User talk:Serendipodous/User talk:Serendipodous archive 3

Reply to Am I being unfair?
I hate to sound overly cliché here, and I am sure you have heard it all before. But I sometimes think we all need to review (READ!) the policies and guidelines, and re-emphasize that all articles within the Wikipedia must conform to them. Special attention must be given to enforcing verifiability from reliable sources, avoiding original research, and maintaining a neutral point of view; and this is most especially important for articles which constitute a biography of a living person. If an article, such as Politics and influences of J.K. Rowling crosses any of the policy lines, then it must be flagged as such and cleaned up, post haste. This does not mean that the concerns cannot be consensus-discussed on the article and user talk pages in a civil manner, carefully avoiding personal attacks and such. If you think the article in question fails to conform to Wikipedia policy, especially in the matter of neutrality and verifiability in a WP:BLP (please read that!), to the extent that the Wikipedia can be seen as being "irresponsible", then the policies provide for immediate removal of the offending material, and review by the BLP Noticeboard if intervention is necessary. Some applicable thoughts from WP:BLP... I know this is a rather lengthy answer (not to mention a bad copy-and-paste job of published wiki-policies and guidelines) but my intention is to show that there are policies and guidelines that cover the issue, sources for recourse, and justification and methods for investigating and "fixing" the problem. Thanks for your patience. --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 11:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR.
 * We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
 * This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
 * Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominence comes a measure of responsibility. Wikipedia is, fundamentally, a project that aims to improve the world. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion, grace and understanding.
 * Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted (see WP:BLP).
 * Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in WP:V, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see WP:NOR). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply.
 * If you have concerns, either as editor or subject, about biographical material about a living person on any page, please contact the BLP noticeboard.


 * Ok, I admit some of the Politics and Influences of J.K. Rowling needed citations (which I could have added with a request), but I think deletion of the entire article is a little bit extreme, especially with truncated discussion. I realize that most people who've read Harry Potter can't see the political message, and my POV is that Rowling wrote the "political children's fairy tale about a monster" to try and reach those folks.  Looks like this is my last act as a writer under this account since I upset the person concerned about being unfair. Libertycookies 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi S., Sorry for assuming you were behind the banning of me from the wiki-universe (seems like a bug there, but I'm not minding exploiting it in an act of civil disobedience). Re: Pierce, he should perhaps reflect that "vulgarity is the crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker."
 * Re: publishing, been there. As you might be able to tell I sometimes have issues with editors and prefer immediate gratifaction.  I have no problems with your requests for citations and challenges to the content, but did get a bit steamed when content was deleted.  And btw, I'm not a "she" or a right-winger.
 * Thanks for your message, you'll probably see me around in some form or another.Libertycookies 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * S., I'd like to point out that I'm already banned. Try to open your eyes to the world sometime, you might be surprised at what you see. Libertycookies 19:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude...
That comment by Piercetheorganist on your talk page was way over the line. If you ever get an attack like that again from anyone, please don't hesitate to inform an administrator immediately (I will be happy to help). We simply cannot have that kind of thing here. Lexicon (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Any administrator should be able to help. It appears we do not have a personal attack notice board, but perhaps we should.  In extreme cases, it is acceptable to go to WP:AN/I.  I would think that an attack of such a vehement nature required such immediate action; if I were attacked in such a way and weren't an admin I'd bring it to AN/I.  Whether others would agree that it was appropriate for that forum, I don't know, but since just about everything gets thrown around on AN/I nowadays, I wouldn't hesitate to go there if you receive future attacks regarding Asperger's or anything else like that.  As for your response to him, it was remarkably calm considering what he said to you.  It took remarkable restraint for me to limit his block to 24 hours.  He "deserves" more, but I can't give him a punitive block. Lexicon (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved the barnstar to my user page. Thanks for the good vibes, and I always appreciate a DNA reference :) Serendipodous 21:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey...just saw your note - sorry I couldn't help out earlier. There was no justification whatsoever for an attack like that, and it is awful that a great contributor like you was subjected to it. I think you handled it very well, for what it's worth. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter
Wow... I just saw what Pierce did to your talkpage what a whiny little WikiTroll! Anyway it make my timing even more judicious - I just thought that your endless efforts with the HP article deserved some recognition! It's a difficult article to police - but somewhat easier since it went on semi-protection - and you're doing a fantastic job bringing it up to FA quality! AulaTPN 09:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of fixing the hanging E=mc2 barnstar on your user page. The problem was caused by the fact that most userboxes are contained in a div tag which floats to the left. This breaks the normal block-level page flow so I inserted a blank div with no float and clearing on both sides. AulaTPN 12:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It was absolutely no problem - pretty much the only benefit of my misspent youth as a web developer! AulaTPN 12:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you do me another favour, please Aula?
(from User talk:AulaTPN)

