User talk:Electrawn

Hello Electrawn, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * You can introduce yourself on the new user log.
 * You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the community portal.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp as well.
 * Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 06:51, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions from the public
The Royal Rife page has been under assault for years. The man had two wifes, built the worlds fastest speed boat in the 30s held mulitple honerary degrees and his biography here mentions none of that... It was all deleted so that he could be called a con man that sold quack devices.... Only his work is is followed and replicated today. But that is just one aspect of the man... his work... What of his family, his legacy...none of that is allowed to be spoken on because some wiki bullies wont allow it. Could you help a poor defensless article out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.104.253 (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Kyra Phillips
The source is a gay newspaper discussing gay activists' criticism. What sort of source would be acceptable to you? Is the issue that the incident has not been verfied? Here.

Now since it is a matter of fact that gay adctivists criticized her conduct in that interview, could you restore the text? Thanks.--Birdmessenger 19:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Verifiability and Reliable_sources


 * A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative.


 * Beware false authority


 * Look out for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. Web sites that have numerous footnotes may be entirely unreliable. The first question to ask yourself is, "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web.


 * Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject. In general, college textbooks are frequently revised and try to be authoritative. High school and middle school textbooks, however, do not try to be authoritative and they are subject to political approval.


 * Issues to look out for


 * Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org, Al-Qaeda, or the British Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only, i.e. as sources about themselves and their own activities or viewpoints, and even then with caution and sparingly. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources.


 * That should be enough to cover it, but I can go on. Electrawn 19:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the fact we're trying verify here is: "Were gay activists (or others) critical of Kyra Phillips' interview?" The source that is cited is perfectly reliable by Wikipedia standards to verify this particular fact.
 * Here is the relevant text that you pasted above: However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org, Al-Qaeda, or the British Socialist Workers Party. 
 * Are you really saying that we should not cite the Southern Voice because it is extremist in the vein of Stormfront.org? I believe it a serious misreading of that policy to exclude a newspaper as a source because it addresses the gay community.
 * At any rate, here's a WSJ op-ed making pretty much the same assertions. --Birdmessenger 19:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * WSJ is a great source. Some accuse them of left leaning, but they are way more to the middle and citeable than a Gay/Lesbian newspaper. The use of this article source and inclusion in Kyra Philips is a very borderline marginal.


 * The source is an op-ed piece, and one reporters opinion. Would be better if it was from the editorial board, but that doesn't kill it.


 * The piece itself is attacking anti-gay conservative activists first, CNN second, and Kyra Philips specifically third. This reference serves more to back up a statement against Ms. Phillips about the same subject from someone else. (No, you can't use the original sovo.com reference (grin)). Keep trying! Electrawn 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * HAHAHAHAHAAHAH - are you actually claiming that the WSJ is LEFT-LEANING? That is utterly and completely absurd and tells me all I need to know about your biases. FCYTravis 13:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tell you what: I think you're pretty much wrong in the way you're choosing to interpret the relevant policies, but maybe I'm mistaken (happens sometimes). Certainly you're right that the WSJ article can't stand in for what the Sovo article is saying. I'm going to think about it for awhile and come back to it (or not).--Birdmessenger 20:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reflecting. Biography articles about living persons have to be held to an extremely high standard for sources and aggressively monitored for bias creep and other problems. "When in doubt, throw it out."


 * Biographies_of_living_persons is a required read. The importance of these articles is so great they are an exception to WP:3RR. Jimmy Wales himself comments and directs on what is proper to do. Remove such material aggressively! Electrawn 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Kyra Phillips
I sympathathize with you wanting to maintain certain standards for biographical articles and all, but you realize you're on your fourth reversion (at least), right? Why not take a break from the main page and work something out with some of the other editors? --Birdmessenger 01:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct, it is break time. I am taking considerations with reverts for opposing views, no matter how incorrect. Mix in the trolls, and it makes for a fun soup of editing.


