Jump to content

User talk:NYScholar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Excessinfo (talk | contribs) at 11:34, 26 August 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Disclaimer: NYScholar is not in any way affiliated with a personal website called nyscholar.com. This Wikipedia log-in identity is simply descriptive: "NYScholar" is an academic scholar who resides in New York. This Wikipedia log-in identity, used since June 30, 2005, pre-dates the existence of that website, which began on January 30, 2007.

N.B.: Please do not copy my comments placed on my talk page or other talk pages or editing histories of articles, or other Wikipedia pages, take them out of context, and/or move them elsewhere. Doing so distorts them. Thank you.

Further information: § N.B., WP:UP, WP:TPG, and WP:CIVIL
Talk archives

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

General information

For general information about the status of current Wikipedia policies pertaining to copyright, fair use, and copyright infringement, please consult also:

Please do the same for:

  • trademark, and other various topics, issues, and controversies pertaining to
  • intellectual property, including musical, audio-visual, multi-media, and digitally-formatted properties.

Thank you.

(I do not have time to discuss any of these matters further in Wikipedia.) --NYScholar 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC) [Updated list of links. --NYScholar 00:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]

(All accessed 3 September 2006.)

Issues relating to Wikipedia as a source

Problems that academic scholars find in Wikipedia

[Both projects, Citizendium and Scholarpedia, require editors to use their actual names in ways that identify their specific credentials as experts in their fields.]

Jimmy Wales on the importance of properly-sourced material

Importance of properly-sourced material in articles pertaining to living persons

  • WP:BLP: "Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. 'Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space'" (Qtd. from Wikipedia:List of policies).
  • These principles also apply to material about living persons in other articles and for all articles on any subjects. The responsibility in Wikipedia for justifying contentious or otherwise questionable content of all kinds but especially for contentious or otherwise questionable content about living persons rests firmly on the shoulders of the Wikipedia editor providing the content.

Academic Criticism of Wikipedia

See also: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and WP:NOT

[Updated out of courtesy. Please see "busy" notice at top. I have other work to do. Thank you. ---NYScholar 01:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Further information: § N.B., WP:UP, WP:TPG, and WP:CIVIL

Hi:

Casey Brown and Wikimedia have concluded that they believe that the Wemple article should be removed or reverted because it is does not meet Wikipedia standards for biographies of living persons. (I can send to a private email address their email to me; I don't think they wanted it privately posted.) The standards, if I have read them right or if they have been explained right, say that "potentially libelous" material should be "removed immediately." In this case, however, that was not done until they decided that was the case. I am not sure if there are appeals, but pending appeals, I assume the material is taken done, until the burden of proof is proved by the person or persons or editor challenging the Wikipedia standard.

Jimmy Wales has also said and written on the living persons home page that "subjects of articles remain welcome" to remove or revert potentially libelous claims, and that "reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do." In this case, the reverting or removal was only done after the Wikipedia decision in any case.

As to any further appeal by the person calling themselves "Ovid Plastering", from their IP address and other information, it is obvious that they are an author of the removed article-- and it was them that added it to the page in the first place. I think that if they attempt to put it back in, they should be banned from doing so-- but more importantly that they identify themselves openly and their authorship of the article and any other personal interest. They have placed the article on the page in the first place as a sock pocket, and I believe that they should not be able to do so in the future.

I was not sure to put this on an open discussion page, or even if this is one, not being very familiar with Wikipedia, but I am not sure if the correspondence with Wikimedia or Casey is supposed to be publicly posted.

I hope that I have done everything right here. You have been a very diligent and fair editor of this page, and do not want to do anything incorrect out of inexperience, or seem unappreciative of your fairness and hard work.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excessinfo (talk • contribs) 11:09, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. But wasn't sure what to do with the correspondence to and from Casey Brown and Wikimedia, and whether it could be posted on an open page. I can send it to anyone on a private email address, or ask them to post it publicly on the page' discussion. I am again sorry I am unfamiliar with the correct procedures. But I believe absent any successful appeal that that particular article be put up, reversing themselves, it should be kept down for now.

As to the sock pocket, Ovid Plastering, I assume he can appeal, but I do not believe that he has a right to continuously put the article back up pending an appeal of the Wikimedia decision and reversal of their possession. And moreover, as a sock pocket, I would hope that you would press him regarding any personal role in the matter. (I know Ovid Plastering is a sock pocket who is one of the authors of the article.)

Sorry again for my lack of knowledge of all things Wikipedia, and for your patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excessinfo (talk • contribs) 11:15, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I will email Casey to find out if I can publicly post his email; I know it takes several days or longer to get a response because of all the correspondence they receive. And I believe that *Ovid Plastering* should be banned for vandalism if he continues to put the article up again trying to override Wikipedia's decision-- an article he wrote, and which he originally placed and reinstated as a sock pocket.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NYScholar&oldid=153725681"