User talk:Hotridge

links to personal Blog entries

(Blog in question is [1])

They are not reliable sources and in general it's a violation of conflict of interest rules. - Richfife (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest... and neither is personally witnessing a factual event, such as a personal and firsthand witnessing of a current event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotridge (talk • contribs) Hotridge (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting links to personal blogs with your picture on them, however, is. And firsthand witness accounts are, in fact, forbidden: Wikipedia:No original research. - Richfife (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this concerns a living person. Quoting the words of a living person and adding that to their biographical pages (ethically) dictates that the editor/author of such purported quotation declare himself.Hotridge (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR (line 2) "...consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit"

In adding alleged lines/quotes of an actual conversation or transcript of a living person's words, the primary source/identity of the one quoting it must be declared. Otherwise, the entire quote may well be deleted from the entry, for lack of attribution. In which case, the whole content is not improved at all, thus "...sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia..."Hotridge (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to participate in the discussion I just opened here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_using_WP:IAR_to_excuse_posting_links_to_inflammatory_links_to_his_personal_blog. - Richfife (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. In light of all the wikilawyering above and below this response, I find it unnecessary to insist on the point, and opening up a full forum for it is already an excess as it would serve no given interest nor positive end. At most, it would only tend to exhaust our time--something more valuable than the petty subjects of these contentions. Citations and the entries they cite shall be deleted from the article in question. Hotridge (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is totally superfluous in the instant case. ("...However, using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is frowned upon. If you are not involved in a content dispute, you can file a case at WP:COIN.")

You may wish to consider contributing to WikiNews instead. - Richfife (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue to add "your" blog to the article as a reference. I am sorry but you cannot do that. It is written from your view and from your knowledge. It goes against WP:OR. Here is a an exert from WP:OR

"This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, "experiences", or arguments."

It is also stated that you may allow your own knowledge placed into the article. If it was published in a reliable source of information. Which again a blog is not

Please stop if you continue it may end being marked vandalism. We here are trying to help. Rgoodermote 19:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, please.

Blogs are not acceptable sources (see WP:RS).
Blogs are especially not acceptable in biographies.
Linking your own blog is particularly problematic, per WP:EL and WP:VAIN
Edit warring over it is completely unacceptable, per WP:SPAM

If you continue adding the blog, one or more of the following may and likely will happen:

You may be blocked form editing
You may be banned from Wikipedia entirely
Your blog may be added to the blacklist

So: now would be a great time to stop. I think it unlikely that you'll receive any further warnings before you are b locked, so do please take this to heart. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 17:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this - IAR is not designed to allow people to promote their own blogs so please don't cite it as a defense. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Calling people "misfits" is wholly unacceptable. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh...

The last couple of edits to the article by Hotridge have been to remove his own original research, which is, as Martha Stewart would say, a good thing. - Richfife (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this is fine. Everyone has to start form somewhere, it takes time to learn the ropes. We only have a problem if Hotridge chooses to make one, and ignore the advice he's being given. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This was more directed at the people that have been reverting them. - Richfife (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is a blog, doesn't mean it is NOT reliable.

And on matters of reliability, where no other source may be provided, firsthand information from the writer himself, especially if he is also the author of the other published materials (elsewhere) from which the same information may be derived, a personal citation is tenable, provided that the other published works be cited as references also. In the instant case, I cited my blog, because it contains more of the details of the full speech that I transcribed (as it was spoken by the politician concerned) than what I have submitted to the networks cited in that very same page. Thus, I am asserting the reliability of the blog I cited by invoking the IAR in this case. Because the material belongs to me, and so are the other digital transcripts of the same speech in question which were attributed to the medias I submitted it to. Irregardless, of anyone's biases or disdain for the credibility of blogs. As a matter of fact, under conventional rules of court, diaries and personal annotations (in this instance, a blog) are given more weight than edited newscasts.

