User talk:Unlearned hand

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Pan Dan 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Reverts
Tip: the procedure for undoing vandal edits is explained at WP:REVERT. The problem with "undo" is that it only reverts the last edit, so that a if a vandal makes a sequence of edits, only the last one is reverted. Tizio 14:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it seemed like there should be a better way of fixing that. Thanks for catching the ones I missed, too. Unlearned hand 15:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum== ==

Marking the redirect of a living bio policy violation as "vandalism" (your summary "rvv") is not only querulous but a personal attack. If you're going to use automated tools to edit, please don't do so without being clear what you're doing and why. If in doubt, don't - David Gerard 17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An undiscussed, arbitrary deletion of an article (whether a redirect or not) is vandalism, considering that the issue had long been resolved and the consensus was that the article should be kept. If there was a policy violation (I don't see it), then that should have been discussed prior to deleting the article. Unlearned hand 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not investigative journalism - David Gerard 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but irrelevant. That still explains nothing why an entire article was unilaterally deleted and protected with no good reason (that I have yet seen).  There was no "investigative journalism" going on in the article in question - just information properly reported that came out in the press.  It is unclear what you are attempting to accomplish. Unlearned hand 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what David Gerard's motivation is, but it surely smells like someone who wishes to censor parts of Wikipedia. 'Investigative journalism' ... feh! Duke53  | Talk 21:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lost weapon found?
Were you looking for this?
 * Close! What I really need is a version with all the references still embedded.  I did snag a copy from Google's cache that still has all the hyperlinks in it, but I/someone would need to put them all back into wikiform.  Mostly just a PITA.  But thanks!  Unlearned hand 14:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the copies?
Any reason for the copies at User:Unlearned hand/CGM and User:Unlearned hand\Glass .45? The community has found this content undesirable for our purposes. We already have an article on the controversy itself. Friday (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the case. There is considerable disagreement that the article as it was at the time it was deleted was completely appropriate.  I put a copy into my userspace to see if I could fix the problems that have been identified with it to put it into a form that would be acceptable to everyone.  If you have any suggestions about changes that can be made (I've made some edits to it, but I'm sure there's still more that can be done - various background information exists that has been struck from the article that may aid in presenting a fuller picture), I'd appreciate your input.  - Unlearned hand 16:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no significant disagreement among people who understand what Wikipedia is. We've already got what's acceptable- a redirect to the article on the scandal.  Friday (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is your opinion. There is significant disagreement (and there's no need to be snotty).  I'm trying to see if a stand-alone article can be written that satisfies (most) everyone.  If not, I'll delete it. - Unlearned hand 16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you consider the possibility that experienced editors might have a better grasp of what to do in this case than someone with a whole month of editing experience? I hate to be elitist, but surely there are better places for you to spend your editing effort?  From  reading the discussion, it seems very unlikely that any standalone article will get past the objections people are raising, unless suddenly sources start covering this person very differently.  If she records a hit record or becomes an astronaut next week, then we can talk.  But until then, what are you trying to do?  Friday (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is certainly elitist, and also inaccurate. I used to be a fairly active editor a couple of years ago, until I finally got too annoyed by attitudes like Tony Sidaway's (and yours, quite frankly) that their opinions are the only ones that count.  So I quit and left, and I'll probably do the same thing again shortly.  And as far as what I'm trying to do, I'm trying to provide a fair, well-sourced, and accurate article about this woman and this whole incident.  You've apparently got some other agenda.  What is it? - Unlearned hand 16:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's separate personal annoyance from the issue of substance. (Hell, Tony annoys a lot of people, even when they agree with him.  Personalities clash, what can you do?)  I don't care about getting people to like me here, I care about making the encyclopedia better.  If I want friends, that's what real life is for.  The basic issue (and, we may end up just disagreeing, but it's a widely-held view) is that there aren't the kinds of sources on this person that we'd want for a bio.  Let's cover the incident, and leave it at that.  Friday (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And it's simply wrong. There is no paucity of sources available.  Now, it may well be that in the end there's not enough to write a complete biography - that's what I'm trying to determine.  As I've said, if that's how it turns out, that's how it turns out.  But it's a shame that a bunch of closed-minded loudmouths have already made up their minds without even giving it an honest appraisal, and are proceeding to bully their way into getting what they want, everything else be damned.  It makes a mockery of the entire project. - Unlearned hand 17:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What you've got right now, if we take out the Duke scandal info (already very well covered elsewhere) is speedy deletable as a bio with no assertion of significance. A little bit of job history, and a minor police record- there's no substance there.  And that's with, supposedly, 20 sources.  That's my honest appraisal.  What is yours?  Do you really believe some as-yet-undiscovered sources are lurking out there which would change the situation significantly? Friday (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, in some of those 20 sources, there is a lot of information about her that has been in and out of the other article, usually deleted because it wasn't relevant to the lacrosse case. I already took out the information about the lacrosse case other than what is necessary to summarize her role in it.  Again, it sounds like you are applying an impossible standard - remove everything about her main notability, and then she's not notable.  Well, duh.  Neil Armstrong's life outside his role as an astronaut is not notable.  Christa McAuliffe's life outside of getting blown up on the Challenger is not notable.  