User talk:Ornwolfe
July 2015
[edit]
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Slender Man, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Slender Man, you may be blocked from editing. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, here is a repost of what I put on the other page - it seemed like I was dealing with two separate users and it was hard to keep it straight. Also, note that I have since (like in the last hour) found a supporting link (see below the last exchange) which looks like it goes as far back as 2013. Obviously this lends credence to the fact that it is obvious to others and therefore noteworthy. Thanks for consideration.
Constant Removal of My Content Without Explanation or By Providing an Explanation Not in Accordance with Wikipedia Standards as I Understand Them From a Plain Reading
[edit]Hello, I have moved our conversation here for clarity as you seem to be the editor most interested in editing my comment without, I believe, proper explanation which may in fact constitute Edit Warring. Please let me know where I mistaken but here are the facts:
You deleted my content without discussion, indicating it was "disruptive editing" and indicating it was "personal analysis or synthesis" and threatened to block me from editing. Your initial message was: "Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Slender Man, you may be blocked from editing. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)" It was clear from the edit history that in fact were my attempts (not "disruptive editing") to refine the original content to specifically address concerns and to remove personal analysis."
I responded with:
"Hello, can somebody please explain to me what exactly in my edits constitutes "original research." I read the definition very closely and there is nothing remotely approaching that definition, nor as you say a "synthesis of position I advance." What is the position I advance? What is this synthesis? All of my statements are facts. There are no opinions nor conclusory statements cited, ONLY facts that are appropriately cited. I indicate there is a supernatural character that pre-dates the creation of Slender Man as indicated in the page itself. That is a matter of objective fact for which I sited the published source (i.e., the comic book and the page itself). Also, as a matter of objective fact (just check the published source) he matches the description on the Slender Man page as I quoted. Again a proper citation. I would think the pictures and descriptions on the Slender Man page itself would be appropriate citations along with a comic book that is clearly viewable online, available for purchase at retailers nationwide and had a wide, national circulation at the time of issue. Note that I am simply pointing out the factual similarities, not that a conclusion that it has been established he is necessarily an inspiration for the character. I can add a caveat if you like to make that more clear. Finally, I cited two sources regarding the fact that they share a nickname. What you indicate as "disruptive editing" behavior has been me trying to more than accommodating to user comments about sticking to the facts. At this point I am being harassed. People just selectively delete items without proper explanation or responding specifically to my efforts to follow the guidelines. According to the conclusions of these editors Wikipedia could be selectively chopped to the bone." Ornwolfe (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
At this point it would have been appropriate in my view for somebody to specifically indicate what exactly in my content violated which exact Wikipedia standard, quoting both the content and the standard as appropriate. Instead, below is the response I received, which appears to be an opinion that is, ironically, completely devoid of citation to Wikipedia's own standards:
"Ornwolfe, I will try to explain this clearly[edit]
It doesn't matter how "objective" the facts you report are. What you adding is essentially an essay. It is a piece of personal expression. Implicit in what you are saying is that
a) this being is specifically similar to the Slender Man (as opposed to any other tall, well dressed, spindly figures from fiction or folklore)
b) this gives it a meaningful connection to the Slender Man
and c) it is notable or relevant to the Slender Man article.
None of what you have written or provided backs up those assertions in any way. Find a source that does, and it can go in." Serendipodous 14:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
You can see that this did not address anything I had to say and now introduces additional non-cited explanation for editing my content. I read the "original research" standards very closely and responded with what I thought was a fairly well-reasoned response:
"Thank you for response but the ideas and conclusions you come to now seem to not relate to "original research" cited as your initial objection. (And neither, as you concede below, the other user's objections that these constitute personal opinions. Again these are facts.) If I am incorrect please quote specifically where your objections are noted in the "original research" link you provided.
If not, I assume you do not have an objection based on original research as you indicate. Further, please specifically cite where those objections can be found exactly within Wikipedia's other guidelines. You are not king nor allowed to delete items without specifically referencing your cites to Wikipedia standards.
Finally, assuming what you say below are actual standards you are incorrect on all scores.
A) simply noting that a factual similarity exists with other characters in addition to the specific clear, factual similarity I noted does NOT negate the original similarity.
