User talk:Jarandhel/Archives/2008/April

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Friday (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Thank you, that's incredibly helpful, especially the part about how to sign posts on talk pages automatically... I'd been doing it by hand so far, which can get kind of annoying after a while, especially looking up the current UTC time. Jarandhel 18:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Otherkin
I'm not DreamGuy. I'm DG and I don't know who that DreamGuy is. I'm a humorist. I like houses. I think that if I were DreamGuy I probably would have actually debated you directly, don't you think? And I have nothing against otherkin. Some of my best friends are jews, after all. D. G. 23:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yikes. I hesitate to get involved, in part because it's such a troubled article, and in part because I've taken admin action several times against one of the regular editors there, and we're not supposed to edit pages we've taken admin action in relation to. I may look in over the weekend or on Monday at the issue of original research, just to reiterate the policy, but I don't think I can get involved beyond that. You may want to try a request for comment: see Requests for comment and go to the section about article RfCs, not user-conduct RfCs. Or a request for mediation: see Requests for mediation. Alternatively, you could look for someone to mediate informally, which might be faster, but it would be tricky to find someone. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I completely understand. I only had a partial understanding of the history between you and those involved, as I'm new to Wikipedia.  I'll take a look at the request for comment and request for mediation sections, thank you for pointing me to them.  I'm hoping all of this can be addressed civilly, but some of the comments and the apparently POV agenda make me think it might be trickier than that.  In the meantime I'm making only some minor undisputed edits (like putting the sources referenced in the correct order) and involving myself in some related articles that seem to have fallen under their radar, as well as debating things directly with them on the Talk:Otherkin page. Jarandhel 16:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, do you think any good would come of bringing this up on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research again and asking for more direct support from other editors in maintaining consensus on whether or not the sources used are OR? Jarandhel 16:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "What's the procedure for dealing with a user like this?" First, to approach them nicely and ask "what's up?" (if you haven't already done so). Maybe he's just burnt out a little bit. If this is rebuffed and the edit pattern continues, I suppose a request for comment. I've never filed one, had one filed against me or even been involved beyond a single comment (which is fine by me). I'm also not an admin. If, however, you need a second editor to verify facts I will do so. Marskell 04:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I just wrote something on his talk page.  Maybe it will help defuse the situation.  Honestly, though, I've never seen someone start attacking a forum and vandalizing it just because of burnout; in my experience, it's usually the sign of a internet troll.  It also looks to me like sockpuppeting is involved, since a user "DG" posting a flame about Gimmeit's actions on Talk:Otherkin when Gimmeit (and his own sockpuppets) and a user "DreamGuy" are the ones that have been arguing there seems a bit too coincidental.  That kind of reinforces my feelings that it's a troll in the usenet sense we're dealing with here.  Honestly?  I hope I'm wrong.  Trolls are generally a much bigger pain to deal with than merely disgruntled users who have a genuine beef. Jarandhel (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me just state right here so you can;t miss it: This is not sockpuppeting, every other editor who you raised that possibility to has agreed that the accusation is looney. The other editor and myself have long posting histories idependent of any similarities in tone, articles and actions. Furthermore, based upon YOUR edit history and short time here, and major case of the "let's try to complain about DreamGuy"itis, I think it's far more likely that someone could build a case against you as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. At the very least you certainly show signs of bias and personal vendetta. DreamGuy 19:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Consistancy
I really do think you're expecting too much consistancy here. It might actually be nice if Wikipedia was more consistant, but it's just not.

The questions of OR and Verifiability were my reasons for listing Otherkin on Afd, certainly. However, this does not mean at all that other editors "voted" based on that issue. Some editors base their Afd opinions on policies and guidelines, some do not. Take a look at Articles for deletion/Body parts slang 2. You'll see people saying to keep the article, despite WP:NOT clearly stating that Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang guide.

Sometimes even the same editor seems inconsistant to others. To me, you appear to have contradictory opinions on the verifiability/original research question. On the one hand, you say the connection between CL and Otherkin isn't verifiable without a source explicitly linking them. Yet, you're willing to accept personal websites as reputable sources. Seems like an odd contradiction to me. I assume that to you, it's probably not an inconsistancy at all.

There's probably things I (or other editors) do or think that seem inconsistant to you, too. My point is, I don't think you should expect a high level of consistancy. We're not professional judges, basing our decisions on a consistant and logical interpretation of law and precedent. In the end, people give whatever opinions they want to on Afd, or in discussions elsewhere. Some even see the inconsistancy as a strength rather than a weakness. Friday (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * With regard to the contradiction you see between my position on the verifiability of a connection between CL and Otherkin, and accepting personal websites as reputable sources, again the question is the nature of the claims being made. Any connection made between CL and Otherkin is a psychological diagnosis.  It requires a professional opinion.  Claims made about what otherkin believe, however, may easily be verified by the writings of otherkin themselves.  The natures of the claims being made are entirely different.  Jarandhel (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * First hand accounts do tell us what the individuals who wrote them claim to believe. However, this article attempts to go beyond the individual and discuss "Otherkin" as a group.  To do so legitimately would require the professional opinion of a sociologist, would it not?  It's not our job to play sociologist, it's our job to document what actual sociologists are saying.  Friday (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I really don't think it's necessary to get the professional opinion of a sociologist to comment on what a group claims to believe, any more than you need a professional theologian to tell you that most Christians believe Jesus Christ was literally God or a professional political analyst to tell you that Republicans generally supported Bush in the last election. If the claim was about the specific percentage of either, yes you'd need a stronger source who had done an actual study and could give you percentages, but most groups are capable of discerning large trends and majority opinions within them all on their own.  Jarandhel (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

sigs
Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. Jtkiefer T - 02:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I thought I had. Jarandhel (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

re:Template:Advert
I actually forget why I created the template, however it was entirely rewritten after an AFD [|here] to be more of a cleanup style template for pages that read like advertisements and should be rewritten to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style Jtkiefer  T - 03:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)