User talk:Talmage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 1.1 Additional tips 1.2 Be bold 2 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 3 Talk pages 4 Muhammad 5 Muhammad protection 6 Userpages 7 Patrick Knight 7.1 Take Two 7.2 Coments by DES 8 In lieu of a barnstar... 9 Appreciation 10 Barnstar! 11 Mark Gastineau 12 Geraldo Rivera 13 Speedy deletion of Template:User Formal Articles 14 Interesting...

[edit] Welcome!

 Joe  I 02:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Ed Rice Scorefile Pope Shenouda II of Alexandria Tim Raines, Jr. Pope John VI of Alexandria Pope Michael III of Alexandria Pope Gabriel II of Alexandria Joseph Lelyveld Pope Zacharias of Alexandria Stellarium Pope Cosmas II of Alexandria Pope Cyril III of Alexandria It! Magazine Pope Shenouda of Alexandria Pope John XII of Alexandria Dick DeGuerin Co-signing Pope Christodolos of Alexandria William Herndon (lawyer)

Cleanup Fugitive Pieces James and Oliver Phelps Beatmania IIDX Merge Patriarch of Alexandria Merton, Oxfordshire Shotgun shell Add Sources Mike Novick Sherry Palmer Wayne Palmer Wikify Pope Athanasius II of Alexandria International Correspondence Chess Federation Pick and roll Expand Pope Martin V William Gregory Lee WBNA

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

In the future, please do not make your comments on talk pages bold. It is kind of destracting.--Sefringle^Talk 04:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad

So I see - I hope you can forgive the template screwup - I've never had cause to protect a page before. While I appreciate your general editing concerns, edit warring is harmful behaviour regardless of the cause. The purpose of page protection is mostly to force dialogue - but it serves other purposes as well. The issue here isn't who's right or wrong (As an Admin, I don't care - as an Editor, I don't know), but whether people are being constructive. I hope this offers some insight. WilyD 05:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem - the truth is I don't think this is necessarily the same issue - both sides seem to be talking past each other. So my hope is that there'll have to be dialogue now. WilyD 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad protection

Very well. I've changed to indefinite semi-protection. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpages

Thanks for your help regarding my luck. Arrow740 04:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Knight

You're deleting a lot of content from the Patrick Knight article. Whilst it is reasonable to assume you are extremely adamant to have this article deleted for whatever personal agenda you are serving, you're also aware that I see this case as a very important matter that should be retained on Wikipedia not only due to it's notability, but due to the judicial angle that the case panned out. This matter will most likely play out in the courts, however it is not the end of the case. The murderer may be dead, but the inappropriate conduct of his defence lawyer will most likely yield to more caselaw in the future, which will then be added to a few wiki law projects / categories.

With your delete as a whole, I am tempted to argue that it was misappropriated as you didn't follow any of the requisite steps outlined in Wiki policy in relation to deletion or notability issues. You immediately put it up for deletion, this is called being 'arbitrary', which is never seen as a flattering thing in anyone's books. However, at this point in time I'm going to have to ask you to cease arbitrary removal of content from the article. If you believe something is inappropriate, reword it, alter it, change it around first. If you can't do that, leave me a message on my user page and I will do that. Do not just delete the content outright as it causes wikipedian editors working on the article a whole load of pain getting things back into coherent order.

I have re-written the entire page on the grounds that you felt that the use of a GNU released international charity organisations statement on the matter which clearly followed equal NPOV guidelines as does wikipedia, was somehow in breach of a copyright violation, even though the material in question was clearly marked as public release under fair use, academic use and non-profit use (all three categories apply to wikipedia). However, as an act of good faith, I have reworded the entire content for you to review to your satisfaction. Jachin 10:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone is free to edit articles. You are violating WP:OWN and getting awfully close to wikilawyering. If you rewrote the article then fine. Don't run around and badger people on their talk pages about it. Got something to say about the deletion? Put it on the AfD for everyone to see. Also, given the messages you have posted here and on my talk page it is hard to see how you are assuming good faith. MartinDK 14:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a complete rewrite. You have rearranged the text a bit and made a few rephrasings that doesn't change the content significantly at all. Accusing Talmage of vandalism in your edit summary and calling this a warning (in capital letters no less) is futile and in violation of WP:NPA. MartinDK 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't deleted hardly anything and I find your comment inflammatory and offensive. Check your facts before making accusations. Look: History. I'll expect a forthcoming apology. Talmage 16:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take Two

I removed the text the first time, and I have removed this text again for the same reason. I have also written a long message on User_talk:Jachin explaining my actions. Thank you Talmage for letting me know about this.