B) I already indicated that there is no conclusion, implicit or otherwise beyond the factual, cited things u noted. I will add the caveat to make that clear, though there is no suggestion otherwise. Immediately preceeding my statement is a reference to the Question having an expressionless face. Per Wikipedia's standards that does not actually need a citation because it is clear and easily attributable. Just look at his face. You don't need a cite to explain the fact that a square has four sides - just look at it. And this is all I am doing with the factual similarities I note.
c) As explained above it is notable in that it (quoting specifically from the Slender Man article and via the cited source, "he is a supernatural character that is tall, thin and wearing a black suit" etc. I'd say that is a relevant fact of interest and completely in line with the content immediately preceeding it. Again, there are no "essays" or personal conclusions, just facts, appropriately cited."Ornwolfe (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course the response was quick and rigid:
"I can take any group of traits I want and compare them to something else: The Hulk is big, green and human-shaped and strategically clothed with a deep voice; the Jolly Green Giant is big, green, human-shaped and strategically clothed with a deep voice. These are, as you say, indisputable facts. But that doesn't mean they're connected."
Incorrect, it may be relevant in the context of the Slender Man article that has a list of characters sharing superficial characteristics and that were created prior to Slender Man.
"The traits you list are true of both the Slender Man and that character (I assume) but they are also true of this, this, this and particularly this."
To be honest I find this statement fairly disingenuous. Of those ONLY Jack Skellington is perhaps notable (although I am not aware that anybody is suggesting that), but even if true it does not negate the other comparison. The others you list are not noteworthy so they are bad examples.
"What is it about your comparison that makes your addition so vital?"
'Vital' is not the standard.
"What is their connection?"
I clearly quote the article itself and provide a link to a clear, an unambiguous depiction of the character exactly matching the description of the character Wikipedia also provides.
"Are you arguing that this creature inspired the Slender Man? If so, where's your proof?"
All I am doing is providing additional information to a pre-existing list of characters that share superficial characteristics. The article already notes that (paraphrasing) "the Question pre-dates Slender Man and has an expressionless face and a similar name." I am literally adding the same content (paraphrasing) "Daddy Longlegs pre-dates Slender Man and is tall, thin, wearing a suit and has disproportionately long arms and legs." What is the difference? If anything I am surprised the Wikipedia community is not interested in adding further, purely factual information. I do not opinion as to its origin - I go no further than what is disclosed for the Question AND what anybody, if they check the sources (i.e., the link to the cover and the Wikipedia page itself) would not find immediately verifiable. It is not an opinion - there are no arguments to the contrary. Obvious facts do not require a citation in any event per Wikipedia's guidelines. Did you check the source? Do you somehow feel the description of the character as quoted in the article is incorrect?
"And more importantly, who are you to use Wikipedia to advance that idea? Are you a trained professor of folklore, like most of the people cited on the page? And if so, why aren't you publishing your ideas in peer-reviewed journals, instead of splashing them at random on an open source website? Find a reliable source that backs up your claim that there is a connection between these two characters and you can post your info here." Otherwise no. Serendipodous 15:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, it is not an idea, I am stating facts. I have repeatedly indicated I would be happy to indicate to the reader that I am being clear not to suggest similarity other than what is obvious (the superficial physical qualities) in exactly the same manner as it is presented for the character the Question. He has a black expressionless face. If you look at a picture of the question you can see that - you do not need a folklorist to tell you that do you? Likewise with the character I note. Upon learning of the character's name (clear from the cover of the comic book) do you really need a folklorist to tell you that he shares the name of one of Slender Man's nicknames (about which two sources are provided)? Is this what Wikipedia is all about?
"Your assertion that the fact is notable enough for inclusion is a personal opinion and not backed up by any source you have provided."
Please site the source of this standard in Wikipedia. Assertions regarding the noteworthiness of content within an article do not need to be sourced. That would be absurd. The fact itself has to be sourced, but not the opinion as to whether it is noteworthy. Presumably that is what the editors, content standards and Wikipedia community are meant to accomplish.
"And yes, what you are doing is original research, because you are reporting the facts yourself, rather than reporting others' reportage of them, which is what Wikipedia does." Serendipodous 15:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, things that are obvious from plain observation and not subject to other interpretations do not require independent verification of the fact that they are obvious from plain observation. Just look at the picture and read the description. The number of examples of basic factual statements in Wikipedia that are not independently sourced because they are indisputable or obvious from the description or observation would be too many to number.