Could you go over Libertycookies's recent addition to JK Rowling's page? I have gone into conflict so deep with this dude I can't be objective any more. Thanks. Serendipodous 08:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. Most of it seems good but there are a few problems which I've expanded on in the article's talk page. In a nutshell, I think he/she's lifted way to much text word-for-word from his/her cited articles so I've tried to reword some. Also he/she seems determined to infer from various quotes that JK is openly socialist - most notably from the fact that her heroine is Jessica Mittford. I don't see any support for that leap in the referenced articles but again I've said more about that in the article's talk page. AulaTPN 10:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd love to offer my advice but I don't think this guy will listen to reason. I have explained to the best of my ability the flaw in his inductive reasoning but he seems to think that I'm a rabid right-winger victimising him for his political views and so won't take anything I say on board. It's all a bit ironic really; I come from a family of Chomskyite Old Labour socialists. Because I actually know genuine socialists, I suppose that's why I'm personally convinced that Rowling isn't one. Serendipodous 10:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're probably right - this does seem to have become excessively personal. It's interesting that you should say that, though. I actually think JK probably does espouse a certain moderately socialist ethic but only to the point that most centralists do. AulaTPN 10:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * S. No one has proved that Rowling worships Satan, contrary to what you posted on my talk page. I don't think she is a Socialist, but she obviously sympathizes with socialist values, or at least with a very socialist author whom she considers a heroine. Libertycookies 14:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm familar with Libel law (slander is spoken, not written). This doesn't rise to libel under U.S. law.  Moreover, libel has to be a knowingly false statement with intent to damage.  A true statement doesn't qualify.  I also think you vastly overestimate the reach of wikipedia as compared to Rowling if she chose to comment on her political beliefs.  As a public figure she has to endure some discussion of her beliefs and actions.  I'm more of a private figure and libel against me is less tolerated by the courts.
 * You are very conservative in your attitudes, if not your politics, which is what I meant. Libertycookies 15:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we've finally reached an impasse. As you're a far more experienced wikipedian do you want to start the ball rolling on mediation/arbitration whatever? AulaTPN 20:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, I've added my two cents. If you think there's anything in my statement that's contentious or too strong then I'll strike/remove it. AulaTPN 19:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow; you should be a lawyer. That was masterful. And I like my new name :) I was a bit worried it might be too long but I pasted it onto Word and did a word count and it's just under: 498 words :) Serendipodous 20:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good - brevity has never been one of my strong points! ;-) I hope you don't mind me taking dire liberties (no pun intended) with your username but I'm lazy and it's a lot quicker to type! We'll I guess all you can say is that we've shaken the tree and now we'll just have to wait and see what falls out. Although it did occur to me that our request for arbitration doesn't actually have a request in it! What are we asking them to do for us if they decide in our favour? AulaTPN 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * After all I've been accused of, I refuse to the admins' job for them. I have no interest in calling for this lunatic's head. But, given that he has comprehensively and repeatedly violated every single established Wikipedia rule on conduct and practice, I can't see how they won't ban him. Serendipodous 21:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can! If I've learned anything from travelling the wiki it's to expect the unexpected. (Or should that be to expect the worst?) I have a horrible feeling they'll give him a slap on the wrists (which he'll doubtless ignore) and tell us to suck it up. Playing devil's advocate for a minute - what has he actually done to warrant being banned? He's not vandalised an article in the real sense of the word - just posted tons of mildly libellous garbage, tried to carve a niche in the 'paedia to pedal his fanciful notions and hurled some ill-thought-out insults. And even if they do ban him - he seems so hell-bent on forcing his agenda that he'll probably just reappear as a sock puppet and then we'll have to do this all over again. Still, chin up! After all as Tolkien said, despair is the greatest sin! AulaTPN 22:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Rowling and Lewis (via Cedric Diggory)
Since you added a comment about Cedric Diggory's name being possibly a nod to C.S. Lewis in late '05, the sentence has gotten prodded, removed, replaced, and referenced a few times. The reference that was used to substantiate a connexion between Rowling and Lewis seemed to show anything but an admiration for him on her part. Because you added the initial comment, I was wondering if maybe you might be able to cite a better reference that would show Lewis as a favourite author of Rowling's. With the only reference seeming to indicate the opposite, I snipped off that part of the comment (as it now stands). --Dajagr 18:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, we cool?

