User talk:Occulthand

Order of the Occult Hand
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Order of the Occult Hand. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jeraphine Gryphon, please don't toss an accusation my way. The linked article that I mentioned is something I knew about, though I have no current affiliation with the website, nor have I been affiliated with the site in over a year. The citation does deserve a mention because the author did a crafty job of slipping the line past at least one (probably two) editors. Further, as you know, the Order of the Occult Hand requires that the writer slip the line past an editor, and that the size of the publication is immaterial. The website referenced is notable in the sense that it has several million unique visits every month, which incidentally is much higher than the circulations of most of the newspapers mentioned on the page (The Bangkok Post circulation is under 75,000). To be civil, I'll wait for a response instead of just reverting the page. Thanks! Occulthand (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The number of its visitors (AND its editors) is what's "immaterial", it's still a random website, and not every website and publication is entitled to get a mention in Wikipedia just because they did something that Wikipedia has an article about. Please try to accept that and refrain from continuing to advertise your website here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I very politely asked you not to accuse me of advertising anything. Now you're just being rude and inconsiderate. It is not a "random" website, but rather highly regarded by the automotive news world. You are certainly free to defend your position that the website is not substantial enough to be included, but using subjective terms to describe it, such as "random", shows your lack of knowledge about its prominence to automotive enthusiasts. Further, you can insult me all day long, but do not keep repeating the statement that an advertisement is trying to be placed on Wikipedia by me. It is simply not true.Occulthand (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I very gladly lack "knowledge" about any and all of the millions of websites on the internet. Do you understand what the problem here is? Wikipedia has to have some standards of inclusion, it's not a repository of any and all information there exists in the world. So what if you included that phrase in some posting on the internet, who cares? The Order of the Occult Hand article is about serious journalists who write for real newspapers, and you'll notice that the article says that the "Order" (a certain group of people, of which you're not a member) "had chosen a new secret phrase /--/ and resumed a stealth operation" in 2006. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If one aspect of your complaint is that the written article I referenced takes place after 2006, then why do you allow at least two other stories on the Wikipedia page from after that date? Further, while Wikipedia does need to have "standards of inclusion", it is important for those who step up and voluntarily edit pages to acknowledge some level of uniformity and precedent. That said, the linked reference comes from a website that is cited in hundreds of Wikipedia (English) pages, as any search engine will show you. This demonstrates that your judgement in this situation is a totally arbitrary determination that goes against many other Wikipedia page editors' and users' determinations. Lastly, if this is a secret order, how would you know whether or not I am a member?Occulthand (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) I haven't read through each and every one of the examples in the article.
 * 2) The website is used as a reference in Wikipedia articles 330 times. But just because it is used does not mean it actually qualifies as a reliable source. I believe there are fewer responsible/policy-aware editors editing those (automotive-related) articles than there are new(ish) editors like yourself who are enthusiastic about the topics they write about and use whatever sources they want or whatever turns up on Google, without caring about our standards. Ain't nobody got time to clean up all the minor messes that well-intentioned newbs leave behind.
 * 3) That's ridiculous. But apparently you admit that you're the author of that article on the website?
 * 4) If you still insist on making that edit, I'm going to take up the issue in a relevant noticeboard. Or if you want to have the first word yourself, you can do it yourself. (Dispute_resolution)
 * — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all saying that I am the author of the article in question, nor would it be a bad thing to "admit," especially since you can plainly see in the edit page that several authors have added their own articles to the list. All that is totally beyond the point. What you are saying is that 330 Wikipedia articles are wrong for using the citation, and that you are correct for denying it. I am continuing to push this issue because I find your stance to be arrogant, stubborn and against the more democratic nature of Wikipedia, particularly because you removed a new citation arbitrarily without checking to see if (a)all the other cites in the article meet your standard, and (b)if the cited website in question is editorially independent, as hundreds of other Wikipedia users seem to agree. Occulthand (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * since you can plainly see in the edit page that several authors have added their own articles to the list -- I'm seeing the most recent one by user Dcrybak and can't be bothered to investigate any further; if the edits are good and valid then it doesn't matter who makes them. (So you're right, it's beyond the point. Except when you have a conflict of interest.)
 * My undoing of your edit was not "arbitrary", as I've been explaining here, it was totally justified. But I'm not obligated to go and check for/fix any other mistakes in the article (or the rest of Wikipedia) just to please you.
 * And yes I am definitely saying that there hundreds, nay, thousands of bad edits and bad editors on Wikipedia. Just because there's lots doesn't mean they're right.
 * I don't see how editorial independence is relevant here at all. It's still a random website and too insignificant to mention alongside the others that are currently listed. You'll notice that the only publication listed there that doesn't have its own Wikipedia article is something called BYTE, but I'm not going to remove that entry since it seems to qualify as real journalism and is from 1990. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Wikipedia is not a democracy. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I requested third opinion. Please wait. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Third opinion seems appropriate. Occulthand (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like I'm going to have to be the responsible one who stops before getting into an edit war. Just so you know, one can get blocked for that. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Though it would have been appropriate to keep the earlier consensus version of the article before reaching a new consensus when this conversation between editors is finished.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Similarly, it is also appropriate to actually read the responses of those with whom you disagree, instead of accusing that person of not responding to your complaints (policy-based or otherwise). It really does seem like you prefer to insult people and lob accusations instead of intelligently progressing a discussion or debate. Occulthand (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Just because I wasn't convinced by your arguments(?) doesn't mean I didn't read them. So the website has a lot of pageviews and has actual editors (do they really?), it seems like that's your whole argument to include a mention to it in Order of the Occult Hand. I say it doesn't belong there (I'm gonna repeat myself now because apparently you "never read" my arguments), because the "Order" (as the WP article describes) seems to be a specific group of people, or even if anyone could become a "member" just by including the phrase in a published article, it still seems to be exclusive to printed publications i.e. real newspapers written by real journalists (preferably before 2006). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You said I did not address your "valid and policy-based arguments" in the article's edit summary. If you believe that statement, then you did not read my replies. Perhaps you meant to say something different. Further, there is nothing written in the article on the "Order", nor in any of the citations, that states that phrase must be in print on paper, only that it must be written (as in, reading the line in a radio report does not make a "member". Additionally, your continued questioning of the website's validity and use of professional editors suggests that you forgot about assuming good faith.


