User talk:Bema Self

Welcome!

Hello, Bema Self, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

MMS
I've moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page (where new threads should be started) and left a reply. SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

reply
Thank you and my apologizes for putting it in the wrong place. I appreciate your help.

February 2012 MMS
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Miracle Mineral Supplement, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 14:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

reply
Thank you for messaging me Yunshui and for the welcome, I appreciate the direction. I have read the wiki on reliable sources, and I am more than willing to hunt down more reliable sources then the ones I found. In the meantime though, is there a way to consolidate the changes I made so that the wiki is not left in it's current biased state? The way it is, is not upholding the ethics of a wikipedia page - to provide current, unbiased and informative information. Please let me know if there is, and I will continue searching for sources that comply with wikipedia verifiability requirements.

New Complaint MMS
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Miracle Mineral Supplement. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Creating an inappropriate balance between expert toxicologists and people selling industrial bleach as a cure-all is pseudobalance. No reliable sources support any benefit but do report demonstrated harm.Novangelis (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

REPLY
Thank you for leaving a message. As someone who is desperately trying to make the wiki for MMS an unbiased wiki, I would have appreciated your information when you changed the first edit rather that simply leaving the reply in reason for editing as "no uses, over priced bleach".

Now, according the the wikipedia NPOV, the current form that you have changed the wiki back to, does not follow the NPOV rules either. As state in the rules it says:

"Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as "neutrality" means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view should not be interpreted as the exclusion of certain points of view. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia."

The current wiki only shows information from one side and of only one opinion, and by changing it back and not editing in a way that you find to be objective and reliable, you are also violating the NPOV rules. Clearly as it says above, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.", in my edit, it was my attempt to create an unbiased wiki, I am neither a supporter nor an opponent of MMS, and it is clear that you are an opponent of it, an are allowing that bias to effect the wiki page.

Another point: "the neutral point of view should NOT be interpreted as the exclusion of certain points of view." By suggesting that there should be no mention of the hypothetical (unproven) uses, you are excluding a point of view, simply because you do not agree with it, and not because it actually should not be included. Now, if you feel there is a way to change the wiki to reflect all points of view as much as possible, without violating verifiability issues, then please suggest those ideas or make the changes yourself.

The current form (that you changed back to), only shows information from organizations who have not thoroughly tested any potential medicinal values of MMS.

In the edit that I provided, I have attempted to make it clear with information is subjective, anecdotal or hypothetical, and which information is objective and verifiable. What is so wrong with that? How does it not fit into the NPOV? None of it is my opinion, it is a combination of the information already provided in the original MMS article, with more organization, and simply provides the information provided by those whom have used or support MMS. As information is provided by those who are against MMS, I do not see any reason not to reflect the opposite side. My only opinion, which is reflected in this wiki, is that the information should be unbiased, clearly defined and organized better, regardless of the subject.

According to the NPOV, by keeping the page the same without any changes, you are violating the "Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone." rule. According to the ratings the page is getting, I am not the only one who sees the clearly biased tone in this wiki.

The only part in the NPOV where you might be thinking that the information I added was inappropriate is under the "giving equal validity" rule, where it says "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world."

However, with that taken into consideration, the information I proved did not promote or instruct anyone to follow instructions on using MMS nor to do the opposite, it only provided the information of what Jim Humble and his supporters have reportedly used the substance for, as well as information from those refuting those claims. And being that hundreds of thousands of people have used MMS, it is not such a small minority (such as the minority of those who think the earth is still "Flat"), that it should be left out.

If you are really so passionate as to not including both sides of information, then the bias in the original wiki needs to be removed, or the whole wiki needs to be deleted because no one can agree on the appropriate way to provide the wiki under the terms of the NPOV, and since no FDA controlled studies or trials on humans have happened, then it cannot be proved that MMS does not work in the way supporters claim it does nor can it be proven that it was anything more than a placebo effect for those that say its helped them, which retains that the views in the current MMS page are just as much pseudoscience as the other side of the coin from supporters. There is no scientific support for the medicinal use of MMS in humans, which means that both sides are subjective to personal opinion.

With all that information, we might as well remove the entire MMS wiki, and when someone searches for MMS, it should be sent to the wiki for "Chlorine Dioxide" and left at that.

Ideally, I would really like to see the MMS wiki become something more like the subject of Colloidal Silver ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloidal_silver#Alternative_medicine ) which describes all points of view, but is not biased and does not under-balance the subject on the basis of claims made by one side of the subject or the other.

reply
I have revised the page once again, to remove any other information that might be perceived as opinion, other than from the Controversy section, and have added reliable and verifiable sources of information pertaining the uses of Chlorine Dioxide in any relevant manner to the MMS wiki page.

