| Revision as of 15:21, 22 July 2016 editOcdgrammarian (talk | contribs)232 edits →Sockpuppet investigation← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:42, 22 July 2016 edit undoLavaBaron (talk | contribs)17,075 edits →Sockpuppet investigationNext edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| :It's never "just advice," it's never a "well-meaning" accuser, and he never does it "accidentally." ] (]) 15:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Ocdgrammarian | :It's never "just advice," it's never a "well-meaning" accuser, and he never does it "accidentally." ] (]) 15:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Ocdgrammarian | ||
| ::Wait - weren't you a Cuban dissident or something last time? ] (]) 15:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:42, 22 July 2016
Welcome!
Hello, Ocdgrammarian, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Eduardo Kausel, may not conform to some of Misplaced Pages's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Contributing to Misplaced Pages
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kiwi128 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Eduardo Kausel
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Eduardo Kausel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kiwi128 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Status and Advice
- As reviewing administrator, I did not delete the article because of course he is notable. But some of the language is promotional. Please remove the adjectives, and we do not refer to people as Dr. Please add linksto as many sources as possible. I will check it later today. And also please see WP:COI. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
July 2016
There has been a RfC on Talk:Frank Gaffney which resulted in consensus that Gaffney should be described as "a proponent of conspiracy theories" in the article, since that is one of the things he's notable for. So no, that wasn't "vandalism", and it was extremely well sourced. Along with the phrase, you removed 8 (!) sources. Please use the talkpage if you wish to question the current version further. Don't edit war, as I just now notice you're doing (describing the sources as "unhinged"). You edited boldly, but when you're reverted you need to respect WP:BRD. Bishonen | talk 10:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC).
- He's notable for being accused by far-left extremists of being a conspiracy theorist. The "well sourced" sources belong in that category. I see you've decided by consensus to be blatantly POV in this article. I don't have time for an edit war, so revert it back, but you folks are the reason Misplaced Pages gets a bad name when it comes to political topics.
- I believe you misunderstand my position. I have never edited the article or its talkpage, and don't intend to; I haven't formed an opinion about Frank Gaffney, or taken part in any consensus. I'm warning you as an uninvolved administrator that you need to follow our rules. Please discuss, don't edit war, and don't disrupt Misplaced Pages. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC).
- (talk page stalker) Actually Bish, you have edited the article. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You mean where I restored removal (by a different user) of the same sources in question here a few days ago — only restored the sources, changed nothing else — and/or where I semiprotected the article in October 2015? Check. If you call that editing, sure, I have. If you think that makes me involved wrt this article, I disagree. Bishonen | talk 14:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC).
- Yep, some might argue you are involved. Not me. Some. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You mean where I restored removal (by a different user) of the same sources in question here a few days ago — only restored the sources, changed nothing else — and/or where I semiprotected the article in October 2015? Check. If you call that editing, sure, I have. If you think that makes me involved wrt this article, I disagree. Bishonen | talk 14:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC).
- True. None of the sources are far-left except perhaps from the perspective of someone on the furthest right for whom almost anyone, say, supporting Obama must be far left. There's a misunderstanding of NPOV here as well, not surprising for such an inexperienced editor. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Doug, I might be an inexperienced editor, but I know something about the American political spectrum. The sources for the claim that Gaffney is a conspiracy theorist are mostly opinion pieces by leftists attacking Republicans, and hitting Gaffney in the process. Here's one of the sources: "The Iran Deal Opponents Are Going to Fight to the Bitter End," published in The Nation (which self-identifies as left-wing). The op-ed blasts Republicans and pro-Israel Jews as "neocon apparatchiks."Then we have: "The Republicans' Muslim 'problem'" - another opinion hit piece on Republicans. Moving on: "GOP Presidential Candidates Will Appear Alongside Disgraced Conspiracy Theorist John Guandolo." (That source link is broken, by the way. I'm too inexperienced to fix it.) And, finally: "Bachmann, Gaffney, and the GOP's Anti-Muslim Culture of Conspiracy." QED
- (talk page stalker) Actually Bish, you have edited the article. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I believe you misunderstand my position. I have never edited the article or its talkpage, and don't intend to; I haven't formed an opinion about Frank Gaffney, or taken part in any consensus. I'm warning you as an uninvolved administrator that you need to follow our rules. Please discuss, don't edit war, and don't disrupt Misplaced Pages. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC).
