User talk:OlYeller21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome! Feel free to leave comments, critiques, etc., below. Unless you specifically request that I answer on your talk page, I'll be answering here, as I prefer to keep as much of the conversation in one place as possible. I'm not new to Wikipedia but I'm sure I'll still make mistakes. If I do something wrong, please let me know and give me as much information as possible so that I can make sure that I don't make the same mistake again. Thanks!

Please add all new material to the bottom of the page or click here.



1, 2, 3, 4, 5

DrChrissy's conflict of interest on Marian Dawkins[edit]

Hi, I added new evidence to the case, but the case was closed by an admin, I believe the decision is a mistake. What other channels are available? Thanks124.170.241.154 (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  • The IP has raised related issues in this AN section. I recommend changing the IP's heading above because seeing these unsubstantiated attacks on an editor is very tiresome. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
IP (I don't know what else to call you). That block you received was a overdue. It's been made clear to you, several times and in various locations, that your accusations lack good faith. Personally, I think you violated WP:FORUMSHOPPING as well.
If you sincerely want my advice I'm more than willing to give it to you but frankly, it seems that you've ignored what people have told you thus far. Regardless, my advice is below. Before reading, try to reboot your state of mind. Ignore what you've felt so far and start fresh.
It seems clear that you feel that there are POV issues with the article. Assuming you're correct, here's some things to remember.
  • You're collaborating on an article. Sometimes you'll be right and sometimes you'll be wrong. Recognizing that is important and staying civil is equally important.
  • Wikipedia doesn't function like a democracy, exactly. Decisions are made by consensus which typically means that if you're in a dispute where you think you're right and the other person is wrong, trying to convince them should be your first step. There are many phrases used when it comes to convincing others but "you get more bees with honey" comes to mind. Be civil, don't accuse, assume good faith, etc.
  • If that fails and you still feel that you're correct, seeking outside opinions would be the next step. One thing to remember is that you shouldn't be trying to find people that agree with you. You should be trying to get more eyes on the situation so that you can do what's best for Wikipedia. Another thing to remember here is that WP:FORUMSHOPPING is unhelpful and frowned upon. The best thing to do is to find related venues, particularly Wikiprojects, and make a post. You can often find related Wikiprojects on the talk page of an article. Furthermore, when seeking outside assistance, don't present your case at those venues. If your goal is to do what's best for Wikipedia, let others draw their own conclusions. Simply point them to the discussion you already started by saying something to the effect of, "I've run into what I feel is NPOV issues at <article name> and I would appreciate it any of you could take a few minutes to help out with the article." In my opinion, that's the best way to do what's best for Wikipedia.
  • If that fails, WP:NPOVN would be a good next step. Again, Wikipedia is a collaboration. If you're seeking help, make it clear that you want what's best for Wikipedia and not that your top priority is to be recognized as correct. Remember to read all of the rules about posting at any noticeboard - they're there for a reason. Also, let the case speak for itself. If you're right, you won't have to do very much work outside of getting other people's attention. If that fails and you still think you're correct, well... I've never seen that happen before. You could try more Wikiprojects
  • Lastly, while COI's are related to POV editing, POV editing isn't always relate to a COI. When you spot POV editing, do what I listed above. If it becomes clear that an editor has a conflict of interest and they're creative NPOV material, then you can report that to COIN but that shouldn't fall into the normal steps of dealing with a content dispute. Remember, you must have evidence of a close connection and not just evidence that suggests that someone has a COI. Strong POV editing could suggest that someone is a fan or advocate but that's different than a close connection that's required for someone to have a COI by Wikipedia's terms. The same goes for WP:AN and WP:ANI. Especially when you have no evidence, that's a good way to burn bridges and keep people away from helping with an article. We're all just volunteers here and very few people enjoy jumping into muddy disputes. It's just not enjoyable.
Does that all make sense? I'm sick and don't feel so hot and didn't proof read so there may be some mistakes. Feel free to ask questions if you need me to clarify something. OlYeller21Talktome 18:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I had a quick look I think I understand you fine. You don't need to worry about proof reading. I am not that kind of superficial people who care a lot of 'formalities'. I have turn around much difficult cases in my professional/academic career. So this case is not a big deal for me. We just need more time. I am patient about it.

