User talk:Jeremystalked: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Damotclese (talk | contribs) |
←Blanked the page |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This is my talk page. When starting new topics, don't forget to create a new section. |
|||
==Sources== |
|||
If you continue to delete sources from articles I will block this account to stop the disruption. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 22:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Is skeptictank.org an acceptable source or convenience link? Take a look at that site and tell me what you think.<b>[[User:Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#fff;background:#080;">Jeremy</span>]][[User_talk:Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#080;">stalked</span>]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#00a;">(law 296)</span>]]</sub></b> 22:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::We've already discussed this issue on this talk page. If there is a link in a citation that you object to then delete the link, not the entire citation. Just because the link for a Time magazine article goes to skeptictank doesn't mean that Time is no longer a reliable source. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 22:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::What if I am unable to verify that the cited Time magazine article even exists, or if I'm unable to verify that it supports the claims made in the Wikipedia entry?<b>[[User:Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#fff;background:#080;">Jeremy</span>]][[User_talk:Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#080;">stalked</span>]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#00a;">(law 296)</span>]]</sub></b> 22:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::What steps have you taken to verify these sources? <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 22:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Looking for online references to the alleged articles from reliable sources, or looking for copies of the alleged articles at the source's web site. What additional steps would you recommend?<b>[[User:Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#fff;background:#080;">Jeremy</span>]][[User_talk:Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#080;">stalked</span>]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#00a;">(law 296)</span>]]</sub></b> 22:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Also, in future when removing sources should I state how I attempted to verify the source, for each individual removal? Just trying to get clarification here.<b>[[User:Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#fff;background:#080;">Jeremy</span>]][[User_talk:Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#080;">stalked</span>]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#00a;">(law 296)</span>]]</sub></b> 22:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Going to the library, placing requests at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange]], and using the article talk pages to ask for input or help from other editors are all steps that you can take to try to verify the citations. And yes, you should describe at least briefly, your verification efforts if you finally delete a citation. Something like "Failed verification, no trace of this publication of Worldcat or through Google". Note also that there is a template that you can use as an intermediate step before deleting a citation: [[:template:Failed verification]]. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 22:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: Holysmoke.Org '''is''' a reliable source and is an organization that has operated since approximately 1978. HolySmoke as well as The Skeptic Tank and the now-defunct Cult Awareness Network and Hate Watch Response are/were volunteer organizations which have had a variable number of unpaid volunteers providing reference materials, answering emails according to subject, and assisting in real life efforts, including providing source information which was included by the State of California in their "Occult Crime: A Law Enforcement Officer Primer." |
|||
: The Primer itself was acquired on paper from the United States Federal Printing Offices of publications which continues to archive the lengthy document which is is available through request. The document itself was scanned in to electronic form and though there may be OCR scanning errors in the content, the content itself has not been deliberately altered or redacted in any way. |
|||
: Additionally the chairman of HolySmoke D. Rice worked directly with individuals and religious groups specifically targeted and referenced in the File 18 documents, '''unaltered''' and '''un-redacted''' copies of which appear on the HolySmoke web site. Mr. Rice even worked directly with the Police Department Public Relations Officer when File 18 was being produced, and Mr. Rice also worked directly with Mdm. Rowan Moonstone and other religious groups which were specifically referenced in the File 18 newsletters. |
|||
: Also Mr. Rice himself might very well be mentioned in the File 18 newsletters since the original author considered anyone who debunked or refuted his assertions to be part of the world-wide "Satanic" conspiracy which the author believed actually existed. This was certainly true when Mr. Rice contacted the famous Mr. Austin Miles about his own newsletters. |
|||
: Finally, the unaltered, un-redacted, true-and-correct copies of File 18 available on HolySmoke are indeed copyrighted by the original author however they are disseminated with the author's permission provided the newsletters are disseminated freely and without charge, not even postal shipping charges may be requested according to the original release agreements. |
|||
: The referenced provided in the File 18 article are legitimate and as such should remain. Personal disagreement with the contents of the File 18 newsletters, or personal dislike for the original sources, web sites, file archives et al. are not relevant since Wikipedia articles attempt to focus on factuality, verifiability, and neutral point of view, something the article itself as well as the listed references accomplish. [[User:Damotclese|Damotclese]] ([[User talk:Damotclese|talk]]) 21:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: I noticed that Liftarn apparently removed my discussion note on the File 18 entry in violation of the rules. '''Not that I care very much.''' It really does not matter to me whether the File 18 article's references are remove or retained since the historic documents will remain on HolySmoke and SkepticTank regardless. [[User:Damotclese|Damotclese]] ([[User talk:Damotclese|talk]]) 04:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==AGF & The Anome== |
|||
