User talk:SlimVirgin

File:Animalibrí.gif

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Original research

You wrote at

... [removed link messing up formatting]

"that would be OR, because the textbooks you want to use have nothing to do with the film." -- I feel like I must be misunderstanding something here. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Statements about facts are statements about facts, and any reliable source on these facts is germane, and is not "original research" by any natural interpretation of that expression.

Whether or not the sources have something to do with the main topic of the article is irrelevant, or should be -- i.e. our policy should state this.

A policy that says that the source has to be about the main topic of the article is inappropriate.

Thanks for your attention. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position where this is explained. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I do not agree with your position on this as I understand it. (I believe that the policy itself probably needs to be modified.)

You wrote at User_talk:Writtenonsand#Your_note:

• "The reason the policy disallows this is that people could constantly add sources not directly related to the topic to present their own view of whatever the subject was." -- I believe that people do "constantly" add sources "not directly related to the topic" (sic) to present their own view of whatever the subject is. I don't believe that the policy at Wikipedia:No_original_research, as it currently exists, is an appropriate remedy. I believe that all assertions of fact in articles should be supported with cites from reliable sources, even if those sources aren't about the main topic of the article. We can control people overdoing this by stating a policy that there's a limit on the number of cites per assertion, and other more-or-less commonsensical related policies. Additionally, as always on Wikipedia, the issue is not "the views of editors about whatever a subject is", but the views of reliable citable sources on whatever the subject is. It's irrelevant if I think that the moon is made of green cheese, but if a reputable expert on the subject states this theory in print (in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources), it's entirely reasonable to cite this.
• " You wrote above that any reliable source of any fact is germane, but what is germane on Wikipedia is what secondary sources have written about the topic." -- Yes, we agree here. However, as I understand the current debate, it isn't about whether sources are secondary or not. This may be the crux of the continuing disagreement. On the other hand, maybe I'm missing something.
• "Otherwise, in the example given, someone could add a source saying that time travel isn't possible under quantum physics, someone else could add one arguing that it is, someone else another one saying something else -- and on and on, until the article would no longer be about the film." -- The appropriate remedy would be to state a guideline (or a policy, subject to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules as appropriate) stating that a maximum of, say, three sources may be cited for any given assertion.
• "To prevent that, we (generally) publish what other people have published about films (or whatever the topic is), even if we disagree with it or feel that they've left out something important." -- Again, I agree.

I feel like the two sides of this disagreement are talking at cross purposes. I don't feel like your comments, and the policies you're citing, actually address the concerns you raise. I feel that the policy is mis-stated and is being mis-applied, and that it would be highly desirable to re-word the policy.

Again, thanks much for your attention. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Can you please explain why you unblocked Zeraeph; an editor who has a long history of harassing SandyGeorgia, and has posted vicious attacks on her offsite? Ceoil (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I don't get the logic, but fine, we'll see. This editor needs to be monitored closely. Has there been a change in policy, bty. Ceoil (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking long term disruptive stalkers. What with bad sites, the wheel war over Miltopia, etc etc, I'm just puzzled. Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this was an extreamly unwise unblock. It can only end one way, and it is severly disrespectful to the productive contributors that have been attacked on and offsite by this editor. Within hours of return the account is being disruptive. What gives? Why was the account unblocked? Makes no sence to me. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WikBack account created

Someone, perhaps you, recently created an account at the WikBack. If the account was created by an imposter, please let me know as soon as possible so that it can be disabled. Otherwise, welcome! The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Zeraeph question

Since you seem to have developed some repertoire with User:Zeraeph, I was hoping you would help out now. Her 28 day block expired today, and she immediately made 19 contentious edits to Psychopathy, making edit summaries like, "this is wrong", "incorrect", etc. but refusing do discuss on the article talk page, as she says she is right and that is that. I reported her to 3-RRR but it was declined as "malformed". I do not know what that means. Do you have any advice as to how to handle this? Now she is taking information I put in the article and mistaking it, and she is moving citations around in a misleading way. Is it true, as everyone says, that none of her article's can be edited by anyone else? Regards, Mattisse 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

same subject

It is my understanding (possibly wrong) that you were involved in Zeraeph's unblocking. I have been contacted by Mattisse regarding this matter, and I have left comments with User:Mikkalai here and User:Zareaph here. I have suggested to Mattisse that the article may be protected until Mikkalai (or you?) can get the parties to agree some working conditions. Your advice will hopefully prove useful here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not 'involved', please. SV was the unblocking admin. Why the (possibly wrong)? Are we children. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And its just not Sandy, SlimVirgin; this user has also harrassed A Kiwi, TRCourage, Soulgany101, Mattisse, Penbat and Psychonaut. Were they consulted, or warned. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)