User talk:88.109.194.57

'''An illustration of the inherent pointlessness of Wikipedia/ the waste of time it represents:

See here, whosoever might come across it, a truly disgraceful display of manipulative behaviour and employment of emotive language and terms on the part of problematic editor Storye book (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Storye_book), who refuses to conform to Wikipedia standards regarding citation of primary sources- see particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources : "Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name" - or use common sense:

From the talkpage of the article on John Wormald Appleyard- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Wormald_Appleyard - where, her severe over-reliance on primary sources being challenged, she immediately leaps to the defensive and, ironically, becomes perfectly offensive in so doing, despite crying injury and victimization: ''' Citations The citations for much of the information in this article- and, it bears observing, other articles by User:Storye book, are not in accordance with Wikipedia standards, at least those upheld in most articles. Why is it that he is able to get away with citing FreeBMD/ primary sources despite the guidelines at Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources on the basis that "one day a published source will no doubt turn up", when in virtually no other case is such permitted? Take for example the citation of Appleyard's probate record- "National Probate Calendar,index of wills and administration 1894." Not even a direct, detailed citation of the record source cited? The above is quite aside from the fact that far too much detail is given of article subjects' antecedents, in opposition to NOTGENEALOGY; take, in this article's case, a source such as https://www.thoresby.org.uk/content/people/appleyard.php - this supports much of the family detail without some of the tedious specificities, and does not necessitate reliance upon alleged b/m/d certificates. There is only Storye book's word/ self-confidence to justify he has located the correct records. It is for exactly this reason that the point made at Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources- "it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name" is mentioned there. It doesn't matter how distinctive an individual's name might be, the distinctiveness does not wholly preclude the possibility of another identically-named individual, particularly taking into account, for example, situations such as cousins born in the same year both named after a grandfather. The rationale given here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Storye_book/Archive_22 - "I have had chunks removed from C19 biographies that I've created, on the grounds of OR due to having to use bmd's and the like in the absence of secondary backup sources, when actually it would have been better to leave the article uncut and to wait for further sources to turn up" - amounts to articles sitting there for years on end "waiting" for "someone" to produce a reliable published source and make it available for him/ any other user to cite in support of the statements made in his articles. The sandbox is the only appropriate place for all this original research, which can then be inserted to the article when a reliable published source appears. It's always quite bewildering how some users here manage to carve out their own little territory where no rules seem to apply but their own. Another point worth mentioning- this article has too many images in it, probably another idiosyncrasy of the article creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.207.96 (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This matter re this article has already been dealt with in two previous discussions. A look at the family background of an artist or other achiever in a particular area is always worthwhile, because achievement always begs the question of whether they could have been aided or supported in their achievement, or whether, for example, they have achieved against all odds. Social class and family income also made a great difference in the likelihood of notable achievement in 19th century England. There is no deception here. References are given, and it is up to the reader to check them out and have their own opinion on the matter. All articles can be improved by adding more information, but pruning a biography just for the sake of it is not helpful per se. Storye book (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is all just self-justificatory waffle. What you're essentially saying is "because I want it to be so, and place a particular value on a particular thing, the rules are to be disregarded", which... isn't how the world works, I'm afraid. Someone who's been on Wikipedia for seventeen years or whatever your user page says really ought to know better, and the fact that you've been here that long, but STILL have "your own way of doing things" says a lot. A look at your article creations, unfortunately, clearly reveals this to be a persistent problem with you. Basically, your editing style is not that usually implemented in Wikipedia, and there are numerous examples- such as the above- of you making excuses for it. What it boils down to is that you're not falling in line with everyone else, and it seems that it will be necessary now to bring your habits to the attention of someone with the power to enforce adherence to the rules. Oh, and I apologise for referring to you as "he" previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.209.235 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to refrain from inaccurate/ deceptive edit summaries, your most recent being "Undo edit which removed perfectly valid ref by Thoresby Society, and which introduced material not covered by the sources"; my edit- trimming your overemphasis on primary sources not corroborated by reliable secondary sources, pertaining in the main to non-notable relatives- retained the Thoresby Society source (which I added to the article in the first place to replace much of your BMD stuff), and made reference only to specificities contained within. If we're entering the realms of "material not covered by the sources", that would refer to your synthesising and original research in BMD records. After so many years on Wikipedia, you ought to know- and conduct yourself- better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.209.235 (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Rules are to be followed with common sense. They are not there to be used to make unilateral judgements on individual editors, or as an excuse to prune articles just for the sake of it. Secondary sources often contain errors, because it has long been a habit of some historians to repeat baseless assertions made by previous classic historians, and when you attempt to check out those classic historians' citations, those citations may be non-existent (I paraphrase a comment made by historian AJP Taylor on the radio just before he died). Thus, when checking the background of a biography subject, it is always worth providing at least two sources for each assertion. So if there is only one secondary source for e.g. the birth of the biography subject, it is worth checking the GRO index to see whether there is an entry consistent with that. Any serious researcher using this article as a first-stop piece of information can then check the secondary source and purchase the birth certificate, since I usually give the GRO volume and page reference for them to do that. I am certainly not alone in creating articles in this way. The number of editors doing this is increasing, and no doubt in due course the rules which worry you so much will be adjusted to allow more information of this kind to be given, to aid researchers in the biography field.
 * Please do not add material which does not match the sources.
 * Please do not make comments which to me are now beginning to look like trolling, bullying and hounding. You have no right to make Wikipedia into an unsafe place for me, or any other editor, to work in. This matter has been discussed and resolved in the past, anyway. There is no point in repeating it. Example of trolling: "where no rules seem to apply but their own"; "idiosyncracy"; "self-justificatory waffle"; "you're saying ... the rules are to be disregarded"; "ought to know better"; "a persistent problem with you". That is offensive, and reflects only your own opinion, bearing in mind that this article has already been discussed and the matter resolved on this subject. Example of bullying: you have started to pursue an edit war by reinstating your own controversial edit instead of discussing it here first. Example of hounding: You have made a point of clearly spending a lot of obsessive time going through all my talk page archives and all my created articles, in order to find something to criticise. That is extremely creepy and offensive. Having now discovered that I am a woman, I note that you have made your tone nastier, saying, "it seems that it will be necessary now to bring your habits to the attention of someone with the power to enforce adherence to the rules.". It is particularly creepy that you are clearly experienced in and familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, but you are editing as an unregistered user, not signing your comments, and perhaps hiding your normal Wikipedia identity. I am beginning to find your attitude frightening, and I ask you to stop this, now. Storye book (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Madam, you are welcome to feign playing the cowering victim however you may; the point remains, you have a lengthy history of manipulating this project to meet your own standards, which are not supported by guidelines. Your appeals to emotion and imposition of your own demands for what is required in a biographical article are irrelevant. You may throw around whatever words such as "trolling, bullying and hounding" as you like if it makes you feel better about having your idiosyncratic editing style challenged, the facts remain. The fact that you refuse to concede in any regard whatever about the nature of your edits is worrying given your tenure here, and I think amply indicates your shrewd, ruthless approach to getting your own way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.209.235 (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