I am wondering to what extend Wikipedia allow people edit their own Wikipedia pages? Is there any general rules about this? Have a nice day! (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't allowed at all. It's contrary to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. As far as policies go, there's the WP:3RR (three revert rule) where one is automatically blocked for reverting an edit within 24 hours. That's just the backstop, though. You can be blocked for editing warring before that happens. OlYeller21Talktome 15:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I just saw this.
Hello, just let you know two more editors had similar negative experiences with DrChrissy. PraetorianFury and timelezz. DrChrissy is accusing and threatening timelezz on the admin noticeboard. (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Clifton: A Community Arts School[edit]

Hello - OlYeller21

I am new to Wikipedia. I realized that Clifton: A Community Arts School hasn't got a Wiki Page. So I created one with the requirement for the school. Just recently I added the Clifton's History including external links for more information. And you took it off. I would like to add the Clifton's History, so if you can help me and tell me how I organize/structure and add text for the history it will be grateful.


Joe Parkinson (talk)

Hey! Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for taking the time to come and contribute to Wikipedia.
The issue with the text that you added was that it was copyrighted by the school. It's also not written in an "encyclopedic" way. Some parts were in first person while others were simply not neutral in tone. Even if we did get permission to use the copyrighted text, it would violation WP:NPOV and would still need to be removed.
Fortunately, the solution is a simple one. You'll just need to write the text in your own words while using references to support the information you're adding to the article. Typically, Wikipedia would prefer the use of secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. In other words, content in your own words that's based off of references written by independent and reliable sources.
The big thing will just be to remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a social network. The kind of description you'd find on Facebook isn't suitable for Wikipedia.
Does all that make sense? I'd be happy to discuss things with you further. OlYeller21Talktome 16:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello - OlYeller21

OK - It makes sense to me. Can you help me then with the page. I am trying to add Clifton's History. So do i briefly/summarize Clifton's History and then add the external links or what ... Please Can You Help Me. Thanks in advance.


Joe Parkinson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, really. You'd basically write a sentence (in your own words) and the sentence can have 1+ "claims" in it. Every claim in the article should have a reference with it in the form of an inline citation. The "reference" can be something like a URL to a website that backs up the "claim" or "claims" and it goes at the end of the sentence, after the punctuation. You put the URL inside of <ref></ref>. You can learn more about how to cite sources at WP:CITE.
So, for example, you would add something like this in the editor:
The Chair of Govenors at Clifton is Andrew Lee.<ref></ref>
It's a factual statement. It's not an opinion such as, "Clifton is a great place to go to school." which obviously isn't neutral. Even if the school is rated highly, opinions like that are very difficult to justify in the article. The reference points back to Clifton's website which is OK to use but preferably, you'd use a secondary source like a newspaper article.
The reference will show up automatically in the "References" section.
So right now, I'd create a bit of an outline. If you want to create a "History" section, what subsections will that section have? You could talk about the founding of the school or major events such the school moving or closing for a significant period of time. Once you have that outline, it gets easier to target what you'd like to write about which makes it easier to find references to use to fill that subtopic.
Just make sure everything is in your own words. Also, you can sign your talk page messages by using four tildes (~~~~). OlYeller21Talktome 16:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Source checking[edit]

Please try actually looking for sources before proposing new articles for deletion on the basis of their notability, as you did at Yamboree. — Scott talk 14:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

