any bias of his own? We can't know any of these things because the report's authors have chosen to remain anonymous.
I don't understand your comment about 'bias'. There is nothing biased about a single sentence noting the unchallenged fact that there is no information about the author's identities or qualifications, and it is highly relevant to one's assessment of its content, because not all Wikipedia readers are specialists in European human rights law. Why do you want to exclude that information? -- Really Spooky 18:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
As I inserted this source no one did ask for the author either because the department itself is an authority regardless of people wich worked on it. The Work Group clearly states in the head "Department for Domestic Affairs"(Germany) - "Working Group Scientology" wich is an authority and very often cited. You won't find hardly a newsarticle in Germany wich doesn't cite the working group. And its published on the city of Hamburg Website and is obviously not a fake. Governments, even The US usually don't name the author/s of releases. The article states already that it is only an opinion by the Working Group and I didn't delete that even this source is better and more reliable than the rest of the article wich is mainly WP:OR done by editors or do you have a better source wich comes up with an interpretation ? -- Stan talk 09:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, but I note you didn't answer a single one of my questions.
You are missing my point entirely. The sentence you keep deleting says nothing about the Working Group itself, nor does it assert that the report is a fake; it simply notes that the identity and qualifications of the people who prepared the report are unknown. It may or may not be true that the US State Department doesn't identify the authors of its reports, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything here. The US State Department doesn't go around publishing opinions on the proper interpretation of individual European Court decisions, and if it did, their expertise or lack thereof would be just as much in issue.
In short, if the Working Group has published an 'authoritative' opinion on a European Court judgment, it is highly relevant to point out the lack of any information as to its expertise in European human rights law (or the lack thereof). Frankly, judging from the report's content, I suspect that the Working Group's opinions on European human rights law are worth no more than the Church of Scientology's opinions on psychiatry (for example, it is painfully obvious to any lawyer worth his salt that if the Court found a violation of Article 9 - the right to freedom of religion - that this is a clear acknowledgement the Court considers Scientology to be a religion within the meaning of that article; see paragraph 84 of the judgment).
Once again I ask you: If you do not dispute that the opinion lacks any information about the people who prepared it, then why do you continue to insist on excluding that truthful sentence from the article? -- Really Spooky 22:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think the court did only judge in the light of russian laws if it should be considered there as a religious organization but didn't make a general judgement if Scientology is indeed a religion. However, that is only my original research. I Brought this issue now on the discussion page of the article because more people than you disagree with me. Lets continue there if you want. BTW, I don't disagree that they didn't publish the author/s and its qualification but I dispute that it is noteable that GO's usually don't publish the authors each time when a GO is cited in WP.-- Stan talk 16:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RS

What is a reliable source?
Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Reliable sources are also primary or secondary sources. Wikipedia is none of the above. Secondary sources generally do the original research which we then cite. Wiki articles can be 'referenced' inside each other, but cannot be cited as the basis for the facts.

Besides this, the referenced article could be deleted, or modified and thus the information being cited would disappear. Or two articles could link circularly to each other, proving each other, and yet proving nothing.

Hopefully this helps. Lsi john 12:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with this common sense approach, but what I was really looking for is some specific statement on Wikipedia in the policy pages for the sceptics. Best, Really Spooky 16:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll withhold my impulsive reply! heh. Rather than prove to someone that Wikipedia does not satisfy WP:RS, ask them to explain how it does.
From WP:RS:

Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. (Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source.) Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources instead of tertiary ones. Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one.

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

Given that it clearly says Wikipedia is a tertiary source and that articles are to be derived from primary and secondary sources, it would be redundant to say that wikipedia articles cannot be derived from other wikipedia articles.
Lsi john 17:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-14 Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia

Please provide your opinion and input in the Mediation Cabal Case. Alpta 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of groups referred to as cults (all)

I've nominated the article for deletion. You may comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (all). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of groups referred to as cults in government documents

Why did you unilaterally move this page? There was no consensus for this. I realise that User:Smee asserted five months ago that a 'majority' had voted for the change, but if you read the talk pages carefully this is misleading, because there was certainly no consensus for change, and the vote was carried out contrary to WP:POLLS. That is why the change was never made. I ask that you please move the article back to its proper place. -- Really Spooky 09:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to undo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)