From the talkpage of administrator Keith D- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keith_D#John_Wormald_Appleyard - to whom she runs playing the part of defenceless victimized woman:

John Wormald Appleyard Please note the recent edits on the above article and its talk page. Please would you kindly help me? I am having trouble with an unregistered editor who may or may not have a valid point (I don't believe he has, but you are welcome to disagree on that), but he is trolling, hounding and bullying, and will not stop. He has also engaged in an edit war, taking cover in editing as an unregistered user, although he is clearly experienced in and familiar with the workings of Wikipedia.

If we were to ignore his trolling for a moment - the question that he raises, about the use of GRO index references for a biography subject, has already been dealt with in the past,in respect of the above article. You yourself have commented on it, I have added plenty of secondary sources in response to that discussion, and someone then removed the citations tag, saying that the background section now had sufficient secondary sources. The GRO index and Census references are only there as a double-check for the secondary sources, which in my experience are never fully reliable and don't always agree with each other on the subject of bmd dates etc. So he does not need to raise that issue again and he certainly does not need to raise it by trolling, hounding and bullying.

I am wondering if he is in reality a registered user who is currently blocked. It might be worth checking the IP address? Storye book (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Update: The above troll, (User contributions for 88.109.209.235) is now starting on my other created articles. See William John Seward Webber. This is worrying, as that article and some others will be going to DYK soon, and we don't want the articles to be unstable right now. Storye book (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * - cannot help with checking of the IP address as I have not got the authority for that. If you think that they are socking then you will have to raise a sockpupet investigation request for those with CheckUser privilege to do the checking. It certainly looks like they are an experienced user who knows the ropes. Probably the same person as 88.109.207.96. May be you would need to identify who you think is the blocked user to get someone to do a check. Keith D (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Keith D. I'm afraid that I have no idea of which registered username(s) the unregistered troll 88.109.209.235/88.109.207.96 may have used or is using - so according to the WP:SPI page I have no chance of raising an investigation request. If the troll persists in making disrupting edits, especially on pages which are going to DYK, and in hounding me and so on - would it be possible to block the IP addresses which he uses? Storye book (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - if they are causing problems, then I can block them for a time or indefinitely. I can now block them from editing specific pages, but I have not used that option since it was introduced. Keith D (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

'''Conclusion: with contributors such as this woman, with seventeen years+ on Wikipedia, knowing exactly what the right thing is to do but rejecting it in favour of her own preferences, and having recourse to the far-too-lenient application of the rules and, frankly, flawed judgement of administrators such as Keith D, Wikipedia is doomed to remain the subpar morass it currently is. What a great shame.'''