Warring Warning
Your recent editing history at Miracle Mineral Supplement shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.Novangelis (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Yes, I recently read about the "3rr" and wiki warring. It wasn't until someone showed me how to reach an admin, that I realized there were other options. And trust me, I won't be attempting any changes anymore. I put hours of my time into making those changes in good faith and in an honest effort to bring up the educational value of the MMS page, which clearly you do not want to happen, as even you have violated the 3rr rule, among other rules. I will attempt to use the talk page to make changes, and I am seeking the help of an outside admin in this process. Though until some meaningful, unbiased and significant changes are made to this page, my new campaign will be to either have the page removed in it's entirety, and to write several articles about the bias of wikipedia and all users who have refused to make any significant changes and then use my social media pull to make sure EVERYONE knows about it. It isn't about the subject, it's about not censoring information just because you don't agree with it. It is my hope that before I get done with that, we can all come to agreement, but from the history of that page, I am doubtful that it will.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me, this seems to be the biggest thing I forget to do, though I am improving and am doing my best to remember to sign my posts. --Bema Self (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Bema, I'm sorry that other editors on the MMS talk page haven't been very friendly. Whilst they could have been kinder to you, the general message that they are saying is correct in that we have to report what other sources say about MMS. You may find the essay Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat useful - while not an official policy or guideline itself, it explains how we as a project should deal with things like MMS. Imagine changing "the earth is not flat" to "MMS can cure disease" and hopefully you can see where we are coming from. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice SmartSE. I do understand, and although my frustration and defensiveness didn't help make my intentions clear, it was never my intention to suggest that MMS could cure cancer, or to say that a poop sandwich is anything other than a poop sandwich, lol. I was more thinking to do something like WP:ENEMY suggests, though I'm not sure just how to do that anymore.... As far as what the other editors were saying in correction to my naive ways, I'm glad to have direction, it just doesn't help to be spit on in the process, if ya know what I mean, lol.


 * In anycase, I'm going to attempt to try to some simply formatting fixes later, and organize the article a little bit, without actually changing any of the content. I've been trying to get more involved with less controversial topics first, to get to know wikipedia together, though I don't want to just give up on the mms article, which could at very least use the formatting help. I'm not exactly sure how to go about it, whether to talk first about something so trivial or be bold, make the edit and see what happens... As far as the WP:ENEMY idea that I feel would really balance the article, though I'm still new and I'd rather not feed into the situation, so I don't know if I'll push that concern, because it clearly is not very receptive to the consensus currently. I've already made too many mistakes, and am timid about trying even anything small at this point, but it has been suggested that I don't give up just yet, so I'm trying not to.


 * Thanks again for the advice. I do appreciate it, and I hope I've understood the message you were trying to convey to me? I feel you come with much softer "tones" in your words, if that doesn't seem weird, which seems to make your meaning clearer to me. Though I figure I might as well double check from here on out, just so I don't make any more assumptions. <3 --Bema Self (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My First Edit War

 * I moved the post back to the main page, cause thats were I intended it to stay, lol. Though thanks for moving the convo here to the talk page =) --Bema Self (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I think there is a basic rule somewhere that says any attempt to fix a mistake will contain another mistake. (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * Uninvolved editor here weighing in with an opinion.


 * Two issues. One, does the page need to be changed in the ways you advocate? Two, are various editors being civil?


 * First, thanks for your thoughts. Second, I do feel the page could use some clean up and adjustments here and there. The formatting is unclean and unstructured. The content seems to have a lack of all information, which makes it inaccurate in several ways. Now, these might just be my POV, I don't know, the sad ratings the page has been getting for years, not to mention the endless arguments over the same issues on the talk page, would seem to agree with me, but idk for sure anymore.


 * As for being uncivil... the issue is hard to explain. From my point of view, I would say they are being very uncivil, though it's clear that they are dancing in that gray area, where even if they are being rude, it's not rude enough, if that makes sense. The other problem, is that I've been uncivil myself. This was my first true experience on wikipedia, and I felt rather mistreated when it looked like someone used an anti-vandalism tool on my first few edits, before the arguments even got started, and then it just seemed really unfair when I kept getting reverted again and again with no explanation. I admit it, I lashed out because of it, and the only thing it resulted in was more brow beating. So I went back and tried to correct my behavior and apologize, play nice the wiki-way. Though in my opinion, it didn't do any good. Maybe I didn't give it a long enough chance, but it just seemed like it wasn't going to do any good to try and adjust anything else without going through dispute resolution to try and get some outside opinions on the situation. And the last time I checked, the only good that did, was to get more negative attention from the same people, even though I tried to make it clear that we all made mistakes and that all I wanted was to feel like we could all move on and get back to the article. I want to go back and check, but a part of me wonders if it's even worth it at this point.

I've spent three days reading policies, guidelines and essays, done everything to try "get with the program". I know that I'm not as crazy as I am being made out to be, yet it feels like I'm being backed up to a cliff, where they hope I'll either give up and run away, or make another mistake and get shoved of the ledge. What makes it more difficult is that I don't want to beat a dead horse carcass with a stick.. Though I don't want to give up on something that should be so simple... --Bema Self (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The answer to the second question is that some are and some most definitely aren't. That's a Bad Thing, because it discourages new users such as yourself.


