User talk:Sleddog116/Archives/2011/November

Rollback
Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

 Wifione  Message 09:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Insanity Defense
Hi, not sure why you removed my addition to the Insanity Defence page without consultation? Doc Insanity 13:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc insanity (talk • contribs)

Your action seems heavy-handed Sleddog - especially the point it was correcting was itself unreferenced (in fact the entire article is not that well referenced). Jack Hawkins legal academic &#38; Times reader (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't leave any more comments on my talk page - thanks Jack Hawkins legal academic &#38; Times reader (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well. I will respect your wish and continue the discussion here.  However, my statements still stand.  If you can provide references, why are you unwilling to do so?  If you consider being committed to providing verifiable information as being "sanctimonious," then I suppose I am sanctimonious.  However, that is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, so Wikipedia itself would be sanctimonious by that standard.  From that page: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources." Unsourced, unreferenced material may be challenged and removed - any number of experienced Wikipedians will tell you the same.  Just because it's a point you want to make doesn't mean you can arbitrarily say it without providing references - regardless of how well the rest of the article is sourced.  I still don't understand your reluctance to provide sources - if you have such good sources, as you insist that you do, why are you unwilling to cite them? Sleddog116 (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't I cite my sources? In two words - your attitude. I have the citations to support my statement on my Refworks and the articles and papers I have already written, I can assure you. You pulled my addition on the basis that it wasn't referenced, but the original statement (that those found NGRI generally receive psychiatric treatment) wasn't referenced. I just find it very strange, and if you were really committing to helping make Wikipedia an authoritative encyclopaedia you would want people who are actually experts on the subject matter to contribute. The legal articles on mental condition defences are really substandard I'm afraid, and I was intending to contribute as when work allowed to improve their standard. Not anymore. Jack Hawkins legal academic &#38; Times reader (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My attitude has nothing to do with the verifiability of your source information. Expert attention is valued, but that doesn't mean that it's allowed to follow lower standards than anyone else's additions.  Anyone can claim to be an expert.  You are turning something simple into something complicated; if you are so certain that your addition was accurate and can truly provide sources as you claim you can, then doing so should be a simple matter.  Even if you could site the legal language from the Act itself (providing a link to the Act's text), that would be fine.  In discussing attitude, you asked me why I reverted your edits.  I patiently explained, citing all of the appropriate WP guidelines.  You, on the other hand, have become belligerent and almost hostile towards me though I have done nothing but calmly reinforce the guidelines.  If you had read ANY of the wikilinks I provided in my previous posts, you would know that self-published sources aren't considered reliable.  You need to use third-party sources and not original research.  Sleddog116 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, you're not willing to accept that you had a bad attitude. Fine. I wash my hands of this. And incidentally, I was not talking about citing my own articles. Jack Hawkins legal academic &#38; Times reader (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's as may be, but it still sidesteps the issue at hand - the need for verification, which you are still unwilling to provide. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that IS the issue. As I explained, I have the references for all my assertions in that article because they are in papers I have already written! I don't make assertions that I can't prove. It comes from being an academic. What beats me is how someone who knows next to nothing about the subject matter can reasonably expect to do a decent job of editing an article about it? Unbelievable. No doubt next you will tell me it makes no difference what you know about a subject, you can still edit a Wiki page on it. Of course not. How on earth can you work out when someone is being highly selective? Jack Hawkins legal academic &#38; Times reader (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Just to add, since you think that quoting Wiki policy gives you legitimacy -
 * "Try to fix problems

Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts. Instead of deleting text, consider:

rephrasing or copyediting to improve grammar, more accurately represent the sources, or balance the article's contents

correcting inaccuracy, while keeping the rest of the content intact

moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)

adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced

requesting a citation by adding the tag doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself

adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you are unable to fix yourself

repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located

merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge"

I see nothing there that states that any addition that is not supported by a citation should be summarily removed in the manner you have done. Anything to say? Jack Hawkins legal academic &#38; Times reader (talk)


 * Admittedly - I will make this concession - instead of removing the text, I should have tagged it. I'll accept that.  If it will make you happy, we can restore the text and add a CN tag to it.  The fact remains, however, that the material needs to be cited.  You've made an assumption by saying I know "next to nothing about the subject" (resorting to the ad hominem argument?  Disappointing, but predictable.  Pity - I was hoping for better from an "academic"), when for all you know, I could be a lawyer, a judge, or even the US Attorney General (not saying I am, but you couldn't know that).  The point you're still missing is that this is the Internet, and ANYONE can CLAIM to be an expert.  If you "don't make assertions that [you] can't prove," then prove them by providing these great sources you claim to have.  If you can't, then your claims of being an "expert" don't really have much validity. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not missing the point. If the section is restored, I will happily put the appropriate citations to peer-reviewed journals and standard texts on the issue. Jack Hawkins legal academic &#38; Times reader (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Very well; let's restore it, add the tags, and put an end to this unfortunate disagreement. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be great - thank you Jack Hawkins legal academic &#38; Times reader (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)