- Look, if you're fine with letting editors source the claim that Gaffney is a conspiracy theorist with opinion pieces arguing that half of America's political spectrum is composed of conspiracy theorists - that's your call, but it doesn't seem to me to be very NPOV or "extremely well sourced."
- Ultimately, the main problem with this Misplaced Pages article on Gaffney, however, is that it mostly cribs the Southern Poverty Law Center as its main source - and also relies on sources that themselves source SPLC. The SPLC has been described as a far-left fear-mongering group by such bastions of the "furthest right" as The Nation and Harper's Magazine. The Harper's piece was written by Ken Silverstein, who supports Obama's policies, but also sometimes criticizes them FROM the left. Silverstein, who, according to Misplaced Pages has written for such far right media outlets as "Mother Jones, Washington Monthly, The Nation, Slate, and Salon," accused SPLC of being "essentially a fraud has a habit of casually labeling organizations as “hate groups.” Silverstein wrote: "In doing so, the SPLC shuts down debate stifles free speech." I would add that it also inspires acts of far-left political violence - as referenced on Misplaced Pages. It's highly unfortunate that the SPLC's hysteric attack on Frank Gaffney is being used as the main source for criticism of him on Misplaced Pages. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Ocdgrammarian
- Incorrect. The claim of Gaffney being a conspiracy theorist is substantially sourced to non-opinion reportage on CNN and The Daily Beast, as well as editorial commentary on Reason and American Conservative Magazine (the SPLC is incidental and, in any case, has already been held by the RS noticeboard as a RS). If, like your previous userids, your fundamental claim is that all media are engaged in a conspiracy against Gaffney (that, in fact, American Conservative Magazine and Reason have been infiltrated by the so-called "left" for the purposes of impugning Gaffney on Misplaced Pages) and that, therefore, no sources are qualified to comment on Gaffney, you may find yourself continuously frustrated at projects like Misplaced Pages, as I've previously communicated to your other personalities.
- In the meantime, many of us would appreciate it if you could let Frank know, next time you see him in the office, that simply shotgunning this same line that hasn't worked the last 20 times, repeatedly, in hope it will work the 21st time, is tedious for all of us. LavaBaron (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- LavaBaron: Incorrect. The CNN article source literally has "opinion" in the hyperlink. (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/21/opinions/bergen-muslim-religious-tolerance/) The Daily Beast article is also an opinion piece by a contributing columnist, not a reporter. The Reason article was written by Dave Weigel, who had to resign from the Washington Post in 2010 after his nasty biased comments about conservatives on the JournoList were leaked. My point is that it's not all media that are critical of Gaffney - you just make it seem like it by sourcing only those media that confirm your biases about him - and perhaps conservatives in general. But, we can discuss and argue about all of this. What I can't argue against are the extremely bilious hostility and personal aspersions from you. Do you really think that the 21 people who have disagreed with you and pointed out what they consider to be your bias are all really one guy being paid off by Gaffney? That's what's called, dare I say it, a conspiracy theory. Look, my edit history is wide open for you to see, so let me tell you something about myself. I love Misplaced Pages. I've surfed it every night in bed before going to sleep for the past few years - mostly very ancient history and geology articles. I have definitely learned a lot. I'm a stickler for grammar so a few years ago, I started making little grammar edits on the articles I read - first without an account, and then through Ocdgrammarian. Recently, I've gotten interested in providing some more substantial contributions. I made a page for a professor friend at MIT - Eduardo Kausel - who, coincidentally, is a prominent scientific debunker of the 9/11 Truther "jet fuel can't bring down a building" conspiracy theory. I made balancing edits to a page for an organization that I follow locally in Boston. Through that organization, I heard Gaffney speak in the Boston area. Yes, I'm a conservative and, yes, I think Gaffney has a lot of important things to say. I also think he's said some controversial things, and that getting this history across in the Gaffney article could have been done in a much less obviously biased way. But, given how highly I'd thought of Misplaced Pages, I never expected to be accused by a Misplaced Pages editor of a conspiracy where I'm being paid off by Gaffney to make your life tedious. It's very disappointing - I really did not realize the nastiness that happens behind the scenes here. I'm going back to my history and geology articles and will stay away from the "mean girls club," but, thanks to you, those articles will be just a little less fun to read. Is that really what being involved in the Misplaced Pages community is all about? Ocdgrammarian (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
- Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like you were being "paid off" by Gaffney, as I doubt you are. It was a poorly-worded observation that, every six weeks, when a dormant account (like yours) suddenly becomes active to make Gaffney-article edits, they all seem to (1) engage in the same style of WP:WALLOFTEXT expressions of outrage that you just demonstrated above, and, (2) declaim that the Gaffney article is all sourced to dirty leftists (see: for example here). So far 13 of them (that we've bothered investigating) have turned out to be socks and been blocked accordingly, but I'm not accusing you of being #14, just advising you to self-police your style of contribution so a well-meaning editor doesn't accidentally accuse you.