Hence, if it be a matter of reliability, then perhaps we need a neutral arbitrator to assess the reliability of the contents in issue. Since there is NO ABSOLUTE MEASURE of Reliability and neither is anything ABSOLUTELY RELIABLE. But I would not allow that the same material be used without it being attributed properly. Unless, of course, the honorable de Venecia would indulge us by providing the material himself, as this concerns his "purported" words anyway. And the contested words are sensitive in nature as it imputes allegations of premeditated assassinations of specific living persons upon him.

My point is, I invoked the IAR in this case, because the "speech" is sensitive in nature. A true transcript of which would not be hesitant to declare its identity as its source. But since you question the reliability of the blog cited, then naturally, the lines it was attributed to should also be deleted. What I would NOT allow, is that the same material be posted here. And I mean that as already an infringement of copyright. Because the networks I submitted the same material to would not allow any excerpts or citations of their contents without the express permission of the authors of the material concerned. Hotridge (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links normally to be avoided...Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. [WP:EL] (I wrote the articles you formerly cited. I think that falls under "recognized authority" since the inclusion and citation of my work is an avowal of my authority on the subject.)

"Restrictions on linking

For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:

Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright."

The above policy has already been violated by linking to the sites that I have contributed the articles in question without due permission from either me or my publishers.Hotridge (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hans

Hello, I saw the story of your mishap unfold on the administrative noticeboard. It seems clear that you have either had some previous experience with Wikipedia, or you are a very fast learner. You have had a confrontation with a very small number of editors. I am neutral here in the sense that I never heard of any of the people involved before. I think the best thing you can do now is to have a nice cup of tea and wait for the discussion to be automatically archived because it's inactive. If you want to read something with your tea, try my old copy of Mastodon Magazine. Who knows, in the end you might even be in the mood for TEA with the other involved parties. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit history would reveal to you the time I initially registered to Wiki. I have never fully reviewed its rules, well, not until just last night. And I have only started contributing again, after a very long time of inactivity (I guess, after 3 to 4 years since I last edited anything here), when my attention was caught recently after searching for my page in google that my homepage (external non-wikipage) appeared under the heading Ridge of Wikipedia. And it was a page for well, landform ridges and not about me. So I deleted my link. And on a recent assignment to cover the Speaker of the House's speech in congress (we have prior information about his plan to reveal publicly what he [the Speaker] has to say)...an excerpt of which, I contributed to his page here at Wiki. Being a writer, it is an ethical procedure to automatically sign and take responsibility for whatever one writes. And since this was a live-update, no other source is available for citation, and since the other ones (media networks) that may be cited are also my contributions, I found it necessary to cite my blog from where I originally published the material. And since it contains a more detailed transcript of the "speech", I found it necessary to cite it as well. This, it turns out, is also warranted by Wiki rules. What I was NOT aware of, is that Wiki does not allow first-hand primary sources or "original research." Nor citations of blogs as sources.

In any case, I remedied it quickly by deleting my entries anyway, for lack of better sources and to simply end the matter which is already consuming much of my personal time, and the obsession it brings that I review the entire wikipedia constitution. The problem arose, when the same entries I already deleted was restored and irrelevant imputations were made on the notice board.

And yes, I learn FAST, Mr. Adler. So fast, that one would think I am an old-timer here, under the guise of what do they call it?! "sock-puppets?!. But NO, I just read the rules last night after the credibility of my contributions/editing has been challenged. It is for that same skill of "fast-learning" that I am held to be indispensable by people who trust my credence. I am a Molecular Biologist/Biotechnologist by profession. And I write for various media networks (print and tv) for special political assignments that interest me, especially those that are of national concern. Hotridge (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is evolving rapidly, but I think there were no fundamental changes since November, when I joined. So I know from my own experience what it is like to be confronted with all these rules, which aren't even very easy to look up. WP:BITE exists for a reason, and it seems to have been ignored in your case. You are right about the sockpuppets: You had the misfortune of fitting into the profile of sophisticated sockpuppets. Since people started having an eye on new user accounts, certain people started hoarding new user accounts, made some inconspicuous edits with them, and waited a long time before using them for their unwanted activities.

