User talk:Njyoder/Archive Sep 2007

Proposed deletion of Ocular effect
I have added a "" template to the article Ocular effect, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  &mdash;Cel ithemis  07:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Notification
This is a notification Requests_for_arbitration.--Crossmr 05:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What a ridiculous abuse of process. AN/I people don't give you gratification so you immediately opt for arbitration case?  Absurd.  This is a content dispute. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

AN/I
You should be aware of this thread about you on the AN/I board.

Having looked into it a bit I can say that you certainly need to dial back the hostility. There is never any good purpose served by things like saying someone lies, stating that you will not assume good faith, complaining that someone wrote 'de facto' without the space, et cetera. It just serves no useful purpose. You're being angry and saying things bound to make the other person angry... none of which is good for a cooperative project. People can, and do, disagree. Just don't be disagreeable about it.

As to the matter(s) in dispute; the fact that a discussion board may be notable (based on Alexa, Google, third party references, et cetera) does not make it also a reliable source. If any random person can post any random thing there then that posting is no more a reliable source than any posting on any other forum. An individual blogger might theoretically be found to be a reliable source, but that again is different than being notable. Generally something is only considered a reliable source if it has independent fact checking in place or if the information it is cited for is something directly related to the subject which they would have no apparent reason to lie about (e.g. if a celebrity says we have their birth place wrong we can generally take them as a reliable source for where they were born).