 * On the plus side, we are also smoothing irregularities in source citing styles of Wikipedia. Electrawn 01:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, reverting libelious material is a specific exception to 3R. WP:3RR Most of the sourcing and phrasing of the controversy section falls under that, even if we disagree on citing sources. When I am throwing the book at it, it is phrasing, sources, and relevancy/notability. Electrawn 01:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I hit three reversions, and I really try to avoid that, so it's long past break time for me as well. Apologies for any abrasiveness.
 * Also, the more I read that section, the more I'm tending to agree at least somewhat with you that it is problematic. The biggest problem is that it's inaccurate to make it sound like her peers have criticized her for lack of objectivity, when in fact many of those criticisms, while legitimate, are from nonjournalists. If the section were to be kept at all, I would also title it "Criticism" instead of "Objectivity" (I think it had may have even had that title at some point).  But I guess these are editing decisions for tomorrow, for me anyway.--Birdmessenger 02:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If we relabel it criticism or controversy again, what makes it notable compared to any other pundit/analyst/host on any other network? Electrawn 02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing libelous in any of the statements listed. They are all reliably sourced, factual and/or relevant opinions from notable figures (Nancy Pelosi is not Joe Blow on the street, she's the House Minority Leader.) Unless you have specific evidence to cite that the listed elements are not true, I suggest that continued reversions of well-sourced material for the purpose of making a biography into a hagiography will end up being treated as vandalous behaviour. FCYTravis 13:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Individual criticisms are not really relevant to a biography. Conservatism or liberalism is unimportant in regards to a news analyst, may be more important/notable to a journalist. Objectivity problems should be pointed out right away. Most of the quotes only serve to accuse her of being conservative. Finally, use of gay newspaper sources pushes an NPOV gay agenda. Neutral sources need to be used to maintain NPOV. I can't stress this enough. Electrawn 16:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Individual criticisms are extremely relevant to a biography. "Gay newspaper sources" are as reliable as "right-wing newspaper sources" like the Washington Times, which has been cited repeatedly throughout Wikipedia. If you wish to go on a "POV-sourcing" campaign, you can probably start by removing every source link to The National Review, the New York Sun, The New Republic, etc. etc. etc. There is no such thing as a "neutral source" - every secondary source can be accused of having some sort of bias. Wikipedia's job is to objectively present the facts, and the facts include both good and bad things. It is a fact that she has received criticism from notable and reliable sources. Wikipedia cannot ignore this. FCYTravis 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is partly about poor sourcing at Wikipedia. Beyond the poor sourcing, the actually statements used are irrelevant and unnotable, even if the event itself was notable. Op-Ed pieces should never to rarely be used as primary or secondary sources, but this is a much bigger battle. Notable and reliable secondary sources about journalistic objectivity would be Columbia journalism review or American journalism review. Further sources would be mainstream media, like ap, reuters, new york times (debateable heh heh), chicago tribune, washington post, etc. Use of 501(3) organizations have to be analyzed on an individual level, for instance, Mediamatters fails to be reliable just by their mission statement. Many Wikipedia articles fail Historical Method tests. Finally, we  can look at GLBT newspapers, these publications have a  long history of extreme leftism and are vanity publications targeted to a specific audience and reliable as NPOV only to gay issues. This paints them into a corner regarding their use in other articles, and can not be used as reliable for Kyra Phillips Electrawn 16:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, those nutjob extreme leftist vanity gays. Can't trust them a bit. You, sir, are a laugh a minute. FCYTravis 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Before diving into personal attacks, I challenge you to find a more centrist, mainstream source to make this claim. Beside beating the drum about bias, this particular claim is irrelevant to the scope of a biography.

Electrawn 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are the one engaging in attacks, by claiming without source or citation that all "gay" newspapers are fundamentally "extreme left" and "vanity publications." I suggest that if you don't like the heat, you don't start fires. FCYTravis 20:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP
Our Biographies of Living Persons policy states thus: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Kyra Phillips is clearly a significant public figure on a major cable news network. There are a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources, ranging from the Southern Voice to The Wall Street Journal to the Columbia Journalism Review commenting on perceived flaws in Phillips' reporting. To omit these statements fundamentally unbalances the article by removing significant commentary about her actions. FCYTravis 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just throwing in a comment here, since I'm not familiar with the article at hand, but the documented allegations should be noted as such (allegations). Drawing any conclusions from those allegations, even if multiple and well sourced, constitutes original research. Allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. Crockspot 16:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I'm going to have limited internet access for the next two weeks, but will check in after that. Sandy 17:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh Electrawn, thanks for the invite. Yes, I would like to participate. Is there a tag or something I need to add, or a particular page you want me to watch? Reply on my talk page. Thanks. Morton devonshire 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, too, for the invite. I'd like to be involved in such a thing, and I probably could be a strong contributor, but as a newbie I don't know anything about these groups yet, and I don't see myself patrolling for violations. I'm thinking I should sit on the sidelines and watch for a while. Lou Sander 23:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'd like to join, but I don't have time, motivation, or energy to be a "patroller." How do I sign up? Lou Sander 19:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since it is a groundfloor kind of thing, my suggestion is to just participate in discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Libel-Protection_Unit. Your experience is appreciated. Electrawn 00:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