I havent seen any proof that the Amnesty report is under a GNU license, but even if it is, it is highly recommended that sections of text use more than one source and use inline citations. Using a single source, and even following the flow of that source, is presenting a single point of view, which is not in keeping with WP:NPOV. John Vandenberg 23:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure using the website of a political advocacy group as a primary source would ever be appropriate. Given that Amnesty International actively pushes a political agenda, it raises questions about the objectivity and accuracy of their publications. Even if certain facts are objectively true, advocacy groups nearly always omit data that would weaken their argument. Talmage 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Excerpt from Jayvdb's page.

Jayvdb, could you please clarify whether you are Talmage or not? The editing action between the both of you seems .. odd. Furthermore, I've readded the content. Your last revert of it in my opinion was vandalism, as you were aware of the cautioning I made of Talmage of arbitrary deletion that lowers article content and makes the article appear irrelivant to further strengthen the AfD case. Thus, again, I reitterate, blanket removal of material can be deemed vandalism, please stop.

If you believe that it requires further citations, put a cite request up there, or find more. Do not arbitrarily remove text. Further action on your or Talmage's behalf will be passed on to an administrator for arbitration, as there's clearly no point in wasting more time or getting into edit wars. This has been syndicated to Talmage's page for his review, although at present I'm of the belief you're both possibly even the same person, please get back to me on that one. Jachin 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coments by DES

(This is in response to this edit)

I admit that I did not review the entire edit history of Patrick Knight, Talk:Patrick Knight, and the talk pages of the various editors involved. My comments to MartinDK and to Jachin on their respective talk pages was based pretty much exclusively on what I read in the AfD itself, without regard to prior history. I will only say now that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL apply to all editors, and that prior provocation is not a good reason for anyone to violate them, neither do subsequent tit-for-tat violations excuse the initial ones. I will not attempt to determine who violated them first, or most egregiously, that would be a matter for dispute resolution, or arbcom if anyone wants to take it that far.

On the use of an Amnesty International report as a source, whether primary or secondary, it is true that AI has a strong PoV, and that PoV is expressed in their reports. it is also true that they have made a point of attempting to be quite sure that their reports are factually accurate, on the grounds that more attention will be paid to them if they have a good reputation for accuracy. Their reputation is now sufficient that major news organizations in multiple nations regard it as a sufficient basis for a story if AI has issued a critical report on a situation. Note that there is no requirement that reliable sources be themselves neutral -- if there was, for many issues there would be no sources at all. Rather there is a requirement that we present issues neutrally, and if there are multiple sourcable opinions or PoVs, we normally include all or all major ones in the appropriate article. Thus AI's admitted PoV is not a good reason to exclude it from consideration as a reliable source.

As to whether the AI report should be considered a primary or a secondary source, Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources says "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources." and "Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either." While the AI reports might be considered under either grouping, as accounts written by people observing events (albeit with significant interest and PoV) and often containing analysis and interpretation of the significance of events (again based on a specific PoV) I think that AI reports should normally be considered to be secondary sources. And unless in a particular case there is significant evidence of distortion or error, I think that AI reports would normally be considered reliable particularly on matters of fact. Statements of value and opinion are of course a different matter. I agree that "cutting and pasting large chunks of text" from an AI report, or indeed from any other source, such as a NY Times article, is wrong (unless the text is formatted, presented, and attributed as a quote, to specifically show the source's opinions). It is wrong both because of copyright issues, and because Wikipedia should not simply repeat what a single source has written, but should insofar as possible rely on multiple sources. It is IMO perfectly fine to include facts taken from an AI report, and to cite the AI report as a source. It is not at all fine to simply paste the AI report into an article. (Disclosure: I am myself a member of Amnesty International).

