User talk:Unomi/Archive/2009Jun

Using the quote in full
My view is that using the quote in full is, by a certain way of thinking, a relatively fair and honorable one, but not best. I believe that the quote is radically absurdly contrary to what GAge and the Media say when they note or imply that being an architect is an asset "You have some science behind this" (approximately). By this way of thinking, I think the entire issue is false, misleading and potentially bad faith among those who are pressing for the quote. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we aren't really here to put any topic in a 'certain light', this goes both ways. I don't see the quote as having particular value to the article but apparently it is important enough to edit war over for some.. It is unfortunate that it is written in the language that it is, as it seems to give rise to people singling out 'outside our experience and training' in an effort to discredit them. I believe that a proper 'interpretation' of the quote simply means that they, as trained architects and engineers, had never experienced or were taught about buildings of that type succumbing to fire. I honestly find it hard to understand how anyone can interpret it as if 'they made a mistake' such as verbal did, and considering that he believes that the quote was a 'mistake' on their part I wonder how he rationalizes using it to support self-characterization. Unomi (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not have reason to believe your comments show an awareness of the link in my founding question. In that link, Gage and Media show the unsuprising view that being an architect is an asset, not a negative.  How do you reconcile the two pieces of data?  Is your position that we can embrace one piece  of data (the confusing quote) and bury the other (the media interview)?   I also do not believe that your comments appreciate that now we have a third piece of data, the paragraph in its new form.  Neutrality is at risk, and the discussion is making little progress in terms of listening.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that being an architect or an engineer would be an asset. Neutrality is unlikely to result in a stable version of the article. You saw the specious use they found for the quote, you saw how edit warring was chosen over discussion, by a number of editors as well as admins. For a person who holds a POV that they are not able to abstract away, neutrality is an attack on their position. Stay calm, use dispute resolution, starting at the lowest rungs and work yourself up. For the most part it seems like the involved editors are entrenched in their positions. I found that using the quote in full was an improvement over selecting parts of it. Not that it was perfect. Unomi (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said, fair enough. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please remove
Per WP:HARRASS,. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bully for you
It's been fascinating to watch you at work on BullRangifer over the last few days. The rights and wrongs of WP:SOAP and all that other Wikibullshit to one side, you and the other one have been quite the pair. It's heartening to see such rank, cold blooded intimidation in action.

Honest, well meaning chap that he is he has little defence against you and your tedious off-sider. But you know that, don't you? :D

My guess is that this is nicely co-ordinated. You make the bullets and the sleazy, not terribly bright yet ever so pompous Levine fires 'em. Whilst he's ducking for cover (Levine makes such a convenient shield doesn't he?), you mince in and start blathering on about copyvio or whatever other rubbish you can think up.

It's all very neat and the cynic in me applauds you. No doubt, hapless old Bull will take the bait eventually, swipe out and be shitcanned or, better yet, you and your twisted little offsider will arrange for this whole flapdoodle to end up before our flat-footed ArbCom.

With you and His Oiliness appearing for the prosecution and dripping with confected indignation no doubt. ;)

So top marks to you! I do so look forward to the ghastly conclusion. X MarX the Spot (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * :D You are my kind of guy, hold on and I will give you some much needed context. Unomi (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been fascinating to watch you at work on BullRangifer over the last few days.
 * The thing is that if BullRangifer simply read and internalized the governing policies none of this would have happened.
 * Initially you will see that he flatly denied that there was a problem and suggested that levine should take it to rfar?!
 * He later tried to paint a picture where he wanted to comply but had time issues, this is pretty transparently a deflection. It would have taken less than a minute to simply remove the material first and reintroduce it at his leisure in a more suitable form.
 * The fact that google managed to cache his screed shows the problematic nature of the unseeming delay.
 * He then later admits that he kept the material which is so far from NPOV that they never could meet, after posting it to his blog.