CYE Template
Hi, I noticed that on this page Miguel Pro, you've applied the Cite Your Edits template I designed. If you don't mind my asking, where and how did you find it? Thanks.


 * Lets see...WP:TM. Which leads to Template_messages/General. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template%3ACite_your_edits

Electrawn 16:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Editor's personal details
Electrawn, I've deleted the edits you made about this topic, because we're not allowed to post personal details of an editor (whether right or wrong; denied or admitted; and whether to argue for or against) without that editor's consent. Please don't post them again, although you're welcome to discuss it with me if you disagree with the deletion (but please don't mention the details during the discussion). Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not certain which policy/guideline you are referring to, clarification requested. As such, the spirit of any such policy would be to protect user anonymity and privacy. The user has made available information public on a userpage. Attempts were made using available facts on the userpage against facts provided by a reliable source on the notable subject the user is publically accused of being. The facts and conclusions on the talk pages do violate the users anonymity and privacy any more than information that is already publically available via wikipedia. Further, I feel not restoring the comments with urgency may further serve to have others undermine this users privacy and anonymity. Considering the popularity of the outside source making the accusation, time is of the essence to "cork the bottle" before it becomes an internet phenonmeon, or worse, a wikipedia Siegenthaler-like incident. Hopefully the user will just..."agree", making this moot. If you agree with this, please restore the comments. Electrawn 10:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the references to this in policy is here, though I think it's mentioned in a couple of places. The user has not said who he is or isn't on his user page, and has made it clear elsewhere that he doesn't want the issue to be discussed on Wikipedia. You're certainly welcome to e-mail him to make your case. If he agrees, then of course I'd have no problem with the edits being restored. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Attempts were made to identify what the user is not without identifying the user. Electrawn
 * I also agree with in this instance with users to "when in doubt, keep out till in." Electrawn
 * I think we can agree said user is the subject of a "Personal attacks which place users in danger". I would also argue that by the user placing such details on a publically accessable web space (and understanding of the GFDL license), user is giving consent that such personal details may be discussed. If this is meant to prevent speculation of that data to maintain privacy, I can agree to that in some form. I believe that section of WP:BLOCK is meant to protect users from sudden revelation of personal data from outside sources, such as a troll finding out a users name, DOB and Social number and posting it on a talk page, causing harm to such a editor. Blanket protections against controversy about users may be a form of information suppression. This incident itself may be notable to include in wikipedia in an article about wikipedia and/or wikipedia culture. This would trump the users request to not have it discussed on wikipedia. There is no way to verify what the users wishes are without violating WP:BLOCK to give a link. If the user wants to put on a userpage or talk page "Please don't discuss XXX is YYY" or take steps to blank personally identifable information on userpages, they need to do so now to protect themselves. Invoking WP:IAR, do such comments in the long term cause harm to the user or help them? Electrawn 11:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The best thing would be to e-mail him to ask him directly, because you can mention whatever details you want in an e-mail. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Kancha Ilaiah