 * Here is how I suggest you deal with this. First, deal with the issue of whether the page needs changes (more on that later). Ignore any incivility (and especially don't respond with incivility yourself) and focus on improving the page. I have put the page on my watch list and if someone is so uncivil that it interferes with working on improving the page, I will tell them to knock it off.


 * Second, does the page need to be changed in the ways you advocate? The basic rule is that we talk about users on user talk pages and we talk about articles on article talk pages, so I will address this on Talk:Miracle Mineral Supplement


 * I will add more on the talk page, as you suggested, though I will say that as far as the content, it doesn't necessarily have to be changed in the way that I have previously advocated, though I do feel it would be beneficial to it. It's clear that "my" ideas might not be the "right" ones, so any corrections that don't contribute to the current problem, would be nice at this point, I've resigned myself to that.--Bema Self (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see that you have gotten to a rough start, and it is only partially your fault -- and the editors who were uncivil towards you should have known better. I am going to jump in to this issue and try to help. I have no bias either way (never heard of MMS before today). My goal is to help you to better understand what is and isn't correct in Wikipedia articles and to encourage certain other editors to stop acting like jerks and biting newbies.  This may involve disagreeing with you, but that's just because we all get things wrong when we are just starting. Everybody understands, because we have all been there. You wouldn't believe how badly I screwed up at first...


 * Finally, I would encourage you to get in some practice by picking a poorly written page on a non-controversial topic that interests you and making it better. This will help you to better learn the nuts and bolts of editing without the added dram of a dispute with other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice Guy, seriously. When I saw there was a "message" for me, I figured it was just going to be more of the same. It's so frustrating, and it's glad not to feel alone. I'm not even asking for anyone to hold my hand, just for someone to give me a chance now that I've caught up a little better.


 * I am going to check and see if the DR has gone in any positive directions... I tried to open it up in an attempt to get some third party opinions about the civility issues due to the high controversy on the subject, and to at least create a workable truce or something that would allow everyone to be objective on the article (which I learned later that objectivity really doesn't matter here...), though I think I came across as trying to play the "victim"...uhg... Anyways, after that, I'll come back to the MMS talk page, and try to make some simple edits to the formatting. Maybe that will be met with a better reception, and the rest of the issues can be discussed (civilly I hope), without accusations from anyone.


 * Thank you again, for the encouragement. Hopefully fewer mistakes from me, and some thicker skin will help the process go along a little smoother. As for uncontroversial subjects, I'm starting to wonder if there are any here on wikipedia, lol. --Bema Self (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Worries
Gosh, I am really glad you exist, Bema Self. You were unbelievably polite, bold, and diplomatic in Troll’s RfC, thank you very much for being such an inspiration to me. Let me say that my concern here hovers over this house (our Wikipedia), and I am telling you all this because may be you can use this to improve Wikipedia. That said, please allow me unfold some succeeding events to your appreciation:
 * Subsequently your comments over there, user Bloodofox (Bf) responded you with an arrogant and nasty answer (in my opinion). I am not questioning his expertize, but I call the attention to his intolerance with other users, intolerance with other POVs, his failure in civility (I don’t remember these links, I never do), his failures in WP:OWN, WP:BLUE, WP:GAME, WP:ALSO and probably others. Moreover, shortly after, Bf again reverted the edits at issue (to be fair he left one link added by DreamofNyx (DN) related to Norse mythology). Meanwhile I started an inspection of links added by DN in Troll. All those links revealed similarities or connections with Troll character in some level. Obviously this doesn’t mean that those links necessarily carry the same "genetic" or origin of entities related to the Trolls (we can see a occasional syncretism between distinct folklores). For example DN linked Fairy tale article, which as you know is a subject stuffed with a myriad of entities including, obviously, Trolls and variations. Then I checked the articles edited by Bf. None, I said none, provides  with links to non-Norse topics. Those articles are a constrained Bf’s Germanic sphere. I challenge you to add a non-Norse link in these articles (especially if not logged). For example how about a link like Troll (film) (I made up this example) or any similar entity from the Indian mythology? No chance, I bet you will be reverted soon or later by him. Then I peeped other Rfc started by Bf. Disregarding my opinion in the issues over there, I realized in that discussion a minority including him, of course, taking authoritative/dictatorial choices and actions without consensus. Next step I checked his summaries and found pearls such as: “keep your hands off of them”, etc.

As I see it such attitudes encourage disruption and an intense evasion of users, that is, loss of human resources. I ask you how Wikipedia deals with chronic cases like that? Academictask (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for the comment. It's nice to try and collaborate on how we can help improve articles. Bf isn't the first editor I've come across who are so clearly violating WP:OWN. Though when I saw there was a request for comment from the troll article, and I came across the same situation, I did my best to look up the Wiki-procedures on how such issues are dealt with. So I looked up everything possible on WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:WIKILAWYERING and anything else I could get my hands on, especially any guides on how to handle those who are taking ownership of articles. I did this after also checking out Bf's previous edits, and noticed that the Troll article isn't his first incident of taking over. Now, as much as I or anyone else may think it's obvious that Bf is committed a WP:OWN and WP:DE, we have to take into account that Bf just may not realize how inappropriate that behavior is. Especially since I have not found any archives in Wikiquette, Rfc or any "official" areas, where anyone has brought any attention to the issue. Ironically, if Bf had not asked for the RfC, he'd probably be getting away with all he's doing with no questions about the situation. So, the first step, is to make sure that we don't assume he is not acting in Good Faith. I think we can safely assume that he "thinks" he is protecting the information from vandals. Regardless of the rude manner in which he may be "protecting" the articles, I think we can safely say that he's not acting intentionally out of bad faith.


 * So, going under the assumption of good faith, the next step is to engage him in civil ways. Whatever we do, we don't want to become more of the problem. What we need to do, is give our best damn effort to working with him, as if he weren't being rude or objectionable. The aim of the game is to ignore the bad behavior and push towards developing the article. Out of that, what's going to happen are a number of things -


 * He'll either realize that he needs to clean up his own act, if he's going to hold everyone to such high standards, which will help add more to the article. Or...


 * He'll give every excuse for not doing as he asks everyone else to do, become uncivil and eventually prove that he is violating WP:OWN.


 * If he takes the first option, the problems can be resolved, albeit will be arduous work working with him, but progress and civility is still progress.


 * If he takes the second option... as it sounds like he's already starting to do, then he'll be the only one pushing the boulder in front of the cave door. After we have thoroughly tried to work with him, by adding to the work, editing or disputing work already in the article, the next step will be Dispute Resolution/Wikiquette Assistance. That is where we'll bring him in and address any issues of incivility, rudeness, ownership issues or disruptive editing. Those arenas give him a chance to try and understand his inappropriate behavior, and it's our time to make sure he knows that we value his knowledge and expertise, but not his behaviors and actions. Others will step in at that time and try to help out as well, and we'll have to give that process a little bit of time to work or not. After that process, we'll go back to the article and try again to help improve the article, and if that only results in the same behavior, we'll make our own RfC on Bf's behavior. If that doesn't work, I believe involving admins is the next step, but I've not yet had to go that far with anyone, so we'll cross that bridge if we reach it.


 * The main goal at this point, is to work with Bf as if he were not being rude or uncivil. If he does become uncivil or continues to be difficult, we can gently remind him of WP policies about those behaviors, if continued, that will follow with a warning template on his personal page with some kind suggestions that he behave more appropriately. I would suggest, that if you have said anything uncivil yourself, that you might want to go back and strike through it, and then leave your apologies for reacting to former comments. It's hard, but try not to use that moment to attack anyone elses behavior or give reason. Just apologize for an uncivil actions on your part, which will show that you aren't trying to contribute to the problem. It's understandable to react to rude behavior, and unavoidable sometimes, but we can at least show that we understand where we might have contributed to the problem.


 * Now, I have a couple of things to do AFK, but then I'll come back, review what Bf said, and see if it's something I can work with (if the rudeness is ignored). Either way, I will continue to figure out where there are issues with the content, and not with any of the editors. If there is something on there that I clearly cannot change or contribute to because of Bf or any other editors, then I will simply challenge the work and ask the person who contributed to it, to provide verifiable sources.


 * You can do the same, which would be helpful, because in the process of dealing with any WP:OWN issues, you have to have at least two people who go through the proper channels and processes, in order to make sure everything is fair. Just make sure not to invite anyone to gang up on Bf either. The challenge is trying to stay objective - We are trying to help the content improve. If that doesn't happen, then we are try to help him change his own behavior. As much as you or I might not like his behavior, he clearly has taken the time to really focus on this content and is doing what he thinks is right. So we don't want to push him out of contributing or make any intentional efforts to get him in trouble.


 * I'm pretty new as far as contributing and dealing with disputes, so if I'm interpreting the process wrong, I hope someone will step in. But this seems to be the method of getting through issues without having to escalate the situation to involve admins who are already over-worked. If I've got it right, then hopefully the issues will resolve themselves or we can get help.


 * Another thing just to keep in mind, from what I have read from WP:CONSENSUS, an editor is only required to have consensus when content is disputed. He has already gone beyond a few times, but I want to give him a chance to see his errors before taking it further. It may sound silly, but he just might not realize it. Which usually has a lot to do with how other editors have approached the situation. A lot of people have come in and tried to help, but reacted to his sly insults and attempts at WP:FILIBUSTERING style, which he in turn reacted to. Just creating a cycle that no admin wants to touch with a 50 foot pipe, lol.


 * Anyways, I'm rambling again. I really need to work on that here in wikipedia, cause it seems that the shortest and yet most informative and neutral answers seem to be the best around here. Let's keep in contact while we try to help resolve the disputes and clean up the content, so that we are aware of what's going on as the situation unfolds or resolves. --Bema Self (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I went back to the talk form, and although the original response under "see also additions", was very rude, I just ignored it. The comment left under my WP:CHALLENGE was much more civil, and I've left a list of issues with citations and other things. It is my hope that he'll continue to be civil and help correct the issues with the page, or at least allow someone else to do it. =) --Bema Self (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is more a note for myself than anything else, but Bf removed the "POV dispute" template placed by a bot a few days ago, before consensus was reached on the issues in the "see also" section, so i replaced it and left and edit summary explaining that it cannot be removed until a consensus is reached on the issue. Removing that template without consensus is against Wiki-policies. I've copied the diff for that, hopefully it won't happen again. --Bema Self (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Bema Self, your reply is much more than I expected, and more than I deserve, thanks for it. Doing a criticism to myself, I think I am not spiritually prepared to perform according to all said by you. I can realize the bad behaviors out there, but probably I need to step away in some point for not jeopardizing myself to become a troglodyte. May be this said by you is the right thing to do (probably it is), but in my crazy world, assuming good faith or not, I figure that while Wikipedia is trying save the soul of one "expertize", over the years dozens of souls were lost because of him. This is the reckoning that I do. If I may emphasize, your best tool in this enterprise is just watch what this user is doing, and keep in mind not play the game according the rules of any user. Remember that throughout history some persons use the expected strategy of:  promoting the sources approved by them; denigrate sources and scholars who they disagree; address that only they own reasonable arguments; and rate your reasons as nonsense or worthless. Ut divina lux illuminare te. All the best, Academictask (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You know, sometimes stepping away is the exact right thing to do. I know in my personal issues with another article here, I had to step back and look at the situation from a completely different perspective. And although I might not agree with what others are doing, sometimes there is good justification, and all it takes to get meaningful change is to stop fighting with each other and play nice. I've learned that I can contribute without being disruptive myself, because we definitely can't fight fire with fire, lol.


 * As far as trying to save an expert, over years of hard work from other editors who may not have the same expertise, I agree that all that hard work should not be deleted - but worked with instead. My goal is to be persuasive instead of demanding, and try to show a need for incorporating some of the older work - plus some newer ideas, while not demeaning any of the work that is there and not going against any of Wikipedia's main pillars. It's a fine line to dance on an issue like Folklore. If there are verifiable sources for something, we should use them first and make the article about those sources in main context, then link to other sources that may or may not have the same notability, but are worthy enough to be noted. I think a balance can be achieved, though we'll see. I've learned a lot more about Trolls in this experience then I ever expected to, but I am far from a troll expert. I've also spent much of the last five or six years studying folklore for a personal/spiritual hobby, and while not being an expert there either, I do feel that the article could use some "feathering" in terms of any comparative references, diversity of culture and any notable speculation.


 * Anyways, hopefully if everything goes well, the content will become more. That is the main point. We can't help who we are, and we can't always play nice with others, but the content can always be changed, and there's no rush to do it. --Bema Self (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Read your comments on Talk:Troll
I know next to nothing about Norse mythology, so I won't take part in the RfC there, but allow me some comments. I'm sure you're trying to help, but Bloodofox has more than 17000 edits on en.wikipedia, you don't need to provide him/her links to WP:V and other policies and guidelines, it's enough to ask for sources if there's a problem with verifying content.

The sources in the article all look OK to me, even though some links are broken (that's nothing unusual, see WP:LINKROT). The first thing I do when I get a 404 error is to search an internet archive like the wayback machine. That way, you'll find source #1. this doesn't work for the "Dictionary of Northern Mythology", I guess google doesn't allow archiving as books.google sometimes has large chunks of books as preview (or even the whole book) and the copyright holder may only want to make them available for a limited time, but the google books page is still available (without preview) and it uses the same ISBN our article cites (you need to scroll down for the details). The same is true for the Dictionary of Norse Myth and Legend. The Thorpe book is from 1851, ISBN numbers didn't exist back then. These are things you should check before accusing another editor of original research (though Bloodofox doesn't seem to have taken it the wrong way).

Also please be aware that WP:V doesn't mean anyone must be able to verify content, so even if you personally aren't able to (be it because your library can't get you a copy of some source or because the source is in another language or you're just not knowledgeable enough about the subject at hand), it can still be appropriate. --Six words (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help Six Words. I appreciate it, and I believe I understand. It certaintly does clear up a couple of questions I was curious about, but that I couldn't find in relation to WP:V and Folklore. That policy sure is a tricky one at times, isn't it? And I didn't even think about the year of Thorpe book, I have a few books of my own that are from that century (I love old books), I should've looked at it twice, lol. Still though, even most older books are available online or in most predominate book stores these days (the keyword being "most", not all).


 * On the issue of accusations, just to make sure we're on the same page, I didn't intentionally accuse anyone one editor of WP:OR (though I know it can seem that way because there has been one "main" contributor), as there has been more than one editor whose worked to get the article where it is, and I haven't gone through the complete archives of it, so I didn't want to assume that Bloodofox or anyone else was the only one who contributed the parts I'm challenging. It was my intention to challenge the content instead of any editors, because I couldn't verify some parts of the article that have been getting in the way of allowing others to contribute to the article, which is what it says to do in handling disputes and RfC's, work on the content first, not the editors.


 * So I read through everything that was listed as a resource, reference, citation or link, and did my best to find what was available online before I made the challenge (and noted what I noticed wasn't available), to make sure I wasn't unfounded in what I was asking. Then when an answer was given that didn't actually answer my questions in terms of WP:V to make sure it wasn't unintentional WP:OR or POV - which I figured was a misunderstanding (because I'm not good at explaining with only a few sentences) - I tried to be more detailed about the issues I found and why I challenged it, which then led me to a few other issues, and I offered to look up/find (and still intend to do so) myself, because I understand the size of the challenge I've made, and I don't think the task should be left up to just one person. If they definitely are not available, or they are in an obscure language that few can translate, then by all means, I agree with you, it's still beneficial to the article even without easy verification. Though doesn't that kind of limit those sources when it comes to limiting the work to only content of that sort of work?


 * In any case, I'm trying to look at things from all perspectives in the bigger picture. I found numerous other sites offering similar information and have even downloaded some ebooks about the topic of trolls and folklore from an academic perspective, to read through later and see if I can contribute anything meaningful. I've studied lots of folklore for personal reasons over the years, but I've definitely not taken a seriously thorough look from an academic perspective, so I'm trying to join what I know from being someone who has little academic experience on the subject, with that of someone who knows more than the "average joe". Hopefully that will help defuse any future arguments on the issue (or at least a reasonable amount of arguments, cause there's always somebody who doesn't care about any logic or rules, lol), and provide the reasons for why it is that way, since attacking each other never seems to get to the point of the issue and doesn't help the content.


 * And I don't know about you, but IMHO, I assume that there is nothing wrong with questioning the content or checking for accuracy in as much as can be expected. If it's as good as it gets, then it's as good as it gets, right? Though if there's room for improvement, shouldn't we all try to improve the content? If you've seen Bf's comment (which I haven't checked at this point) and he hasn't taken it the wrong way, then hopefully what I've done has been correct. It was my intention to defuse the situation by stopping the attacks on Bloodofox and any other contributors and get back to the issues that have been brought up about the content. I was hoping for others besides him/her to comment, but I'm trying to work with the issue with all contributors concerned and active in the process, and bloodofox is clearly an expert with valuable knowledge that is extremely helpful in keeping the article accurate. It's my intention to investigate the in's and out's of this article, why it is the way it is, whether or not it should be so limited, if we can add more to it and if we can possibly offer any better sources or links to some of the scrubbed content that took years of effort from other contributors.


 * I understand that it's not required in the folklore category, to have the same level of verifiability in other categories (for various obvious reasons), or that that everyone has to be able to see it, but it is nice when we can all see it, isn't it? Especially in terms of readers doing research or trying to educate themselves (who are usually half of the new editors) which is what wikipedia is really here for, isn't it? Which is why I tried to asked if 'anyone' might be able to provide any links that we could all see to verify the info. I didn't want to put the burden just on Bf either, another reason I asked tried to ask 'anyone' could provide the resources, though if he can provide that type of source, MPTH. I'm looking on my own as well, to help out. I just figure that it would help the content for readers and to help assist in settling current disputes. And, if we can better the article by adding better resources and info, shouldn't it at least be attempted?


 * In any case, IMHO, the real issue seems to be a lack of team work and not allowing other editors to contribute or explaining with civil discussions, which just gets into a an ungracious cycle (not unlike the one you and I were just engaged in with others in the MMS article) and regardless of any mistakes I've made (which I'm working to improve thanks to you and other editors tips and advice), I'm trying to show not only that everyone can be worked with - regardless of any perceived personality dispositions, expertise levels or amount of contributions to wikipedia - but that it's the content we want to focus on, not the editors. If we do that, hopefully most disputes will happen less often or can be resolved without so much trouble. Hopefully, when other editors come in to the conversation and want to add/dispute content in there, they'll see the manner in which I'm attempting to help out, above anything else. Especially since a lot of editors are going to come in with even less understanding of wiki-policies (since wikipedia doesn't require anyone to know the rules when they start) then I have, and maybe what I've asked and challenged will help clear some things up and help keep out the same arguments over and over again. That helps the content in the long run, doesn't it?


 * Since you're here... Do you BAC know of any specific Folkore guidelines or policies when it comes to WP:V, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR or WP:NPOV? I've been looking, but I'm not finding anything that deals with Folklore/Fairytales specifically for those issues. I've found lots of stuff in general on those topics, and in depth guidelines on more concrete topics, though I'm looking for something specific, as it doesn't appear the Troll article is the only one suffering from these disputes. It'd be really useful in a time like this, IYKWIM. =) --Bema Self (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, I have no special knowledge in Norse mythology (nor mythology in general), so I cannot help in this area, but we have many, many WP:WikiProjects and Portals (of the top of my head I'd say Portal:Mythology and Portal:Folklore might be helpful for the troll article), Wikipedia definitely has people with the necessary expertise. Ultimately, what is Fringe, OR or POV can best be answered by experts in the field, so if you're unsure how much weight can/should be given to a particular view, it's best to ask at one of the projects.


 * Asking general questions about the sourcing is okay (of course!), but one of your questions (Also, please cite any truly verifiable sources that everyone can access, that trolls undeniably belong only in the category of North Germanic mythology/folklore?) was over the top.


 * Firstly, as I said above, there's no requirement for sources to be open for everybody (even if they were, not everyone would understand what they actually meant) and secondly, there needn't be a source that says trolls undeniably only belong to that category as we have articles about other kinds of trolls, and thus acknowledge that the word is used for other creatures, too. The "see also" section of an article should of course be relevant to the article subject; if the only association between "Troll" (the Norse mythology kind) and Ogre is that they are some mythological creature that is dangerous and looks ugly (and again, this is not my area of expertise so I'm not even sure there's this similarity), then there's no point in linking the two.


 * Bloodofox seems to know quite a bit about the subject and I can't blame him for being a bit short (he's still miles away from being uncivil) when he has to argue with Randy from Boise about "covered" links and "objective" links (I've no idea what is meant by that, nor does Bloodofox, it seems).


 * I'm not saying this to discourage you, just to make sure you understand that even the seemingly trivial question of what to link to at "see also" can actually be quite complex. If you feel up to helping with this article and you're confident you're knowledgable in this area, by all means, do. --Six words (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. I 'hear' what you're saying, it's actually quite encouraging. =)


 * I agree that nothing seems that "simple" on wikipedia anymore. From an outsiders perspective, you'd never imagine all the complexities of how wikipedia works. It seems to benign to have related subjects in the see also section, though with the whole WP:D thing going on, the whole game has changed, lol. I almost sort of think they should require editors to go over a list of clearly set rules before contributing, especially since so many people are so rigid about those rules. In my own case, it would have saved a lot of grief on my part and on the part of others.


 * As far as getting more involved with the Troll article, I've always found mythology, folklore and history interesting, so it's not a "new" topic for me and something I was already interested in. I'm happy to get up to speed with what I need to know, and I feel that what I learn along the way about policies and information, will also help others who come in there, so they don't end up being like "randy". And from what I can tell, Bloodofox is pretty engaged in the questions I'm asking, and he's come down a lot from the first few responses that he handed out when 'he' called for the RfC, which were very rude if nothing else. Though I gave him the benefit of the doubt, that he's probably been reacting to all sorts of other editors coming in there and not understanding whats going on. He does have a slight case of WP:OWN going on there, and regardless of expertise, that's not nice. IMHO, stewardship is much (or should be) much more welcoming to others. I think taking the time to space out my replies by a few days, really looking into the perspective of others and the scope of the focus on the article - before I challenge anything else and making sure to be persuasive and open, and not demanding or demeaning, is helping.