You say "I think typically murderers whose cases result in establishing legal precedent ought to generally not have personal articles, but rather articles specifically about their cases (since it is the case that is notable, not the individual). I do not agree, at least in all cases. I note that published writing about major legal cases is often biographical or partly biographical in form -- I refer you to such classic works as Gideon's Trumpet, Minnesota Rag, Simple Justice, Helter Skelter and the like. I think that often an individual is largely notable for a single episode in history, but is none the less appropriately covered in a Wikipedia article that is biographical in form. I cite Thomas Shipp, Abram Smith, William Bligh, Fletcher Christian, Sally Hemings, and Clarence Earl Gideon as just a few examples.

I agree that if the only notable thing about Knight is the "last words contest" there is no reason for an article. Controversy over his legal case, and possibly analysis of his background and how he came to be involved in that case, would IMO make a much better article if it can be well sourced. DES ^(talk) 05:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and i just posted to Jachin's talk page to advise him to drop the sockpuppet accusations, which are pretty clearly nonsense. While I do think it accurate to label AI's publications as "advocacy" and even "strong advocacy", I don't think it is accurate to label them as "propaganda". IMO the difference is that advocacy presents facts and then builds the bast case possible on those facts, while propaganda will freely distort, invant, or ignore facts to make its vase. in short advocay is honest in its use of facts (if sometimes selective in emphasis) while propaganda may be competely dishonest. You said "I believe AI often tends to exaggerate (undue weight) the significance of largely irrelevant aspects of a case in an attempt to prove their point. This is nothing specific to AI, but a common trait of advocacy groups". I don't think that this is an accurate characterization of the publicaions of this particular group. Having sead that, i won't bother you further on the subject. DES ^(talk) 06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In lieu of a barnstar...

	...you get an artillery piece, for mowing down vandals faster than me. Great job! ⋲east.718 01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I guess I'm really bored. :) Talmage 01:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

Thank you for the work you're doing. I just noted you corrected some vandalism on my personal page that I was unaware of (was not checking my watchlist during the period the vandals struck) - thanks for that. --A12n 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I get bored late at night. :) Talmage 15:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your tirless efforts to delete bad content into oblivion! Cheers, JetLover 03:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Gastineau

Hi, I've asked user "Caltas" why he effectively undid my revisions of that page, meaning that your reversion to his edit has restored the full-of-superlative content that was there before I did my edit! bigpad 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It can at times be difficult to distinguish between legitimate edits that remove a lot of content and vandalism when no edit summary is specified, especially when the edit is made by an anonymous user (you weren't logged in at the time). The best way to handle this (whether you're logged in or not) is to include a detailed edit summary with your revision, and if it still gets reverted, then simply let the person who reverted know on his or her talk page, as you have done. Talmage 19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

From its history, I'm not sure I did any edits to that article anonymously but if I did, sorry! bigpad 19:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't you who was anonymous. It looks as if we were trying to rollback edits made by 66.210.114.195. It may have been your edits were inadvertently overridden in the process. Sorry, it happens sometimes when trying to monitor literally hundreds of pages for vandalism. Let me know if I can help any. Talmage 21:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm in a bit of a struggle against an anonymous user with two IP addresses (70.181.10.95 and 66.210.114.195), which I'm sure are both his/hers, determined to revert to a version that is full of superlatives and which I've had to revert numerous times. I've even edited the article a little to improve the wording But those IP addresses keep changing it back. Can you watch that page too, so that it's not seen as "my" war? Have asked user "Caltas" to do so, too. Thanks, bigpad 10:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geraldo Rivera

Look at the history buddy. I reverted an earlier vandalism. Apparently I didn't go back far enough. Don't blame me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentor397 (talk • contribs)

That's fine. The version you saved stated Geraldo had been murdered. I was merely commenting on the version you saved. Unfortunately based on the sheer volume of pages I look at, it's not always possible to determine who did what when, but generally when there is blatant vandalism the most recent editor is responsible. But that's not always the case. On a bored day, I typically perform several hundred Wikipedia edits, so please understand I do occasionally make a mistaken assumption. Certainly before I'd ever post a level 3 warning or higher (or request a block) I'd look into much more detail, but that just isn't feasible for level 1 and 2 notices. At any rate, just append your above statement to the notice I put on your talk page, and there's no harm done. Talmage 20:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:User Formal Articles

A tag has been placed on Template:User Formal Articles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting...

I was just stopping here to tell you how much I like said template. The picture of Paul is a fantastic reference-- not sure that many people would get it, but it's very clever. Fishal (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)