 * Discussion regarding Ilaiah has been largely resolved with the majority agreeing with the mediation of User:Ben W Bell. See talk page of article. Please don\'t remove consensus edits. I have provided source to claims made by Hindu groups of DFN being an anti-Hindu org. The edits do not take a position on any issue and are neutral and present facts as facts and claims as claims.Hkelkar 03:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: Some of your edits were OK and addressed real POV issues, so I put them back in. I have source of claims made by Hindu orgs that DFN is anti-Hindu, so that remains. DFN is only ALLEGEDLY a charitable org (they say so, others deny it). In reality, it sponsores terrorism in Tripura with the National Liberation Front of Tripura and distributes anti-Hindu and anti-Brahman propaganda in India.Hkelkar 03:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Avoid use of allegedly unless a legal system has put forth a criminal or civil allegation. Until then, try...XXX is affliated with YYY, a charitable organization. (Reliable Source) has crticised YYY for not being charitable.
 * Direct Quote even better: (RS) has criticised YYY for \"Being a front for a militant organization.\"
 * In writing NPOV, judgements and opinions should be left up to the reader.
 * In writing biographies, don\'t \"demonize\" the person. They are human too. Electrawn 04:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody\'s demonizing anybody. The article does not take a position on anything. Again, I point to precedent as I did with Ben W Bell. The Kancha Ilaiah article should follow the same standards as the David Duke or Louis Farrakhan articles. They are not demonized there either. Plus, all sources that attest to DFN being a \"charity organization\" are partisan (DFN people only) and so are unreliable in this context unless astated with qualification (which they have been). Even the claims of their opponents are stated with qualification. I can, of course, change the wording to replace \"alleged\" to \"claim\" if you would like that. I have also not stated their communal agendas as fact, but as claims. Everything should be NPOV, and all my edits have not been intentionally POV because I assume good faith etc. etc.


 * If you say, based on partisan sources that DFN IS a charitable org (instead of claims to be one) then you are taking a position on the subject, which is POV. By that logic, even Nation of Islam or the Ku Klux Klan are charitable. I believe that KKK kept refugee camps (whites only as per their declarations) after Hurricane Katrina, so they do engage in \"charity work\" and KKK website even says that they engage in charity work and \"increase awareness\" about the \"persecution of the white race\" in various parts of the world. Same with NOI, who also claim to do charity work (see NOI website) for African Americans but read the NOI article on wikipedia carefully. Precedent, again.Hkelkar 04:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My beef isn\'t whether or not the organization is or is not charitable. The beef is that use of the word allegedly is overused, out of context and a word to avoid. Reread my suggestions as a guide above. We are assuming good faith, however, certain words, prose and language imply POV that I am trying to help you with. Electrawn 04:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How would you like to state it without taking a position on the subject? How\'s this:

\"DFN is an missionary organization who state on their literature that they are a charitable organization but...\"?Hkelkar 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Browsing David Duke, another improper use of allegedly is in this section: David_Duke. Electrawn 04:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Then by all means take it up with the people editing that article in a discussion.Since David Duke is a far more noteworthy article than Kancha Ilaiah, I would like to see the precedent there and modify the Kancha Ilaiah article accordingly. That should be a very very interesting debate and I strongly suggest you carry it out there and I will study the progress.Hkelkar 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Challenge accepted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Duke&diff=76004571&oldid=75882980 Electrawn 05:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You have our work cut out for you

 * I did not understand what you wrote on the David Duke talk page at all.
 * I am not sure what you are getting at?
 * I think that the reference checks are of great priority too!

216.32.86.210 11:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, I just reviewed you last edit to David Duke, I think you should leave this job for another editor. No offense, but you not contributing anything to the article to clean it up. Your language is confusing. Sorry if I am being too blunt, but please allow some else scub the entry. Look at User:Billy Hathorn and his edits for some pointers.
 * Thanks
 * 216.32.86.210 11:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Welcome to wikipedia! Generally, the community never discourages an individual editor from editing an article. Electrawn 16:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
 WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive! WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award. There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards,  Psych less Type  words! .

Kamil Idris
I have seen that you were member of the WikiProject Biography. Would you have time to review the article on Kamil Idris, who is the current head of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a UN organization? A recent edit by an IP address in Switzerland (the WIPO is in Switzerland, thus this may indicate a conflict of interest) deleted a complete section without comment. I have expanded the article to add more references. Thanks in advance for any help. --Edcolins 16:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

User subpage cleanup
Hi there. I just discovered the following orphaned talkpage of a deleted user subpage, which you have contributed to: User talk:Elonka/RfA ponderings. If you have no objections, I suggest it be deleted as general cleanup (I assume you have no need for a nearly two-year-old talkpage). I have also notified the other contributor, Elonka, at User talk:Elonka. Terraxos (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)