 * Sorry about that confusion over Oort cloud. If you'd like to see more info added I can have a go. What do you think it needs? Serendipodous 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We're fine. I just misunderstood your intent is all. Sorry. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been working on Uranus and would appreciate your thoughts on it, particularly on the unresolved issues. Serendipodous 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Back in April I put some feedback on the talk page. I'll do an update of those notes. Hope that helps. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

"The Rebellion Begins" comments
Thanks for alerting me. I left a message on his talk page. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 16:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's always worth it to start civil and hope that it works. If it doesn't, you know that you tried. :) Off to check out the ArbCom case. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

source and citations added: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808475612/info

Did you get my email T-Dot?
''Please let me know. Serendipodous 14:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)''
 * T-Dot, I've lost any patience. Libertycookies has finally gone insane and I cannot deal with this anymore. PLEASE do something about this! Serendipodous 16:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry - I've been tied up with baseball tournament this weekend, and now have a team barbecue going on, so I have not had much online-time. I did get your email, thanks, but again I have not had time to study the matter and form an opinion.  In general, I think the correct approach would be to contact an administrator, (I am not one), via Request Administrator Assistance, perhaps preferably contact one who has been involved in the HP Project, who can understand the sensitivity and subleties of the matter, and also help to explain and enforce the applicable policies  User:John Reaves might be a good candidate administrator, and others can be found at WikiProject Harry Potter/Participants - the admins are those with many links after the name including the sys-op tools "blocks", "protects", etc.  I am sorry if you thought I was an admin or something - but I have no more "power" to do anything than you do.  You could also to try to get an independant Third opinion from someone who is not involved, who can offer an unbiased view and see if there is a basis for further action.  Check the link for more information.  If this proves unsatisfactory, then there is a process called Request for Comment, which is another part of the Dispute Resolution process, where you can request that other editors formally review and comment on another user's activities, and they then come to a consensus on whether the matter needs to be dealt with by an administrator or bureaucrat, up to and including banning a user if it comes to that.  I understand your strong sense of urgency, and that you want it to come to a rapid resolution, but it is important to remember that there is nothing "permanent" in the Wikipedia; and in time any material that a user has posted that proves to be inappropriate, can and will be corrected in due time.  Sometimes we have to be patient and let things work out in a content dispute, according to the process, to avoid edit wars and reversion battles.  I'll do what I can to help, but that is not much beyond offering an opinion and participating in a consensus discussion or debate on the matter.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that opinion, wikipedia is meant to be an iterative process. Sorry that my quotes and citations drive you mad.  Unfortunately since I've researched JK so thoroughly, it all seems very apparent to me, and I appreciate that you need to be brought up to speed.  Simply mark up what you want substantiated and I'll do it.  ....but How can you justify deleting the Mitford section, do you want to read the JK Rowling article "The first It girl," to understand the relevance of her influence on Jo? Libertycookies 14:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Seren, I apologize for being rude. I typically respond to what I view as disrespect with reciprocal disrespect. If you are ready to move on, I suggest that you withdraw your complaint which I'm sure you realize won't stand up, because I am more than capable of supplying ample documentation of my quotes when given the opportunity.  I don't want to have to paint you as being the bad guy, but your acts and comments about me look far worse than anything I've ever done to you.  Can we get to a productive session where you don't delete before exploring the chance that I might have valid points that are sourcable? Libertycookies 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Moved to userpage :-) Serendipodous 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

works analogous
Nice one. A difficult subject to approach, but just maybe Rowling may be willing to talk a little more in the not too distant future. Sandpiper 18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

again, I gently suggest that it is time to move on
Just trying to clean up the talk so that newcomers don't have to wade through unproductive finger pointing. Libertycookies 20:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved with this aspect of it:. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I realize that was awkwardly worded. I just wanted you to see that he had deleted your comment, which was ironic. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
I've taken JK Rowling off my watchlist. I've gone to great lengths to bring Liberty's abuses to general attention, to a chorus of indifference. I can no longer edit that article. Serendipodous 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup I'm not going to be doing much to the Harry Potter article either. What particularly galls me is that the admins have sent this guy exactly the wrong message and now he'll deface articles with impunity. This is one of the things I absolutely hate about wikipedia - the governance around here is dreadful. AulaTPN 09:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think the problem is that the Rowling and LibertyCookies issue is essentially a relatively minor content dispute, in the overall scheme of things, which as a class of issues does not rise to the level requiring the attention of the ArbCom, which is the LAST RESORT step in resolving an issue, not the first or the middle. I believe that is why they declined 2-1 to take it on. There are several steps in the Dispute Resolution process, including formal Request for Comment and Request for Mediation, that are in place specifically to deal with issues of this matter. What happened here is you essentially went straight to the "Supreme Court" to appeal a traffic ticket, right after the "cop" handed it out, and they refused to hear the case because that is not their stated function. There are 3 or 4 "courts" which should have heard the case first, and then we "appeal" up the ladder if the other lower steps produce unsatisfactory results. I know this may be a bit difficult to grasp, as the DR process is not exactly like appealing an improper murder conviction which could result in an unjust hanging, but the point is there are steps to be taken, and we jumped ahead to the end here. I would have said so at the RFArb, but I did not want to stir up more mud, and I did not feel like it was my place to point out the error. You can always start all over at the formal RfC level and get some proper attention on the matter. There have been longer and less civil disagreements in the HP Project (eg: the Folken vs Sandpiper / OR edit wars ) that still have not gone to a proper RfC, no consensus has been reached yet whether Granger and Mugglenet can be used as sources for documenting fan theories. Compared to that, the "Rowling is an anarchist" playground skirmish is a minor blip on the radar screen for the Wiki bureaucrats and administrators at the ArbCom level. I would urge you to study the WP:DR page and follow the accepted process, in the proper order, if you want assistance with dealing with LibertyCookies. Some of the steps have been arguably done, but it needs to be documented before the next level in the appeals process will consider the matter. Please do not give up watching the pages. At least place citation needed tags in places where claims about Rowling and the HP series are made that are not properly sourced. That makes the objectionable material legally deletable and grounds for RfC if an edit war ensues. Don't give up the ship. --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 09:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC) ''OK; I've started a request for mediation. However, since it can't go ahead unless Libertycookies agrees with it, I don't see how it will help. What do I do if he rejects it? Serendipodous 10:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)- Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:T-dot"''
 * Postscript Note: LibertyCookies accepted mediation. -T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work. It looks so much better when formalized doesn't it?  Now if LibertyCookies refuses to cooperate in mediation (there is no indication that this would happen, as LibertyCookies has been reasonably communicative in the past, so give him/her some time to think it over), and the Mediation Committee thus refuses to take it on, then the dispute can discussed in a formal request for comment, which can be a bit more compulsory and final, since administrative intervention, up to an including temporary blocking, can be invoked as needed in serious cases where a user ignores the consensus of an RfC.  Not saying that can be expected here, just that RfM is used for more cooperative parties, RfC for less cooperative parties, when results are needed and when the reputation of the Wikipedia is at stake.  Your major basis for this request is that the Wikipedia is essentially responsible for content, and WP:BLP requires very high standards on articles like Rowling's, and in any other articles where her alleged motivations and sympathies may be posted and discussed.  You want to carefully examine BLP.  Another issue that may need to be examined is whether LibertyCookies is engaging in Synthesizing an Argument to advance a position, which is also considered improper under Original Research - you want to study that carefully and point that out as an issue for discussion at Mediation or RfC if you believe it is a legitimate concern.  Anyway if the RfM process fails, and RfC does not produce a consensus or a necessary change in a user's practices, then the Arbitration Committee would likely be more interested in taking the issue up, based on documented violations of policies, clear attempts to resolve the issue formally, and continued refusal to participate or cooperate in formal mediation and consensus debates.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 11:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please thank the administrator and ask "her" to review the corresponding RfM and RfArb pages - and provide her with links to make it easy: Requests for arbitration and Requests for mediation/J. K. Rowling. --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor comment on the J. K. Rowling discussion
Hey Seren, although I haven't participated in the discussion, I have followed the dispute for the past couple of days. I felt compelled to inform you that, despite agreeing with you and understanding your frustration with Liberty, I still find your last entry on the talk page, serving no purpose other than to provoke Liberty. Ask yourself if the comment was really necessary? Anyhow, it's not a big deal, but I figured you would like to know this given that you have displayed an exemplary level of maturity and been quite civil for the most part of the discussion. Cheers! — Dorvaq (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [I thought about deleting it afterwards] but realised that it would simply be recovered in the history and then I would have to face accusations of cowardice as well as incivility. I wrote it in response to Liberty's comment that I had rounded up a group that agreed with me to challenge him. The claim was so ludicrous, and so insulting, that I felt I couldn't let it go unanswered. Perhaps I was wrong. Still, not much I can do about it now 15:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I can see you have decided to delete the entry afterall. If anyone accuses you of cowardice, then you can just point them to our discussion here, which should serve to show them that the deletion was completed in good faith. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

