User talk:PetraSchelm/Archives/2008/June

Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman
Hey, just to let you know, I wrote out two brief responses to Filll's questions. Regards,  Enigma  message 03:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
I have started a discussion about your removal of entire journal/book sources because of questionable online copies. I am not asking for a block, but for you to understand that this is not an acceptable editing policy on your part. forestPIG 20:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, and I have replied there already pointing that out. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not picking a conflict here. I just want to point something out. And trust me, I know what I'm talking about. forestPIG 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ? You posted on AN/I without talking to me about it first, so yes, you are trying to stir up drama. And you're wrong--any reliable source can be cited without ipce. (I left fact tags as placeholders for reformating/replacing with reliable sources). -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ForestPig, whose admin sock are you anyway (email me privately if you want). I am particularly intrigued by your comment that you know what you are talking about, perhaps you would care to expand on that particular gem. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Petra: The concept was so simple that I presented it in edit summaries. You persisted, so I made a note of it at the old AN/I. No harm in that - and as stated throughout this - no intention to punish you, but just to put you right. forestPIG 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, except you're wrong, as was demonstrated in the thread. And I've already left you a message about your inappropriate  "edit summary" discussions. Meanwhile, can you provide some confirmation that you are operating a legitimate alternate account, as Squeakbox asked?  One trusted editor who could vouch for you? (Your grasp of policy is not consistent with that of an admin...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never seen you once do anything Petra that deserves the implied hostility in this message from the new editor Forestic Pig. This is a comment from the likes of Jovin Lambton.Googie man (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse
Hi,

Please note WP:LEAD - the lead should summarize the page below, and though it's common to find wiki articles that do it, the lead should not include high-level details on the individual sources. Also, Victor isn't the only source for the statement, so to have that level of discussion you'd have to have 4-5 more sentences that deals with the red scare and witch-hunt in each source. Also, there's more than just the quote you pasted (google books search?), on pages 214-6 there's two full pages of discussion of the comparison alone and a total of 5 explicit comparisons between SRA and red scare in the book.

The lead right now, in addition to the page itself, is pretty bad. The whole red scare/witch hunt/blood libel needs much, much more detail in the body, and that should occur before the lead itself reflects it. SRA is a bad page, cobbled together through a long series of hotly contested edits from initially quite poor, now gradually more reliable sources. Given the surprising amount of scholarly sources I've turned up recently, it really needs an overhaul.

What I have concerns about with your edit is the way it appears to 'judge' the source and its statement, that it can be discounted because it involves comparison with hippies and whatnot. That's only one of the five sections that compares the two concepts, and reliability comes not from the content, but the publisher. So long as a reliable source says it, no matter how ridiculous or exagerrated, it can stay on the page (Michelle Remembers is a great example of this - Satan himself appears, but we're not allowed to call it dumb). In addition, as I mention above there are more sources for the communism and witch-hunt statement, and we shouldn't be dealing with or discounting them individually.

It's a twitchy page, and probably going to get messier (if not protected) in the near future. But debate is healthy, so let's keep talking. WLU (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what we need to see is that 1) other references make that comparison 2) that it's more than a knee-jerk allusion/that there's substantive analysis. (And if so, that should be treated in the body of the article). -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, on both points. I really like your point on the SRA talk page about the definitions of SRA.  Very clearly there are multiple ones, and very clearly there is no proof for some but definite proof for others.  Unfortunately the page doesn't demonstrate this!  Welcome aboard the the SRA train by the way, it's frustrating to edit and often acrimonious and keeps wobbling between a decent, referenced article and a messy pile of dog vomit.  Ultimately the best and worst that wikipedia has to offer : )  WLU (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Neil Goldschmidt
I just wanted to recognize a particularly fine bit of writing in the current talk page discussion. When you said "Saying the man had sex with the child is like saying the man had dinner with the pork chop," that just about perfectly encapsulated the problem. It also made me laugh loudly enough that people looked at me. Thanks for that. --SSBohio 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

re J Lambton
I don't get it, he is blocked, how is he making threats or any other type of post? Herostratus (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)