On the other hand I can't see what would be 'disruptive' about this edit. The comment would have been better placed in the edit summary or on the talk page, but it's not the first time I've seen comments in the text and I don't see how it disrupts anything. Just not standard practice and probably a bad idea to use in most cases because we don't want articles cluttered up with old comments that people don't remember the relevance of. --CBD 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * He's consistently demonstrated that he's acting in bad faith, thereofre I said I will ignore things he's saying in bad faith. He's also lied several times--he's backpedaled and changed his argument as new evidence was presented--his original stance was that no criticism section should exist at all and that there was no notable criticsm for the PayPal article, even though the article itself has long included a class action lawsuit in it.  He'll refuse to engage in any sort of productive debate and instead will just repeat his original assertions over and over without backing them up beyond saying 'the rules agree with me' (see argumentum ad nauseam).  Furthermore, he utterly refuses to clarify his own interpretation of any policies (as a deliberate attempt to avoid making any concessions).  If you want to talk about not being useful, go tell him that he's not contributing in any useful manner.  He's even violated 3RR without even so much as apologizing to acknowledging that he is selectively obeying policies.  He's just carrying a grudge and trying to get people to support him and this really isn't at all appropriate for AN/I.  It's even more inappropriate for you to use that to discuss content disputes over this matter--if you're going to acknowledge notability, you better go tell him that, otherwise you're just encouraging him.  He doesn't even want to link to any sites unless there's proof that they're super duper notable--he even rejects things such as pagerank for measures of popularity and when I found multiple news articles mentioning the website, he said the mentions weren't prominent enough.  You missed the point of my argument as well, I wasn't using the forum as if it were a newspaper, I was using it to demonstrating that criticism for freezing accounts and other things were common enough to be worthy of being mentioned int he article. -Nathan J. Yoder 03:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Drawing conclusions on how common a criticism is is OR research. You have to let reliable sources draw those conclusions for you.--Crossmr 04:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're even harassing me on my talk page? Why ignore where this guy disagreed with you? Determining the commonality of a viewpoint is REQUIRED by WP:NPOV in order to give due weight.  How the hell else are you going to determine it?  Reliable sources aren't going to provide you a statistic on the proportions of views for all the articles of Wikipedia and you can find many that would disagree, too, (remember that source that said that many people criticized paypal and you rejected it because the author didn't considre them valid, even though commonality is the only criteria for notability) because they're not based on anything scientific, unless they're an actual study.  Go ahead, try to find policy supporting what you're saying about commonality--I bet you will conveniently fail to find anything specific and will just say "It's in the policy pages somewhere" again. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. How common this criticism is is unpublished. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. You are analyzing an unreliable source to create pov. Original research includes editors' personal views, its your personal view on how common it is based on the forum as a source, and again and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position you're trying to advance your position about how common these criticisms are. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article Commonness is opinion.  I could go on but you should pay very close attention to the two sections which follow it on that policy.--Crossmr 04:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't address what I said, again. How will you assess due weight (per NPOV) with determining commonality of a viewpoint?  -Nathan J. Yoder 04:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can assess it and propose it as something that should be included in the article, but you can't editorialize in the article about how common you feel it is.--Crossmr 04:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Assessing it yourself means performing the research yourself = original research by your logic. Stop being hypocritical with your logic.  That's what I've been doing and you've been rejecting it.  You reject mention of "some people believe," not just "many people believe," are you denying this claim now?  Furthermore, how can you EVER include statements saying "many people believe" (or something s imilar) without a study? -Nathan J. Yoder 04:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't, and shouldn't. See WP:WEASEL..yes yes..only an essay, but you shouldn't be using language like that. I always tag and remove statements like that.--Crossmr 04:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny how you didn't address how analyzing the commonality of something for due weight is original research using your logic. Remember, you wanted to exclude even mention of websites like paypalsucks.com (which I could use ot attribute statements l;ike "The users of paypalsucks.com have claimed...") on the basis of undue weight, asserting that my determining of commonality of it was original research.  That means that all assessments of undue weight are OR--explain otherwise if you disagree.  And a guideline that says "avoid," sounds like you should automatically remove all references without bothering to allow further clarification or citation.  Tagging and removing them defeats the purpose of tags.  You're the only person I know that does that.  -Nathan J. Yoder 05:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh for crying out loud guys. Just stop. I can't even tell what the debate is really about under all the complaints about each other's motives, tactics, and persons. Does it all come down to this edit or are we talking about other text as well? There's apparently a Paypal dispute, but I haven't dug back to find the actual text yet.
 * Looking just at the linked text - it describes the opinion of a particular person and then cites a blog as source of this being their opinion. In order for that to be 'kosher' two things have to be demonstrable;
 * The person writing the blog entry really is the person ('Ryan Block') cited in the article
 * This person's opinion is both relevant and notable in regards to the topic
 * It seems like the first issue is easily met here... it's his blog, it was apparently created from his account, he hasn't disavowed it... Ryan Block really wrote that. So the question then is whether Ryan Block's opinion should be in the article. Bill Gates' opinion about the personal computer is relevant and notable, my opinion as a random computer professional is relevant but not notable, and Katie Holmes' may be notable, but her opinion about computers isn't relevant. Is Ryan Block a person whose opinion is notable and relevant to IntelliTXT? Offhand, I can't see that he is. Neither he, his blog, nor the newsletter he works on warrants a Wikipedia article. He has been cited by some notable sources and thus is 'above par' in terms of blogger notability, but there is nothing to indicate that his opinion on this topic will have a major impact on the industry.
 * However, a quick Google search turns up similar criticism of the product from The New York Times, The Poynter Institute, and the USC Annenberg... any of which would certainly seem notable and relevant.
 * Look over those sources. Any chance you both would be willing to use criticisms from these sources in place of the Ryan Block section? In short, do they satisfy Njyoder's desire to include information about complaints regarding the product and Crossmr's concerns about notability and relevance? --CBD 15:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would request that you move this to the relevant pages (the talk page of IntelliTXT), please copy this there and if you do, you can copy my response or I'll do it myself. I will save most of my response for there so it doesn't just stay on my talk page.  Basically, he is the chief editor and has control over all advertisements on one of the biggest blogs.  Those articles you cite as RS (which I agree qualify) basically do the same thing--they cite the opinions of higher up editors in various publications regarding this.  Most of it is the article writer's opinion, even though they're just a journalist.  I don't see why Block's opinion shouldn't be considered up there with other important editors quoted in that article. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice
I have proposed that the community ban Crossmr and Njyoder from editing PayPal or Talk:PayPal due to long term disruption. You may wish to comment. Dread Pirate Westley• Aargh 12:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)