No. I spend my time elsewhere and will continue to because you've presented zero evidence that I should change my habits. Instead of establishing notability when others don't, I spend my time cleaning up Wikipedia in other ways that I consider more productive. As a sysop, I'm surprised that you're apparently not familiar with this concept. If you feel that I broke a policy or guideline, feel free to point that out and I'll admit my mistake. If you feel that WP:PROD's "before" section should be more like WP:AFD's WP:BEFORE, by all means, go fight that fight.
I also don't appreciate your tone. "Please try actually looking"? Surely you don't think that's a good way to convince someone to do something.
I hope you're having a better day today. Please don't bother responding unless your response is going to include policies or guidelines and not just a condescending and baseless command. Or maybe an apology. OlYeller21Talktome 16:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
"Evidence that you should change your habits" exists in the restored article. It took me all of five minutes to establish notability for it, and probably most of that was spent typing out the citation templates. You didn't break any rules; you just lazily tagged a valid article and moved on. The admin who deleted it on the basis of your tag was equally lazy for not checking either. If you're going to raise doubts about the notability of new articles, have the courtesy to their authors of doing your homework first. — Scott talk 16:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
So the evidence that I should spend time establishing notability instead of doing other work is that the article currently exists? Like I said, your argument holds no water.
Also, calling me is clearly lazy is an assumption of bad faith. Please redact that assessment or discontinue trying to convince me of, well, anything. If you continue with the personal attacks, which calling me lazy clearly is, I'll readily take this to ANI. OlYeller21Talktome 16:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what brought you here to try and change my habits based on no policies, guidelines, or even essays but the way you're going about trying to change something, clearly isn't working. Perhaps you can back up and try again in a different way? OlYeller21Talktome 16:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
No, an assumption of bad faith would have been me theorizing that you tagged an article badly because you deliberately didn't want to put any effort into checking. I'm not. What I'm saying is that you should have spent some more time on due diligence before slapping on that PROD. Editors should try to establish notability when they create articles, but, conversely, subsequent editors should try to establish that there is a genuine lack of notability if they believe that to be an issue; the door swings both ways. It's especially important in the case of articles created by brand-new editors, who probably aren't conversant with our referencing standards. Labeling a new editor's first article with a scary sign that says "Not good enough! Gonna be deleted!" is a surefire way to scare them away.
Have a nice day. — Scott talk 17:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
See, here's your assumption: "Not good enough! Gonna be deleted!" I never said that and you fundamentally can't make the assumption that I did without bias.
If you paid any attention to what I do on Wikipedia, you'd know that I spend an incredible amount of time trying to acclimate new editors who show in interest in learning and not just publishing information that's either advertorial, a copyright violation, or simply about a subject that isn't notable per WP:N (I focus on those areas and COIs).
I spend time with people who show that they may actually become a contributor to Wikipedia. I don't go around telling people that they need to do a thing, based on no policies or guidelines, other than "don't PROD before checking for sources because somehow that's biting newcomers". Its my choice to do so and it's perfectly within the current policies and guidelines to do so.
Using your own argument, don't you think that coming here and calling me lazy and talking to me in a condescending way may make me not want to edit? If you convince me not to edit for 2 weeks, I promise you that's way more work being done on this project than any new person that we didn't somehow bite by PRODing an article. I promise you.
You conveniently ignored the fact that you made a personal attack against me. If you want to play equal score cards here, you've obviously created a negative. All you would have had to do is come to my talk page and say, "Hey, will you please try and check for references before PRODing? It's not required but I would appreciate it." I would have changed a bit. Instead, you left the shit show of a response that you did.
How many people do you do this with? Have you ever considered that leaving messages for long-time editors may do far more damage than having one article deleted per PROD? OlYeller21Talktome 17:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
That's what I thought.
I'm going to assume that you've realized that you both failed to assume good faith and made a personal attack. If that's incorrect and you'd like to take this further, we can take it to ANI to discuss as I won't stand by and continue to let you, as a sysop, violate two of the most important guidelines Wikipedia has.
In conclusion, I think you should consider your actions and try to improve for the good of this project. OlYeller21Talktome 18:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Borealis Exploration vs Wheeltug[edit]

Looking at the Borealis Exploration page vs the Wheeltug page I see that Wheeltug has a larger entry in the Borealis page than its own, since you tagged Wheeltug thought you might be interested. (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard[edit]

Someone suggested at the Village Pump that I boldly create Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard, a noticeboard to discuss articles about organizations that may be subject to non-neutral editing. Basically it's the corporate version of BLPN, where both adverts and attack pages can be brought to the community for broader scrutiny. Except this board does not currently relate to a specific policy like BLPN does, except NPOV, V, etc. (though it could refer to this essay I wrote or something). You participated in the prior village pump discussion that led to consensus for Template:COI editnotice, which is now widely used. Although this noticeboard is not COI-related, I thought you might have an interest in this as well, in whether the noticeboard should be kept and/or in participating in it generally. CorporateM (Talk) 18:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)