User talk:BlueMoonlet

My Signpost mailbox My talk archive My barnstars

Welcome to my talk page. Please email me for anything that requires prompt attention.

Please click here to leave a message.

---

Lord of The Dance

Hi,

Making an excellent, epic and very popular song into a debate about anti-semitism because of some obscure Quaker publication is completely "non-encyclopedic." Please refrain from simply cancelling out my edits from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.216.247 (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you know nothing about a subject and don't care enough to properly investigate it, you really shouldn't be screwing with other people's edits, which you seem to not have even bothered to read or appreciate the value of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.216.247 (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blanking an entire section, without leaving any notes as to your reasons for doing so, is a good way to get mistaken for a vandal. Please use edit summaries to let other editors know what you are doing and why, especially if you are removing large blocks of text.
• The song's qualities as "excellent, epic and very popular" are irrelevant. If there is a legitimate controversy that is attested by reliable sources, then we must discuss it. On the other hand, you make a reasonable point about the encyclopedicity of the cited sources. I am willing let it go for now and see if anyone else objects.
• I object to your accusation that I "know nothing about [the] subject and don't care enough to properly investigate it." I have been editing this page, and many others, for quite some time. I did what I did because your edits bore the marks of someone who was not a serious editor. I am glad now to learn otherwise, but in turn I would ask you to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. You can use this markup to withdraw comments you have made on a talk page.

Shall we start fresh and be friends? Unless you have philosophical objections to doing so (I've known a few who do), I encourage you to create an account. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, I confess my statements were a bit harsh, but I feel strongly that you failed to give adequate consideration to what you were doing: First, the argument you are levying against my original edits commits two logical fallacies: the first is a red herring "appeal to motive," and the second is a form of "damning the source," a form of ad hominem. Second, I deleted nothing in my original set of edits-- I added. And you deleted all of my work, without comment.

I reserve the right to not bother with edit summaries. I do not necessarily have time for that. Edit summaries are not a requirement for Wikipedia editing (in case you have not noticed), nor should they be. In most cases, good edits should speak for themselves.

The problem with your statement "If there is a legitimate controversy that is attested by reliable sources, then we must discuss it" lies in the definition of "legitimate controversy." Relevancy is a clear prerequisite to legitimacy. I cannot respond directly to your statement 'The song's qualities as "excellent, epic and very popular" are irrelevant,' because I do not know what you are talking about. If, however, you are saying that those qualities are, as a blanket statement, or as relates to their presence on Wikipedia, irrelevant, then I completely disagree with you: those qualities are exactly why the song has its own Wikipedia page, and also exactly why it should continue to do so, and, as necessarily follows, why said page should be concise, well written, and relevant to the actual subject. If, on the other hand, you are saying that qualities of excellence, etc., do not make something immune to controversy or the legitimate dissemination of knowledge thereof, then I completely agree-- the truth should speak for itself. Yet, in the writing of an article, one must take into account the reader of the article, and the holistic intellectual impression the reader will get from the entire article. And this is not only the impression of the single article, but of Wikipedia's ability to provide information on such things, and Wikipedia as a whole. If Wikipedia becomes filled with completely meaningless crap, and despite countless edits, no one makes any effort to deal with that, then it is not a very good reference source, and the critics are indeed right.

In response to your objection to my "accusation," I withdraw my statement that you "know nothing about the subject." I withdraw it based solely on the fact that I have insufficient information to make the claim. I'm afraid I can't withdraw the statement that you didn't care enough to adequately investigate. It was not a personal attack, but a legitimate statement of well-reasoned perspective. As I have implied above, the claim of my not being "a serious editor" is actually adequately true, but does not excuse discounting my edits-- that's not how philosophical debate or democracy works. All humans are subject to the adrenaline rush to be gained from "helping" or "contributing," or "acting as an authority," and I'm well aware that Wikipedia feeds on that to a great degree. Objectively speaking, however, it is generally the number of edits that provides an adrenaline rush, but the quality of edits that provides light and truth to the world; unfortunately, quality and quantity of edit(s), if possessing any relation at all, are inverse variables.

As for the assumption of good faith you speak of, I find it utterly insane, and cannot grant your request.

Yes, probably, I should have my own Wikipedia profile. I believe I do have one, but I do not edit Wikipedia frequently enough that I remember what it is, or bother with it. I briefly edit about three Wikipedia pages a year.

Cheers, Tran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.216.247 (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It is not usually sufficient for edits to "speak for themselves". You must effectively communicate with your fellow editors to enable cooperation. Yes, it is possible for you to make edits without using edit summaries, but if you do so then you should be prepared for other editors to misunderstand you (see WP:ES), as happened in our case.

My point about the phrase "excellent, epic and very popular" is that those adjectives are subjective and unverifiable. The standard for whether a subject is worth having an article is whether the subject is WP:Notable.

Yes, it is true that you did not delete anything in your first set of edits. However, what you did do is add text that was scatological as well as nonsensical and also add the song's lyrics, which is a WP:Copyright violation. To me, this did not pass the smell test, so I reverted. The section blanking came next. All of these are mentioned in WP:Vandalism. I agree that this text could eventually be a useful addition to the article, if you can find appropriate WP:References.

