Talk:Stacy Meyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stacy Meyer article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus, default to keep..


Contents

[edit] Easy

Easy, Smee. The links are inappropriate - ask for 30. And on anything else you object to. --Justanother 13:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Restored links as highly relevant. Smee 13:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WIP tag

  • {{wip}} tag, adding WP:RS citations to expand the article. Smee 14:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Done. Smee 14:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Third Opinion

Pertaining to archived government documents and investigation papers of the State of California. Smee 14:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

  • Accordingly, I have removed the other link in question. Smee 14:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Speedy tag is inappropriate

  • A speedy tag is not appropriate in this case, as the article is in the process of expansion with reputable sourced citations. Smee 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
The speedy tag is for articles that fail to assert the importance or significance of the subject. This article tells us Moxon died but doesn't tell us why she's more relevant than anyone else who got accidentally electrocuted in California that year. This "Any Scientologist who ever died gets their own article" madness is getting WAY out of hand. wikipediatrix 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
You are seeing quite amusing things where they do not exist. Your level of paranoia is most intriguing. It would be best if you kept your comments to the issue at hand, instead of surmising weird things. In any event, the article is most certainly notable enough not to warrant the speedy process. AFD, maybe, but not speedy. Smee 14:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

This, "Your level of paranoia is most intriguing", and the general tone of the above is WP:PA. Please do not do it again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justanother (talk • contribs).

  • Acknowledged. And are you going to warn User:Wikipediatrix for his inappropriate comments as well???????????????????????????????? Smee 14:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Sure, please point me at one as obvious as that claim that borders on "You are insane". Paranoia being a severe mental illness. --Justanother 14:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This "Any Scientologist who ever died gets their own article" madness is getting WAY out of hand. Comments like these are highly inappropriate. Smee 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Sorry, but if "Any Scientologist who ever died gets their own article" then that would be madness and Wikipediatrix is entitled to opine that that is what seems to be going on. Similar to the Fort Harrison Hotel article, especially before I pruned the "dead list" a bit. And I am not trying to side against you, I just see a major difference of degree. Wikipediatrix is a critic of Scientology but I have told Scientologists to knock off PA too. --Justanother 15:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you have, but is sure seems like y'all love to use it. Between the discussion pages, there is WAY too much incivility that goes on, and attacking editors as opposed to discussing content, I know it is rare for me, I just got frustrated. I mean, it is like a CONSTANT BARRAGE sometimes of people that have no desire to discuss article content and only discuss why they think other editors do things. Yuck yuck. Smee 15:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
I will continue to comment on edits and articles and trends they are taking, and I can't be responsible for whether doing so hurts your feelings or not. I have no interest in you personally and am not attacking you personally, I am criticizing a general trend in Scientology articles that I believe is increasingly destructive to Wikipedia. If you want to continue insulting me by calling me paranoid and then in the next breath whine that you don't like the things I am saying, feel free to take the matter to a higher power. wikipediatrix 15:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I apologize for using the word "paranoid". I do, however, believe that you are seeing problems where there are none. Notable articles will remain, and go through process, non-notable will not, over time. Smee 15:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Speedy tag deemed inappropriate by Admin

  • FYI, the speedy tag was removed and deemed inappropriate. Smee 15:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Justanother's additions not backed up by cited sources

Justanother, where are you pulling this info from? Smee 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

The EL. I am reading the reports. And you are right about the citations. While those are also electrical code violations they were cited under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, which is worker safety. --Justanother 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The reports themselves would be Original Research. Thus the reliance on secondary sourced citations, instead. Smee 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
Golly, is that what you told Anynobody over at L. Ron Hubbard about Naval records??? Anyway, it is not OR to simply report what they say and what you can see that they say. Your POV is showing. Pull up your slacks. --Justanother 16:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That information was mentioned in secondary sources. Or did you not read the discussion and citations cited by Anynobody over there?? Golly. Smee 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
Smee, you still have the "don't edit, major edit in progress" tag up on the page but you're not editing if you're on the talk page arguing. How long do you plan to leave the "don't edit" tag up there? wikipediatrix 16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I will remove the tag. Thank you for asking about this POLITELY. Most appreciated. However, I still hope we rely on secondary sources for this article. Smee 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

<< Unless we can use the primary sources in an entirely proper manner and to the betterment of the article and the project, you mean? Right? --Justanother 16:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Unless the primary sources have been mentioned and discussed in secondary sources, yes, that sounds about right. Smee 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Please point at policy that adds your interesting condition. --Justanother 17:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OR. Smee 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
  • You mean this line?

    Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.

    What specific part did I violate?--Justanother 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, more like the part on Secondary Sources:

    Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians.

    Where possible, secondary sources should be used as much as possible instead of primary. Smee 17:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
  • So where does my quoting the conclusion of the report violate that? I am eager to learn. --Justanother 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you wish to quote, exactly, can you link to the report from here? Smee 18:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
  • You already have the link in the EL section. --Justanother 18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my cousin Otis

My cousin Otis died in an electrical accident and the local newspapers wrote about it a lot too. Can I make an article about my cousin Otis? He wasn't a Scientologist, though. Or do only dead Scientologists get articles? wikipediatrix 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Sarcastic WP:POINT are not appreciated. User:Wikipediatrix, really, cmon. At least make a passing attempt to be polite. Smee 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
My question was, and is, dead serious. If you can't or won't answer it without being insulting, please don't answer at all. wikipediatrix 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If you can't phrase it without being sarcastic and/or directly discussing the article's content itself, please don't pose the question. Smee 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
I can't help it if you find it 'sarcastic', but this wouldn't be the first time you've dodged a serious question by claiming to be put off by sarcasm. So again, in all seriousness and devoid of sarcasm, I put the question out to anyone else (other than Smee): Why does Stacy Meyer deserve an article when my cousin Otis does not? What makes Stacy Meyer so special, as opposed to anyone else who has ever been accidentally electrocuted in the history of alternating current? Is it, or is it not, the Scientology aspect that makes a difference in some editors' minds? There was zero sarcasm when I asked it before and there is zero sarcasm in my words now. wikipediatrix 18:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If Otis had joined the Scientologists he probably would still be alive today. Steve Dufour 15:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That expression of your personal opinion did not answer my question. wikipediatrix 15:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I wasn't trying to answer your question. I was using the example you brought up to point out a problem in the kind of logic which lots of people use. To answer your question: No, neither Stacy nor Otis deserve a WP article. Steve Dufour 16:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I've never heard of Stacy Meyer, and this article doesn't seem to help in asserting her notability. It simply says that she's a random scientologist who died in an accident. How is this encyclopedia worthy? I'm not saying it's not, but, if it is, provide a reason. What did she do in her life to deserve being mentioned in an encyclopedia? Why is she special? - hmwithtalk 04:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the point that is trying to be made is that sometimes Scientologists are not as careful and responsible as they should be. Steve Dufour 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of her religion, how is she notable? - hmwithtalk 17:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating it for deletion. I was just about to do that myself. Steve Dufour 21:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • More on this discussion is seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Meyer. Smee 22:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
    • The AFD failed. The results of the discussion was No consensus, default to keep. Smee 07:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

I wouldn't say that the AFD "failed". No consensus was reached. I would use failed for consensus to keep an article. hmwithtalk 15:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Factually, the majority opinion was to keep.--Fahrenheit451 04:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The AFD is not a vote. hmwithtalk 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay, whatever, no worries. It was most certainly an interesting discussion, at that. Smee 23:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
Yes, that is agreed. Very many strong opinions! 04:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC) hmwithtalk 05:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, quite. Smee 05:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC).