User talk:Dcs002/Archive 2014

Welcome!

Hello,, 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, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Tea with toast (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2009 (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

U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks
I saw your mediation cabal case listing. After looking at the article, the edit history and the contribution history of User:Parserpractice I fairly quickly came to the conclusion that the article is seriously deficient in terms of WP:NPOV and violates WP:SYN, WP:NOR, WP:BLP as well as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It also appears that the editor in question is not amenable to discussion. I seriously doubt that mediation is appropriate in this case, the editor in question appears to see wikipedia as a platform to right great wrongs and in my experience such editors are single-minded and mission-orientated. I would suggest you raise this at WP:AN/I. Regards, Justin talk 11:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Justin. I'm still kinda new as a WP editor, and I didn't know I could check on my own page for messages. And I don't know if this is the right way to respond to you either. But thanks.


 * Mediation Cabal member The Wordsmith took on our case with a couple postings and suggestions we both could live with, but none of the tricky stuff was addressed, just some citation problems. But the last time we heard from The Wordsmith was 12:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC). Our mediation page (Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-13/U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks) has simply become an extension of the discussion page for that article -- highly verbose and seriously messy, though less verbally abusive.


 * I've thought this was a bigger mess than we should present to the Mediation Cabal, but I wanted to follow procedures. If I file something on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page, may I quote what you've said to me?


 * Thanks for looking into this, and for your suggestions. Dcs002 (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind, but I did quote you as I filled out the Admin noticeboard page. Dcs002 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind at all and I've added a comment to AN/I. You might like to move this to your talk page, sorry but I messed up putting this on your user page.  Regards, Justin talk 08:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also in this ArbCom case, sanctions were enacted, which give admins additional powers to deal with disruption. If you want to request enforcement of sanctions, you should post on the WP:AE noticeboard. Otherwise, there is the request for comment on user conduct process, which could be of some use. PhilKnight (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This mediation is being closed, and many major changes are now being made to the article (mostly by the mediator). Thanks to those who commented or helped this process along! Jeez it's been a frustrating process, but it's yielded good results for the article. Opinions, personal conclusions, and accusations don't belong in any article, and they're finally being removed without reverts.

I have no ill will toward the other party. I sincerely hope she/he has saved all that work and can publish it elsewhere. Who knows, some of those points might be worth a closer look from a historical perspective. They just weren't encyclopedic, and when presented as fact (as opposed to hypothesis), they placed blame on individuals who I believe acted heroically under insane circumstances.

Personal lessons learned: Mediation is a process not to be entered into lightly, especially if the other party is strongly opinionated. It can take a long time and a lot of energy relative to everything else in real life. The cause, IMO, needs to be worth the effort. But if a dispute needs resolution, that's what has to happen. If this actually had to proceed up to the next level of dispute resolution, I'm not sure it would have been worth that much of my time & energy. But it was a good cause. 9/11 is so emotionally charged, and it's so important to report the events as they happened, leaving the fringe theories out of it, though being respectful to their adherents. So many people were so badly scarred for life on that day. That's who we need to respect with rock solid neutrality and the strictest adherence to all policies. Dcs002 (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tarage
Glad to see you're trying to do some good for the 9/11 attacks page. Been there, tried that. The pathetic little paragraph on the page as a kiss-off to conspiracy investigators is only there because I insisted on *something* being there, after my revised suggestion for a sub-article for the page was rejected. And by the way, Tarage is full of it. I've had lots of experience in dealing with him. No amount of evidence or mainstream sources will deter him from whatever his political agenda is (it certainly involves ignoring the truth of 9/11.)

Peace. Neurolanis (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. Unfortunately I don't know which 9/11 page you're referring to, or who Tarage is. I've looked in on a few of them and left comments here & there, but this name doesn't ring a bell. If I did something good, then you're welcome! Dcs002 (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for taking the time to review Requests for feedback/Archive19. Very good point about needing a taxonomy section. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The WP:FEED backlog
Hello, I see you made a request at WP:FEED a long time ago, but have continued to be active on Wikipedia and made good edits to the encyclopedia. Since you have posted on WP:FEED in the past, I would like to suggest that if you want please try and help out at the page, as we have a massive backlog. It'd be really great if you provided some advice to other, new users on their articles.

To do this, you'll just need to take a look at their article, which they'll post the link to, and maybe see what perhaps can be improved, like adding sections, references or links, much like you would do with any other article, except you are giving feedback rather than making actual edits. After getting some idea of what needs to be improved, you just need to tell them briefly underneath. It's really simple but incredibly useful to new users and their articles, and helps to overall increase the quality of these new articles.

I hope you will at least consider. Please send me a message if you have any further questions, or if you would like further information. Thanks a lot! Chevy monte  carlo  13:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been a while, but in the time after I requested help I did visit the page semi-regularly and offer comments when I thought it would be helpful. (See above on this page for a grateful response to my feedback on one article.) I'll try to get back there more regularly to help with the backlog. During those months Wikipedia consumed an inordinate amount of my time, mostly with the mediation cabal case, but I kinda burned out. I'll try harder. Dcs002 (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion/content
Hi. Could you weigh in on this discussion regarding a viewpoint by a critic/newspaper and how it's included in an article? Dan56 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

AfD
I pinged JHunterJ on his talk page to stop by the AfD and let us know if he knows of any print-only third-party sources. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you muchly! Dcs002 (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

GURPS Bestiary
Hi there,

I restored this one because it had cited three independent reliable sources before it was redirected. If you could even put half as much work into it as you did with GURPS Japan, that would make it well-worth keeping as an article. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look and do what I can. I don't know much about RPGs, just Hunter Johnson, and this wasn't one of the books for which I had found reviews. I can sure expand on the publication history (since Hunter was a co-author), and look for reviews of the newer edition. Dcs002 (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks - anything you can do is great. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I added some content, mostly about the 3rd edition. It was already independently sourced well enough to establish notability (1st 3 sources), but needed updating. It could still use some expansion, maybe with more reviews, or expanding the content from the independent sources or the book itself? Good luck :) Dcs002 (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's definitely an improvement! I thought about restoring GURPS Monsters but looking at the last good version it looks like there would be a whole lot of work to do. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have three independent reviews for GURPS Monsters. I don't know what the previous looked like, but I have more on that one than on the Bestiary. Look at the current version of J. Hunter Johnson's article (still under AfD I think), and you'll see what I've got. I pretty much rebuilt that one myself. A lot of people would rather delete articles than fix them it seems. Dcs002 (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I restored GURPS Monsters - work your magic! :) 68.57.233.34 (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I copied the relevant text from JHJ's article to GURPS Monsters; don't know if there was anything else you wanted to add there. 68.57.233.34 (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, you got all three of the review references I had. Can you get your hands on that Games Unplugged review? Amother real excerpt from the original source would be nice rather than a letter grade from a source that just passed on the grade from another reviewer. It also needs a cover image and a bit more publication history. IMO, the list of contents is throwing the article way out of proportion. Perhaps a list of the categories of monsters, and possibly an example or two might suffice? Long lists like this seem to be magnets for the AfD-happy. Possibly more in the infobox too? Like, another genre besides horror? I dunno what is normal for RPG books, but I bet there is more that can be added there. Also, wasn't this a book that would allow gamers to play monsters as characters? I get them confused. Dcs002 (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review
Will you please read this page about what DRV is about? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Randykitty. You and I have to learn to talk to each other more effectively, and I hope more congenially. As an old scientist, journals are one area where I feel I can make a difference, and I see that's an area where you are very active. We need to tone it down, and I will keep trying harder to be more concise with my long posts. (I have been blessed with excellent co-authors (faculty and grad students), and proofreaders during my career who have kept me concise, and science writing prescribes its own format.) For now, I am new at AfD's, and this was my first DRV, so I am being thorough and strictly following the guidelines, as I said.


 * I have read the DRV page thoroughly, many times, and new information is fair game, as is defending my !vote to endorse, which was based on evidence of notability, in the AfD and in the DRV. DRV is not about limiting our discussion to the strict topic you specified when you listed the DRV. You opened up the discussion, but once it's open it belongs to all of us, and we are free to follow the DRV rules and guidelines outside of the way you asked us to. That's how I see it, and I haven't heard you disagree with that yet. I endorse the close as a "Keep". Should I therefore not be allowed to defend or advocate my position while everyone else is free to do so with theirs, simply because I agree with what has been presented in the AfD? That makes no sense to me on the face of it (nor is it an accurate summary of what I was doing, but you kept saying I was - more straw man). You kept challenging me, so I kept explaining, trying to be more clear with each explanation. (Wise minds can disagree, but I will respond to new information and to challenges.) Others offered information about reputable publishers, whis was new to me, and which I thought bore on notability as well. Should I not be allowed to make my case when you keep challenging it with straw man arguments and hyperbole? That's the way I see it. I'm sorry it's been so stressful. Scientists should be accustomed to disagreeing and thanking people who challenge their conclusions, knowing they are helping to strengthen the correct conclusions in the end, and that they will probably be going out for drinks after the last presentation session. Dcs002 (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty, I am beginning to source the other RLI periodicals, but I would like to keep a conversation/consultation going. Should we continue that here? I went to your talk page and saw your comment about staying on my talk page if this is where we started, but then we had some comments on the talk page for the journal. Should we talk here or there? (For now, please check that page because I left a few questions/comments there, and I'd still prefer this to be an open conversation for all who participated in that process. I can host that conversation here I suppose. That wouldn't be a problem for me. Just want to know where to put comments that I think are important to avoid doind edits & work that aren't gonna fly. BTW, my personal thanks and kudos for keeping so much info in the small paragraph you added to the RLI page! (Eventually I foresee the list of journals being combined with the information about each journal. Otherwise it will look too much like two separate lists. Dcs002 (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Dcs002, it is indeed best to keep discussion centralized. In addition, to make things easier for other users, I think it is better not to use either one of our personal talk pages but the talk page of the Russian Language Institute. I'll have a look there later. --Randykitty (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)