Another point that you may not be aware of is that even though we are building an encyclopedia here, people tend to ignore long postings in discussions, especially on the admin notice board. Your sophisticated way of expressing yourself, especially your use of irony, are also a little bit risqué for Wikipedia discussions. By that I mean that if you give Wikipedia a chance in spite of this event, you will probably find that your style in Wikipedia discussions will move a bit towards the mainstream over the weeks, just because it's often more efficient. People here often don't get irony — not because they are too dumb to get it, but because they see the situation in a way that would never occur to you because they have a vastly different background. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laughs! I do not speak that way. I mean, on a daily (unperturbed-state) basis that is. I am NOT even a native English speaker. But you see, Hans, the only way to put an aggressor back to his wits and to help their consciousness recognize logic (if not, put some sense back into them) is through an artful helping of veiled irony. It arouses the wise and allows him to recognize reason, and it stupefies the other-wise (or those who simply think they are wise enough under their own estimation). It is a writing style I only employ when really irked, to facilitate a more peaceful resolution of the matter. You see, the initial tone and reception to me was already accusatory and I could already smell implied hostility in it. Naturally, as your Mastodon mag says, provocation would lead to a "flight or fight" response in another human being.

In any case, I do not wriggle out of any challenge, especially if it questions the credibility of my material or my person. And the only method I know to communicate under a hostile environment is to employ verbal and situational irony (whether direct or implied). Psychology researchers would agree with me that this is the best way to dodge hostility with the most positive results and in the least violent means. I believe, it has proven effective in the instant case, since, if you were to observe in the notice board, it did not only dispel other editors from putting more wood into the fire, it has also resolved the issue. But nah! I speak more casually of course like anyone else here on a regular basis. Rhetorics and Socratic fustianism is a style I have only remembered to employ after a very long time, and perhaps influenced with the legalese rules that I have forced myself to consume last night with regards Wiki. It can rather be contagious, you know. Hotridge (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And wow! I went to your homepage. I am in awe of your mathematical acumen. Truly, math or those with inclination towards it are more concerned with logic, and by experience far easier to get-along with. Not to mention that Englishmen are born to be diplomatic and innately endowed with all the savoir-faire and social graces that other cultures lack. Even your local police are not armed...am I correct? (well, except for a baton or a club) I think, that reflects the peaceloving nature of the English gentry. I apologize if I can't respond to you in good Anglican English, the only version I know is the international type.Hotridge (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please note that I am not interested in further conversation for conversation's sake. I tried to help you, and you are ignoring my advice. There is nothing more I can do for you. Please refrain from contacting me on my talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help me in what way?? As if I needed one. --Hotridge (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to chill