[[WP:Assume good faith]] is a Wikipedia policy. I've noticed that you seem to be singling out [[user:The Anome]], and making inappropriate comments about him.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Querulant&diff=397744405&oldid=386046217][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stalking&diff=prev&oldid=394456676][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Delusion&diff=prev&oldid=399818699][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Organizational_retaliatory_behavior&diff=prev&oldid=396626299][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adversarial_collaboration&diff=prev&oldid=399827884][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Delusion&diff=prev&oldid=399878656][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Delusion&diff=prev&oldid=399878656] Please stop doing that. There is also an appearance of you may be following his editing.[http://toolserver.org/~pietrodn/intersectContribs.php?wikiDb=enwiki_p&firstUser=The+Anome&secondUser=Jeremystalked] See [[WP:HARASS]]. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 09:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:The reason I appear to be "singling out" The Anome is because he's "singling out" my field of interest (discrediting individuals by way of false diagnoses of mental illness). So in the course of my research, I have been repeatedly finding that articles I'm interested in have been edited by him to smear me by association. But Wikipedia doesn't have a policy handy for smears by association, so The Anome is allowed to run wild and is protected by Wikipedia's anonymity policy. I can't comment on the intersection of his edits and mine except to point out his "interests" happen to overlap mine, with him taking one side, and me taking the other.<b>[[User:Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#fff;background:#080;">Jeremy</span>]][[User_talk:Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#080;">stalked</span>]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#00a;">(law 296)</span>]]</sub></b> 18:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Whatever the cause, please stop talking about him and imputing bad motives to him. If you have complaints about his editing then raise those directly in a proper forum. Article talk pages and edit summaries are not the appropriate places. Editors do get blocked or topic banned for repeated failures to assume good faith. The simplest solution is to follow the [[Golden Rule]] by treating him the same way that you'd want to be treated. Another rule on article talk pages is to comment on the edit, but not the editor. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 22:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Let's say an editor has repeatedly edited pages about an entire class of people - blacks, just as an example - to include references which mention criminal activity, low IQ test scores, sexual promiscuity, and so on - and let's also say that he added a couple of articles which support a POV that the explanation for any such observed behaviors or outcomes is the most unflattering one possible - and suppose a person who ''happened to be a member of that class of people'' objected to the edits and questioned the editor's motives- would it be Wikipedia's policy to attack the member of that class who found the edits objectionable, even threatening to ban him because he wasn't "assuming good faith"? Just getting some more clarification here.<b>[[User:Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#fff;background:#080;">Jeremy</span>]][[User_talk:Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#080;">stalked</span>]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jeremystalked|<span style="color:#00a;">(law 296)</span>]]</sub></b> 23:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::As I wrote above, if you think an editor is acting improperly, such as promoting a view point in articles, then there are a number of venues for handling that problem. As for the content, you can ask for help with a content RfC, or ask for outside input at a noticeboard. As for the behavior, you can file a user RfC or an Arbitration request. But when it comes to the comments on article talk pages or edit summaries, comments about motives are likely to violate [[WP:AGF]]. I urge you to read that policy carefully. If you have anymore questions after you've read it then we can discuss it further. In the meantime, please do not link to essays about editors from article talk pages. You can put a few links to your website on your user pages, but otherwise please make your points on-Wiki and in compliance with Wikipedia policies. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 07:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I might note that while Jeremy is somewhat of a newcomer to wiki and thus still hasn't fully integrated his editing with wiki protocol about behaviour toward other editors, IMO there is some validity in his concerns about The Anome's objectivity in the subjects in question. I was a participent in the research in rewriting a certain article that had once been deleted, and his grounds for blocking the sources intended for use in it were nonsensical and he seemed all too quick to put the matter to rest and bury the article forever. At one point he asked me to produce a reference to a claim, as if my finding it would have some weight to his decision- and once I did, he proceeded to stand upon semantics about why "three or more" people did not consist of a "group" of people- then quickly decided the matter was closed. As if he was calling a bluff on my part and when I brought the solid reference he assumed didn't exist, didn't want to risk further liability to enforcing his POV and closed the issue before it could go any further. (see[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Anome&direction=prev&oldid=377278866 User_Talk_The_Anome] |
|||
So as it stands, a real crime which does take place in this country in some instances- but is also adopted by the delusional to be experienced by them as well- has been relegated to be solely the product of delusional minds, thanks to the efforts of one wiki editor with admin powers- The Anome- despite the Justice Dept clearly documenting actual complaints by real people that this crime is in fact going on. The Anome himself admits that "group stalking" is a well known phenomenon. Yet if the victim, lacking the knowledge of what to call it ( can't find it at wiki!) were to call it "gang stalking" then the Anome wishes to label the victim as suffering from persecutory delusions, just because people with persecutory delusions report it. |
|||
I have nothing against him personally and don't have enough interest in editing at wikipedia to have pursued that argument, and realize as well if his behaviour was that far out of line it's something which should have been raised at the time. However the actions I saw were not concurrent with NPOV editing expected at wiki, and thus I can hardly blame Jeremy for thinking the worst of it. [[User:Batvette|Batvette]] ([[User talk:Batvette|talk]]) 23:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||