...
I'm at a loss of words for you. Maybe Pierce could be some help. Keep defaming me and spreading your interpretations and I will have you banned. Libertycookies 15:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. You've been trying for over a month to insinuate that Rowling must a socialist, even to the point of telling me that I'm some kind of authoritarian uberconservative for not allowing you to say so, and now you're accusing me of doing what you've been doing nonstop all these weeks? If not to claim that Rowling is a socialist, what point are you making with that section? Because right now it's just a random collection of quotes. Serendipodous 14:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said any of this and defy you to show where I did. Libertycookies 18:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at the quote in context, you'll see that I was talking about quotes in the media that I could use in a wikiarticle:

"The only thing from conservative [commentators] are the [right wing] criticisms for her socialist atti[t]udes that S. derides [when I had put them in the Controversies article]"


 * In other words, you derided the quotes from conservatives, not you were the conservative. The statement probably wasn't well written or thought out judging from my mispelling of 'attitudes'.


 * I know that I asked if "you were sure you weren't conservative", but can't think of anywhere that I claimed to know your politics, or where I went to individual users talk pages defining you as a conservative.Libertycookies 21:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Solar Sunstorm
I've noticed how you have recieved multiple awards for the Harry Potter article. I'm a huge fan as well; I could practically write the books out word for word I've read them so many times. I was wondering if you'd partner with me to perfect that article. Just trying to get connected on wikipedia-- Solar Sunstorm  19:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series
Hi Serendipodous. You are off to such a great start on the article Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page would help bring publicity to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Religious controversy over the Harry Potter series
Hi Serendipodous. You are off to such a great start on the article Religious controversy over the Harry Potter series that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page would help bring publicity to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If the material was on Wikipedia for more than five days, it probably does not qualify for DYK. Too bad. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 16:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)