"Orn, since you wanted a quote from policy: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research." Your conclusion is that Daddy Longlegs is somehow relevant to Slender Man, while no source states that." — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I am surprised you have made the same logical error. Original research relates to the facts and "conclusions" - i.e., the content. My facts (i.e., content) are sourced. My content does not make the conclusions you indicate - it simply notes factual, superficial characteristics just like the sentence preceding it. Being noteworthy information does not require that another source also believe it is noteworthy. As I noted above that would be absurd. In fact, that appears to be what this entire discussion comes down to and just stating that fact begs the question.
Granted I am new here so I appreciate your patience but in the spirit of advancing the purpose of Wikipedia I submit that my factual information is noteworthy as it follows a list of supernatural characters with similar, superficial characteristics that predate Slender Man - note that I do not explain this conclusion in the content, nor do Wikipedia guidelines require that I explain in the article exactly WHY my content (appropriately sourced) is noteworthy. It makes the same assertions as the previous example, that is all. If anything the information is noteworthy for the fact that further investigation could be warranted. If we add Jack Skellington or others maybe it is obvious that a number of pre-existing characters do exist that share superficial characteristics and that based on this fact alone you should not suggest an origin as another editor has with the Question. Maybe that provides an avenue for further research or examination? Again, there is nothing beyond facts similar to the basic, factual, superficial characteristics provided for the Question. I thought I was doing the right thing by continuing in that manner. What you folks seem to be doing is building a bias for the inclusion of certain facts and not others merely because one set of facts has gone an additional, unnecessary step of quoting a source even though both facts are identical in that at least with respect to the information listed they are both obvious from simple examination.
Ornwolfe (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Additional link:
https://twitter.com/Bizarnage/status/328352729414127616/photo/1
Ornwolfe (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Ornwolfe, I will try to explain this clearly
[edit]It doesn't matter how "objective" the facts you report are. What you adding is essentially an essay. It is a piece of personal expression. Implicit in what you are saying is that
a) this being is specifically similar to the Slender Man (as opposed to any other tall, well dressed, spindly figures from fiction or folklore)
b) this gives it a meaningful connection to the Slender Man
and c) it is notable or relevant to the Slender Man article.
None of what you have written or provided backs up those assertions in any way. Find a source that does, and it can go in. Serendipodous 14:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, can somebody please explain to me what exactly in my edits constitutes "original research." I read the definition very closely and there is nothing remotely approaching that definition, nor as you say a "synthesis of position I advance." What is the position I advance? What is this synthesis? All of my statements are facts. There are no opinions nor conclusory statements cited, ONLY facts that are appropriately cited. I indicate there is a supernatural character that pre-dates the creation of Slender Man as indicated in the page itself. That is a matter of objective fact for which I sited the published source (i.e., the comic book and the page itself). Also, as a matter of objective fact (just check the published source) he matches the description on the Slender Man page as I quoted. Again a proper citation. I would think the pictures and descriptions on the Slender Ma thisn page itself would be appropriate citations along with a comic book that is clearly viewable online, available for purchase at retailers nationwide and had a wide, national circulation at the time of issue. Note that I am simply pointing out the factual similarities, not that a conclusion that it has been established he is necessarily an inspiration for the character. I can add a caveat if you like to make that more clear. Finally, I cited two sources regarding the fact that they share a nickname. What you indicate as "disruptive editing" behavior has been me trying to more than accommodating to user comments about sticking to the facts. At this point I am being harassed. People just selectively delete items without proper explanation or responding specifically to my efforts to follow the guidelines. According to the conclusions of these editors Wikipedia could be selectively chopped to the bone. Ornwolfe (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I can take any group of traits I want and compare them to something else: The Hulk is big, green and human-shaped and strategically clothed with a deep voice; the Jolly Green Giant is big, green, human-shaped and strategically clothed with a deep voice. These are, as you say, indisputable facts. But that doesn't mean they're connected. The traits you list are true of both the Slender Man and that character (I assume) but they are also true of this, this, this and particularly this. What is it about your comparison that makes your addition so vital? What is their connection? Are you arguing that this creature inspired the Slender Man? If so, where's your proof? And more importantly, who are you to use Wikipedia to advance that idea? Are you a trained professor of folklore, like most of the people cited on the page? And if so, why aren't you publishing your ideas in peer-reviewed journals, instead of splashing them at random on an open source website? Find a reliable source that backs up your claim that there is a connection between these two characters and you can post your info here. Otherwise no. Serendipodous 15:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for response but the ideas and conclusions you come to now seem to not relate to "original research" cited as your initial objection. (And neither, as you concede below, the other user's objections that these constitute personal opinions. Again these are facts.) If I am incorrect please quote specifically where your objections are noted in the "original research" link you provided.