- As for whether the article uses valid RS or if it relies too heavily on vile leftists, the only way this can be changed is through a new RfC that trumps the previous one. I'd suggest you open one and make your case there. Don't hesitate to let me know if you need help opening a RFC as I'm happy to assist. LavaBaron (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- LavaBaron: Incorrect. The CNN article source literally has "opinion" in the hyperlink. (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/21/opinions/bergen-muslim-religious-tolerance/) The Daily Beast article is also an opinion piece by a contributing columnist, not a reporter. The Reason article was written by Dave Weigel, who had to resign from the Washington Post in 2010 after his nasty biased comments about conservatives on the JournoList were leaked. My point is that it's not all media that are critical of Gaffney - you just make it seem like it by sourcing only those media that confirm your biases about him - and perhaps conservatives in general. But, we can discuss and argue about all of this. What I can't argue against are the extremely bilious hostility and personal aspersions from you. Do you really think that the 21 people who have disagreed with you and pointed out what they consider to be your bias are all really one guy being paid off by Gaffney? That's what's called, dare I say it, a conspiracy theory. Look, my edit history is wide open for you to see, so let me tell you something about myself. I love Misplaced Pages. I've surfed it every night in bed before going to sleep for the past few years - mostly very ancient history and geology articles. I have definitely learned a lot. I'm a stickler for grammar so a few years ago, I started making little grammar edits on the articles I read - first without an account, and then through Ocdgrammarian. Recently, I've gotten interested in providing some more substantial contributions. I made a page for a professor friend at MIT - Eduardo Kausel - who, coincidentally, is a prominent scientific debunker of the 9/11 Truther "jet fuel can't bring down a building" conspiracy theory. I made balancing edits to a page for an organization that I follow locally in Boston. Through that organization, I heard Gaffney speak in the Boston area. Yes, I'm a conservative and, yes, I think Gaffney has a lot of important things to say. I also think he's said some controversial things, and that getting this history across in the Gaffney article could have been done in a much less obviously biased way. But, given how highly I'd thought of Misplaced Pages, I never expected to be accused by a Misplaced Pages editor of a conspiracy where I'm being paid off by Gaffney to make your life tedious. It's very disappointing - I really did not realize the nastiness that happens behind the scenes here. I'm going back to my history and geology articles and will stay away from the "mean girls club," but, thanks to you, those articles will be just a little less fun to read. Is that really what being involved in the Misplaced Pages community is all about? Ocdgrammarian (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Ocdgrammarian
- Ultimately, the main problem with this Misplaced Pages article on Gaffney, however, is that it mostly cribs the Southern Poverty Law Center as its main source - and also relies on sources that themselves source SPLC. The SPLC has been described as a far-left fear-mongering group by such bastions of the "furthest right" as The Nation and Harper's Magazine. The Harper's piece was written by Ken Silverstein, who supports Obama's policies, but also sometimes criticizes them FROM the left. Silverstein, who, according to Misplaced Pages has written for such far right media outlets as "Mother Jones, Washington Monthly, The Nation, Slate, and Salon," accused SPLC of being "essentially a fraud has a habit of casually labeling organizations as “hate groups.” Silverstein wrote: "In doing so, the SPLC shuts down debate stifles free speech." I would add that it also inspires acts of far-left political violence - as referenced on Misplaced Pages. It's highly unfortunate that the SPLC's hysteric attack on Frank Gaffney is being used as the main source for criticism of him on Misplaced Pages. Ocdgrammarian (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Ocdgrammarian
Sockpuppet investigation
Hi - you're the subject of a SPI investigation here. You know the drill. LavaBaron (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm from the former Soviet Union, LavaBaron, so I'm pretty familiar with these kinds of threats you made on my talk page: "just advising you to self-police your style of contribution so a well-meaning editor doesn't accidentally accuse you."
- It's never "just advice," it's never a "well-meaning" accuser, and he never does it "accidentally." Ocdgrammarian (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Ocdgrammarian
- Wait - weren't you a Cuban dissident or something last time? LavaBaron (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)