You're digging an ever-deeper hole right now. Sure, tempers got frayed, but there's no lasting damage, so please just gather your experiences and walk away that little bit wiser. Wikilawyering goes down really badly here. I mean, really badly. And your comment above about blogs and reliability? Terrible idea. We already know about blogs and reliability, but post-hoc rationalisation of linking your blog goes down like a cup of cold sick and there's no realistic chance that your comment above will achieve anything other than to get you filed in the "POV-pusher" box, which you don't need. Guy (an undiplomatic Englishman) 20:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Guy. From the very beginning, I said, this whole endeavor and the matters related to it...is well, totally unprofitable and a waste of time. I am amazed at the furor it caused initially--an otherwise trivial matter overblown to proportions. And twice amazed at how engaging it could become and how it could compel another editor to waste so much time on it. This is an interesting subject for sociologists and behavioral scientists to study, and maybe even learn from. Far from being annoyed, I am actually enjoying the absurdity of this entire affair, and quite pleased in being able to psychoanalyze some, who in my own theories, exhibit the precise attitudinal response I am expecting from people who exhibit tendencies of delusions, distorted perceptions of reality, and maladjustment problems/inner conflicts and other forms of insecurities/attitudinal problems...I could now see the syndrome as being manifested. (...the nature of some who likes editing, but what he really wants to do is be noticed as a good guy on project work - anti-vandalism, new page patrol - and his eye's really on being a wikipedia admin..."just quoted this from one of the wiki articles on editorial behavior) Hotridge (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're welcome to psychoanalyse people if you want, but your time may be better spent doing something else. Like watching paint dry. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Guy! But wouldn't it be more illustrative on what an entirely waste of time all these are, if the same pattern of behavior be exhibited by the initial subject of the affair? On the very ones who initially wasted so much ado and time on something so trivial? The best way to illustrate a point is to elicit that same point from those who initially violated it. It would sink-in faster into the respondent's/spectator's brain...that is of course, if we are to believe in the theory of human plasticity (that is, changes may occur in the organization of the subject's brain as a result of an experience they were subjected to). The nosy "editors" are good test-subjects for this. Especially, those who are reacting so much to it. They recognize it quickly more than anyone else. Because they are affected by it. And it is evident in their pattern of behavior and consciousness. Much as they would like to repress this. I am able to distinguish it by the reactions they make. You, for one, have been an unwitting respondent for this. Hotridge (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point quite badly. We have policies and guidelines on sourcing, and they apply especially to biographies. Newbie errors are perfectly normal, and sometimes require administrator intervention to stop. It's not a big deal. Except that you seem to be making it one. All the words you've written on this page could be replaced with "Oh, OK" and everyone would have wandered off long since. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh, ok" then. Grins. Unfortunately, Guy, while it may be statistically true that that may be the common reaction of the average erring newbie, I am not the type of individual who would simply react in that manner. I always require probity and rationality of any idea or suggestion that is proffered to me. This is not out of sheer obstinacy or mere disregard of other existing norms or rules, but merely common sense. In any case, I quickly deleted the offending lines and entries when I realized the error in it. And neither did I deny the violations. I merely made my defense as to what prompted me to include my blog as its source. And yes, the accusation or implied insult in being "vain" was particularly uncalled for, as I was unaware of the existing jargon or rules here. It has been a long time since I last logged-on here, I guess that was 3 years ago. If you would review the above record of communication from whence all this issue began, I conceded to delete the challenged content and citations on the third line, without any further protest. Well, not until, everyone else dipped into the tub and made a spectacle of what seemed initially to be a trivial issue.

In any case. I meant no harm. Like I said, since this concerns the speech of another living person, as a journalist, It is automatic for me to declare my authorship to what I wrote. This is to give the "other" living person the chance to contact me if he/she finds malice or injury in what I wrote. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in Wiki as I have learned. And neither do I take offense of how others here reacted to it. A rational creature, would naturally understand circumstances and have enough room to understand other human beings as well...in all their complexity and sublimity. And for the things that I don't understand yet...well, there are always enough tomorrows to learn it.--Hotridge (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in the very first place, what really caught my attention to contribute to the page in question was the fact that when I searched for the recent article I uploaded to the other network cited in that page, a wiki already exists for it "in verbatim" which made me look-into the page because I thought we had exclusivity with its coverage, more particularly, because I have prior knowledge of the very controversial speech and the revelations inscribed therein even before it was made public because of an earlier personal interview I made with him before these revelations. And upon reading the wiki page, remembering that I have also enlisted myself here several years ago, I added to it instead. But since I cannot cite another network where its full contents may be found due to the copyright we agreed on, I cited my blog instead. My Mistake! In any case, the complete transcript may be found here: Speaker Jose de Venecia Voices-Out Ingratitude of those who wish him deposed from the Speakership, for any questions in the future regarding its validity, veracity and authorship.

Please don't modify other editor's comments

like so: [2]. If you'd like to draw attention to your blog, doing so in your user page (this is the talk page) is OK. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]