 * And as an aside, I never said Wikipedia was a democracy, but rather that it had a "democratic nature," as in "egalitarian." Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but all users are meant to be treated -and to treat others- equally, with deference to Wikipedia policies. This, of course, includes you, which means your claim that the citation is a "random website" should stand up to community thoughts regarding questionable sources. That article states that, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." Thus, my remarks about editorial independence are rather relevant, and the fact that hundreds of other Wikipedia articles make use of the website in question supports my assertion that the Wikipedia community does not consider the website to be either a questionable source, or a "random website" as you have repeatedly stated.


 * Taking these thoughts into consideration, I am having a difficult time in seeing validity in your complaint. Your inability to apologize for continually accusing me of a variety of things, combined with your lack of desire to take a step back and revisit the situation from a fresh perspective, suggests that you care more about being right than about what the right thing is to do in this situation. -Occulthand (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The current argument is not about whether the site can be used as a reference or not, but whether it should be mentioned in the Order article or not.
 * (One of us doesn't understand what the term "editorial independence" means.) I retain that the fact that a website has editors doesn't really mean a lot. (I could hire an editor for my blog, does that make me mentionworthy?) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the argument is about whether the website qualifies as mentionable in the Order article. Its heavy use as a reference in Wikipedia suggests the community thinks that it is indeed mentionable. The argument is also whether or not the website is a "random website" as you stated the first time you reverted my edit. Its heavy use as a reference in Wikipedia, and your own admitted ignorance of the site, suggests the community thinks it is not simply a random site plucked from the ether. And I keep bringing up editorial staffing and independence because that can be deemed a key factor in whether something is a reliable source, such as those deemed to be a news organization. -Occulthand (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. As the first order of business, I'm going to copy the foregoing discussion over to the article talk page, since that is where discussions about article content should take place and be recorded. I'll give my third opinion there. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for jumping in on the conversation. It is appreciated. Occulthand (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)