 * Well see how it goes depending on his reply to my new questions last night. I really wish there was more than just Bf and I working on the issues, but I'm not quite sure how to request more 'experts' on the topic to come and have their say. Is there a way to do that? I'll check out those portals you suggested while I wait to hear from ya =) --Bema Self (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Stewardship needn't be nice, though of course it would be preferrable. I, too, would be a bit offended if someone implied that “Germanic sphere” in the context of this article was some kind of worrying nationalistic tendency; it also indicates that this editor may not be in a position to judge the quality of the additions the RfC discusses. Next comes a newbie “warning” Bloodofox that he has done something illegal - Academictask probably didn't know better, but wikilawyering is not a good argument ever, and he's got “Wiki-procedure” wrong anyway. The usual cycle is Bold - Revert - Discuss, and Bloodofox followed it: he reverted a bold edit and then worked on its discussion/dispute resolution. Until a (new) consensus has formed, the article should stay in the “pre-bold” state. Then both Academictask and you accuse Bloodofox of gaming the system instead of finding sources that support your/Dream of Nyx's position. Bloodofox should have ignored such comments, but we're all human. As soon as you stopped wikilawyering (which of course you only did because you're not very experienced), he changed his attitude and took you seriously.
 * I agree that with only two people discussing (right now it's only you and Bloodofox) it is impossible to form a consensus, so perhaps it would be a good idea to leave a short (neutrally worded) invitation at the talk pages of the WikiProjects that assesed the article (Norse history and culture and Mythology) here and here. Hopefully some of the members will join the discussion. --Six words (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit wars
Hi Bema Self, I'd like to share with you my experience on edit wars, and maybe we can learn from each other's experience. On several occasions, I was totally shocked to find myself in an edit war, especially on subject matter that I thought was very mild, like Femininity. There have been several others where I was arguing with people who had no idea what they were talking about, but they were loud and obnoxious and knew how to quote Wiki policy. IMHO, WP is a reflection of the real world where a few powerful people are in charge of the system, where to get anything done, you really have to understand how the system works, and be strategic in the battles you choose to fight. One time, I fought a bunch of women in an effort to keep an article about women's history. (I am female and I won that fight.) I never expected women to be so against women's history. Several men followed the cat fight and drooled. :-) My favorite edit war, was when I told an editor that his personal opinion was irrelevant, that he needed sources. He turned out to be a rabbi! I don't think anyone ever questioned him before and he was extremely offended to be challenged by a girl. So it works both ways. I also learned that my beliefs are extremely ethno-centric even though I think of myself as someone who encourages diversity. My first attempt to edit an international article, I was told very quickly that "English speaking" is NOT the same as "American" and I almost fell out of my chair, lol. That was a long time ago, and I've gotten much better since then. I hope that helps, or at least makes you feel better. Cheers. USchick (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Lol, yes, it's definitely good to hear that I'm not alone in the "battles" of wikipedia. I find it really interesting that you brought up woman based wiki articles, cause I was reading that women are a large minority on wikipedia, only contributing to maybe 15% I think was the statistic. When I read about that statistic, some things started to make sense, especially the whole "battle" thing going on. lol.


 * I never would have thought feminism women's history to be so controversial between women either, that's interesting to know. And a rabbi in the mix? Was he looking to get squashed by estrogen or something? lol


 * Anyways, thank you for your story and kind words. Most of all, those are things I appreciate and respect. Lately, I've been trying to help some articles that seem to have "dominate" contributors who either are severely lacking in social skills, vocabulary or whom just don't care how they treat people. What sucks the worst though, is that they won't be big enough jerks to do anything significant about it. It reminds me of WP:GIANTDICK.... =P


 * As for the whole "american" is different than "english", that statement totally makes me ALOL. I was reading about the 'systemic bias' that goes on with the english wikipedia. English is a major language around the world, yet so many of our 'fellow' Americans seem to think that it means that wikipedia is only from an American perspective, in the same way that so many seem to think that America is an "english" and "christian" nation, both of which are statements full of ignorance and one-sided-ness. Sometimes I feel bad for people who can't see beyond one perspective. It's gotta to be hard living in that world, lol.


 * Anyways, on to newer and better contributions. Anything interesting going on that you've seen lately? I've been roaming the RfC's, trying to define my WikiElf tendencies, lol. --Bema Self (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The rabbi was a different edit war, not with a bunch of women, but still it was hilarious and totally unexpected.


 * The male/female interaction of editors reminds me of being on a playground when I was growing up. The girls would be playing peacefully, while the boys were playing "war" and sometimes their battles got out of hand and they would either intentionally or unintentionally end up disrupting whatever we were doing and we would go find an adult to complain about them, because our play was "important" and they were simply being destructive. Not much has changed, except our toys have gotten much more expensive. :) I've been trying to behave myself and not get into any heated discussions because I don't have time right now to maintain them. And the moment you step away, bam! they get consensus and whatever you were trying to do is lost. USchick (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the playground metaphor fits to a tee, lol. I agree on trying to behave. Sometimes you just want to give the boys a verbal whiplash that would take them weeks to recover from, but with a ban being the result, it's no use. It's like that crazy driver who nearly hit you when he cut you off without a blinker. You so could have rammed your vehicle into his fat rear end, but that'd only cost you repairs for your own vehicle, cause you know the jerk isn't likely to pay for the insurance case even if you can prove it was his fault.


 * I just had a funny idea, one of these days we should collab on a "playground rules" wiki essay. I bet it would be helpful to others, but even if it weren't, it'd still be hilarious to write. Anyways, I'm off to "behave myself" as well... =) --Bema Self (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey
“Hey” Bema Self.

Sorry take so long to reply you, I have been taking care of personal issues,.. and I am still doing it. I will certainly come back to WP, yet not now. Yes, I have seen “articles” needing work like that made by you in “Troll”. By the way you was wonderful there and I believe that most part of your contribution was educational,.. I think that a stubborn pupil did learn something. Please keep on your watch, I´ll be back. All best, Academictask (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC).