User talk:Psmythe2
Discussion of Mark Siddall
[edit]@Volteer1: Establishing this on my talk to discuss the deletion matter.
I hope I am getting the syntax correct and apologize for being a noob.
Page Mark Siddall was created by a Glacierwidth sockpuppet on 20 Nov 2020 with what appears to have been the sole intent of disparaging the subject contrary to Wikipedia rules regarding biographies of living persons.
The page was not live until 12 March when Kvng opined that it was suitable for publication on the grounds of : [1], [2], [3]
However, two of those citations [4], [5] were selectively made by Glacierwidth with the intent of disparaging the subject.
In the page itself the section "Research" is not an exposition of the subject's research at all, and merely includes but a single quote that itself intentionally fails to include the entire sentence in the reference which ended with "but he has mellowed on this" (never mind that the quote was from 2 decades ago).
This waas/is an obvious intent to disparage.
see: Burreson, Eugene M.; Siddall, Mark E.; Connors, Vincent A. (2002). "Society Business". The Journal of Parasitology. 88 (6): 1053–1070. doi:10.1645/0022-3395(2002)088[1053:IOMESA]2.0.CO;2. JSTOR 3285473 – via JSTOR.
As such, it is patently clear that the page was created with the sole intent of disparaging the subject in clear violation of Wikipedia rules.
Furthermore, ad interim, others seemingly have tried to make the page more representative of an academic (which might then meet the Notability criteria) only to see that content vandalized by Glacierwidth, and by other sockpuppets. Wikipedia admin Drmies then reverted the page to an earlier version, but in so doing also removed all of the items that might have justified Notability as an academic.
It cannot be both ways: if the subject is notable as an academic, then the academic notability should be allowed to be filled out (contra Drmies). If the subject is not notable as an academic there would seem to be no other notability save a single New York Times article that stands behind a paywall and which is only selectively quoted so as to disparage the subject.
With no details of academic notability, and with the page being solely created for the purposes of disparaging the subject, the remainder of the content is merely a selective and biased cherrypicking of news, and "Wikipedia is not news". This page should be deleted.
I forgot to sign... Psmythe2 (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Psmythe2
As noted previously, I have been following the Mark Siddall page.
While it is clear that there have been edit-wars and some sockpuppetry, it is also clear that others have engaged in good faith. Some of those who anonymously edited in manner to restore others' fully cited by primary source entries, and which seems to be properly justified in "Edit summary" statements, were summarily eradicated and wrongly banned by the heavy hand and summary judgement of Drmies.
Should this page not be merely deleted, I believe that Drmies should be prevented from further engagement in this page in light of his hostile editing of the Mark Siddall page. Watch that he does not summarily execute my account like has has other s with whom he disagrees. Psmythe2 (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Psmythe2! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)