I'm glad that you find it gratifying to contribute to Wikipedia, but real gratification should come from contribuing well, and to do that you need to conform your contribution to the established process of how Wikipedia works. I hope what I have written here will help you to do that. Finally, Assuming Good Faith is an indispensible part of how Wikipedia works, and you won't get very far if you can't find it in your heart. I might point out that I wouldn't have spent as much time as I have writing to you if I were not acting in good faith. What assurance do I have that you are doing the same? Given the anonymity of the Internet, not much (no offense, but I hope you can see it from my point of view), but I proceed anyway. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

>>>Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It is not usually sufficient for edits to "speak for themselves". You must effectively communicate with your fellow editors to enable cooperation. Yes, it is possible >for you to make edits without using edit summaries, but if you do so then you should be prepared for other editors to misunderstand you (see WP:ES), as happened in our case.

Oh, I was. This is not to the credit of the average Wikipedia editor, or to yourself, I'm afraid.

>>>My point about the phrase "excellent, epic and very popular" is that those adjectives are subjective and unverifiable.

Bullshit. I mean, yes, that may have been your point, but if so you are wrong, because that point is bullshit.

>>>The standard for whether a subject is worth having an article is whether the subject is WP:Notable.

Egotistical, elitist bullshit. That is not a standard, it is a code name; code names, basically, are for "in crowds", and your "in crowd" is not one I have a wish to be part of. More importantly, your wholly non-universal "standard" is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand-- you are arguing semantics, and I am not.

>>>Yes, it is true that you did not delete anything in your first set of edits. However, what you did do is add text that was scatological as well as nonsensical.

False. And there was a reference, although somehow it did not make it onto the version you point to. Quite possibly my error. There is a Society of the Moo (I know, because, I started it), and they have exactly the views I ascribed to them, and those views are *exactly* as relevant as those views published in the Quaker article.

>>>and also add the song's lyrics, which is a WP:Copyright violation.

Yes. I did do that. And in a highly questionable way, re: copyright protections, which do have some degree of importance. And I was not mindful of fairly just rules in this case. I am afraid you have me on this point. A well meaning error, however, and from an impartial perspective I would say it was fairly excusable given the context.

>>>To me, this did not pass the smell test, so I reverted. The section blanking came next. All of these are mentioned in WP:Vandalism.

Black text on a white background has no smell, insofar as I am aware. Excuse me, but are you a robot that checks things against keywords in the Wikipedia guidelines? Sorry, but that is not a very efficient way to write *good* Wikipedia articles, though I suppose it works well for avoiding the writing of really realllllly bad ones. Besides, the original set of edits-- not the blanking-- was "vandalism." Direct, pointed vandalism aimed at the pursuit, establishment, and dissemination of the truth, which it has effectively accomplished, for no other reason but that the truth always wins in the end. All of Wikipedia is vandalism, scandal, and graffiti. So is all human knowledge.

>>>I agree that this text could eventually be a useful addition to the article, if you can find appropriate WP:References.

WP:References says... "While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source" ... which I did, or intended to do, though I cannot find a record of this.

>>>I'm glad that you find it gratifying to contribute to Wikipedia, but real gratification should come from contribuing well,

The pot backhandedly calleth the kettle black, me thinks.

>>>and to do that you need to conform your contribution to the established process of how Wikipedia works.

I most certainly do not need to do any such thing! And I will not. I will conform my contribution to my own common sense, and you and the thought police can go lock someone else up, because I will not be bound.

>>>I hope what I have written here will help you to do that.

Yeah, not really. Thanks, but no thanks.

>>>Finally, Assuming Good Faith is an indispensible part of how Wikipedia works, and you won't get very far if you can't find it in your heart.

As I already pointed out, I have plenty of faith in my heart in the "good faith" of human beings with their minds unfettered, and no faith at all in individual people who choose to abuse the power they have.

>>>I might point out that I wouldn't have spent as much time as I have writing to you if I were not acting in good faith.

Unless... unless you write out of some sadistic, condescending wish to prove that though you did something clearly wrong, you are in fact still right, and it is I that is in the wrong, and hence that needs to change. That's called blaming the victim, and a LOT of people really seem to enjoy it. I'm glad to hear it makes you feel good, but it's not quite the same thing as acting in good faith.

>>>What assurance do I have that you are doing the same?

None. But I don't actually care.

>>>Given the anonymity of the Internet, not much (no offense, but I hope you can see it from my point of view), but I proceed anyway. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, you're clearly trying very hard to be polite, I'll give you that. And I am definitely being a jackass. But that isn't really the point, is it? The point is the authorship and dissemination of the unbiased truth, and that is better facilitated by sarcasm, direct words, devil's advocacy and rule breaking than it is by robot thinking and courteous conformity, and you only emphasize that further every time you point at your guidebook. Anyway, I get that you're well-intended (most people are); you just happen to be wrong, and advocating for questionable ideals. That said, I have no wish to hurt your feelings further, so let us close this discussion. I won't say that I'll agree to simply disagree, but I'll agree to shut up for the moment on this particular subject if you will. Thank you for your contributions (the good ones, not the shit ones), and for your time; I have at least somewhat enjoyed this discussion. I am sure that the successful operation of Wikipedia hinges considerably more on people like you than it does on people like me.

Cheers, Tran