Yet they both - correctly - have bios.  You can't have it both ways. - Unlearned hand 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Other similar examples - Danny Rolling, Debra Lafave, Monica Lewinsky, Susan Smith, Jennifer Wilbanks, Andrea Yates, Natalee Holloway. I can go on. If they all have bios despite being notable for only one incident, it's hard to claim that as the basis why there shouldn't be one for Crystal Mangum. - Unlearned hand 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In a some of these cases, the bio is the article about the incident. In others, the person has gone on to get significant attention from many sources, unrelated to the original incident. We have to look at individual cases, otherwise your argument comes off sounding like "We have bios on some people, so why not bios on every person?"  Friday (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not on every person, but those are pretty good analogs. It occurs to me that perhaps the main article is the one that ought to go, and move that information to the Crystal Gail Mangum page, since in the end the whole thing was pretty much about her (or Mike Nifong), and didn't have much to do with Duke or lacrosse at all, except accidentally. - Unlearned hand 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have to use a bit of common sense. A quick glance at the two articles you mention show that we have quite a lot of info. People cared enough that there's lots of sources about these people. The sources we have on this woman are either primary (see above about Wikipedia not being for investigative journalism) or they relate to the main incident. We let the sources be our guide. If you disagree with how this issue was handled, that's one thing. But if you're just insisting we can have a proper bio on her, I want to see some sources to support that assertion. Friday (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not insisting on anything. I think it's possible.  It might not be.  The only way to find out is to try it and see.    So I saved off a copy of the old article to use as a basis to work from (and I won't really get to spend a lot of time on it until next week, I have a legal brief to write that I should be focusing on).  You objected to that, which is why we're having this entire conversation.  I find it odd that you're objecting to every *trying* to write a good article. - Unlearned hand 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please temper your language
I have removed what I interpret to be a personal attack made by you on the Crystal Gail Mangum talk page. I recognize that you feel strongly about this particular issue; however, directly referring to another editor as "you stupid asshole" is crossing the line. Please take a moment to consider whether your posts are speaking to the content rather than being aimed at the contributor. From my own personal experience, I have found that taking a day or two away from a contentious issue allows me to return with a more focused perspective; perhaps you might benefit from trying this, although of course this is up to you. Do keep in mind, however, that the information you wish to add to the encyclopedia is not going away. Risker 20:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fuck you, asshole. - Unlearned hand 01:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not fair. David Gerard is the only motherfucking son of a bitch who's in the same category of douchebaggery as Tony Sidaway. - Unlearned hand 01:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, buddy, I'm on your side here. You gotta realize that you'll lose whatever cred you have when you start spouting like that.  Are David and Tony assholes?  Sure look like it to me.  But will pointing that out—verbatim—win you any backers?  Nope.  Keep calm.  What that dude said above, about the info not going away, was not (if you assume good faith) a smart ass comment, but a sincere attempt to plead with you to relax a bit, for your own good.  It's not fair, but neither is life.  You came across as a much clearer thinker than Gerard—until you pulled that shit on the talk page.  Just my thoughts.
 * All fine and dandy, except it doesn't matter one bit who comes across as a clearer thinker or whatever. Those fuckers will do whatever the hell they want, and no one can or will do jack-shit about it.  The whole fucking process is a complete joke, and I'm pretty much done wasting my time with it.  Those fucking sons of bitches can eat shit and die as far as I am concerned. - Unlearned hand 19:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:HuskyHuskie was correct, Unlearned hand. My comments above are made in good faith. I was writing from my own experience of editing highly contentious policy pages and articles. One of those articles survived four AfDs, at least in part because several of us made sure that the article was about the event and not the person enmeshed in the event - otherwise, it would have been wiped off the site faster than you can say...well, you seem to use those words better than I do... I have looked at your contributions, and it seems to me that you aren't a troll; you've demonstrated actual editorial ability. Rather than wasting that skill, you might find it more useful to pour it into some sandbox editing of one or the other of the early versions of the CGM article you have already. Play with it - strip it down, rebuild it, create a separate sandbox to keep track of all the various sources you might want to consider - in other words, try to create an article that will stand the test of the inevitable AfD. In the DRV on the article, I pointed out information in the (now deleted) article that was not relevant; see if you can find a way to demonstrate its relevance, or perhaps reconsider how the information fits. Or maybe focus on the main article itself - it already has a copy edit tag on it. Cut it back by about 30-40%; it is far too long right now for most readers to struggle to the end of it. (For example - the minute by minute timeline, if it exists elsewhere in a reliable source, should be a link rather than a whole-cloth inclusion.)

I do write to you in good faith, and I only removed your personal attack from a highly read talk page; many administrators would have blocked you for that. You'll note I haven't touched any of your epithets on this page, not even the one directed at me. But I have, and will, take userfied "previous versions" of articles and deleted articles to MfD if the users don't actually edit them. So it is time for you to make your decision - either work on creating an article that will make it through AfD or dump the pages. I have watchlisted those pages, as have other editors and probably a few admins, so we will be able to see if you're genuinely interested in trying to meet the standard or just trying to keep the article around in some truncated form. Feel free to invite other interested editors in participating. Risker 03:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe I will and maybe I won't. I'm going to let it sit for a week or two and then look at it again and decide if I want to bother.  Assuming some busybody doesn't destroy it in the meantime.
 * Anyway, thanks for the note - my apologies for losing my temper. - Unlearned hand 03:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)