If not, I assume you do not have an objection based on original research as you indicate. Further, please specifically cite where those objections can be found exactly within Wikipedia's other guidelines. You are not king nor allowed to delete items without specifically referencing your cites to Wikipedia standards.
Finally, assuming what you say below are actual standards you are incorrect on all scores.
A) simply noting that a factual similarity exists with other characters in addition to the specific clear, factual similarity I noted does NOT negate the original similarity.
B) I already indicated that there is no conclusion, implicit or otherwise beyond the factual, cited things u noted. I will add the caveat to make that clear, though there is no suggestion otherwise. Immediately preceeding my statement is a reference to the Question having an expressionless face. Per Wikipedia's standards that does not actually need a citation because it is clear and easily attributable. Just look at his face. You don't need a cite to explain the fact that a square has four sides - just look at it. And this is all I am doing with the factual similarities I note.
c) As explained above it is notable in that it (quoting specifically from the Slender Man article and via the cited source, "he is a supernatural character that is tall, thin and wearing a black suit" etc. I'd say that is a relevant fact of interest and completely in line with the content immediately preceeding it. Again, there are no "essays" or personal conclusions, just facts, appropriately cited.Ornwolfe (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Your assertion that the fact is notable enough for inclusion is a personal opinion and not backed up by any source you have provided. And yes, what you are doing is original research, because you are reporting the facts yourself, rather than reporting others' reportage of them, which is what Wikipedia does. Serendipodous 15:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Orn, since you wanted a quote from policy: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research." Your conclusion is that Daddy Longlegs is somehow relevant to Slender Man, while no source states that. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- In response to your overly long message: there's no use complaining about how our initial messages here weren't clear enough for you. That's why people have extended conversations, to understand each other's points better. User:Serendipodous and I have left you more explanations, and I think my paragraph above^ where I quote the exact part of the policy and explain how it relates to your edit, should be sufficient. I'm not sure anymore why you can't understand this.
- You are indeed making an original conclusion -- simply by adding that text about Longlegs into the article you have already concluded that it is relevant to the Slender Man article. We don't add unrelated facts to articles simply because we personally found them to be relevant. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- And about that Twitter link: who is that "Aaron" guy? Is he a reliable source? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
A - my response is not overlong. It responds to two individuals and specifically it responds to responses that are themselves lengthy. Interesting that I did not see you admonish the other user.
B - I am sorry but you are just incorrect. Adding appropriately cited facts is not in and of itself drawing a conclusion beyond those facts nor does anything you can quote me say that.(I also indicated I can clarify so as not to imply anything beyond what is quoted/sourced if that was truly your concern.) You keep indicating that my conclusion is something that it is not - the "conclusions" you state are your own and do not in any way reflect the words I wrote. More fundamentally I think you are confusing original research with relevance. The question of relevance is not in and of itself a conclusion that needs to be separately cited. You may view the facts I added as irrelevant or superfluous but they are NOT conclusions and certainly do not magically turn into separate conclusions (above and beyond the facts so stated) simply by adding them.
And neither are they irrelevant. Wikipedia indicates that something may be irrelevant if it is not useful to the reader (I assume you agree with me that it is, particularly in light of the information provided for the Question immediately preceding it and which presumably you are quite comfortable with), out of scope (my properly sourced facts are clearly in scope), would unnecessarily bloat an article (my additions do not), make it difficult for the reader to remain focused (my disclosures do not) or would result in my additions getting undue weight (clearly they do not).
I provided the link not as a source but merely to indicate relevance - i.e., people may be interested in other fictitious characters that bear an uncanny resemblance to Slender Man.
I am getting the impression that folks do not like to be questioned but fair is fair. I have not edited anybody's content. I am merely adding factual detail. On the other hand, you (I assume you two have leveraged each other's experience before) have been repeatedly editing my content and seem to react with frustration to fair questions from any plain reading of Wikipedia's standards. Ornwolfe (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It's very simple Ornwolfe. Find a reliable source (a reputable publication, not a Twitter feed) that agrees with your assertion that Daddy Longlegs is relevant to the Slender Man and it can go in. Otherwise, it stays out. Serendipodous 20:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)