 * The rights and wrongs of WP:SOAP and all that other Wikibullshit to one side,
 * I don't think it is proper to set it to one side, the whole basis of this drama has been his wanton flaunting of policy.


 * you and the other one have been quite the pair. It's heartening to see such rank, cold blooded intimidation in action.
 * By initimidation I assume that you refer to 'holding people to policy?'. Are you in favour of differential application of policy depending on who the transgressors are?
 * For examples of intimidation, as well as how BullRangifer/Fyslee and I came to know each other you might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BullRangifer/Archive_10#Questions_for_Unomi


 * Honest, well meaning chap that he is he has little defence against you and your tedious off-sider.
 * Again, for evidence that this impression is wholly inaccurate please refer to the above link.


 * My guess is that this is nicely co-ordinated.
 * You make the bullets and the sleazy, not terribly bright yet ever so pompous Levine fires 'em.
 * Whilst he's ducking for cover (Levine makes such a convenient shield doesn't he?), 
 * you mince in and start blathering on about copyvio or whatever other rubbish you can think up.


 * First of all, there has been no collaboration of any kind, I noticed the thread quite late and I was quite outraged to be honest.
 * For my part it has nothing to do with chiropracty, I don't really care about that subject. I was outraged that such pervesion of wikipedia policy was taking place and seemingly defended by people whom should have known better.
 * I don't mince, I saunter, occasionaly pounce.
 * As stated, I honestly thought that he was violating copyvio of that blog, this is a fairly serious and zero-tolerance issue. The fact that he was using his userspace as staging ground for his blog posts is also in pretty poor form I would say.
 * And again, timely adherence to what is quite clear policy would have averted all this, BullRangifer has himself to blame, and perhaps the hopefully well meaning individuals with compromised judgement who support him in flaunting policy.


 * No doubt, hapless old Bull will take the bait eventually, swipe out and be shitcanned or, better yet, you and your twisted little offsider will arrange for this whole flapdoodle to end up before our flat-footed ArbCom.
 * I doubt that, he has been pushing his pov successfully on wikipedia for years, I have no doubt that he will be here long after I have lost interest.


 * With you and His Oiliness appearing for the prosecution and dripping with confected indignation no doubt. ;)
 * I can't speak for others, but my indignation is quite unfeigned.


 * So top marks to you! I do so look forward to the ghastly conclusion.
 * Thank you for your post :) Sincerely, Unomi (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For pete's sake, soliciting signatures for a political cause is WP:Soap. Copying text verbatim from external sources is usually a copyright violation (Unomi didn't know BullRangifer was copying text from his own blog.. however this brings up a whole bunch of other questions that weren't even brought up in the ANI).
 * WP:Bully is calling people names and accusing them of conspiracy and collusion because the bully thinks that policy should apply to everyone except those people/causes he/she agrees with. I've seen a lot of WP:Bully, and it hasn't been on Unomi's part. --stmrlbs | talk  16:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Regarding your use of the prod tag
My request for deletion of the section is based on the fact that there is no original research nor factual evidence that has ever been produced to support the claims listed in the article. It can be traced to a fictional story written in the 1800's authored by Nim Fut San Yen called Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon. The book exists. The section of the page should be deleted or, at the least, edited to correctly represent the facts as they are known. Currently, it is not representative of fact and helps to perpetuate a known fictional accounting of events.

There appears to be other reasons for this perpetuation other than to present a neutral document. Take note that the warnings have remained on the section for years with no changes made to it. This reveals two things: 1) A total disregard for the Wiki. 2) No one has any documentation to support the claims.

The short of it is that since there is no fact regarding this individual, it is impossible to add factual references to it. Had someone played a truly important role in the development of a system that has spread worldwide with thousands of practitioners, why is there so little knowledge of this person? There is not even documentation of when he was born or died. I find that very odd.

The section should be deleted in order to preserve the integrity of the Wikipeda. Clftruthseeking (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I take no issue with you rewriting the section, it only had to do with the misuse of the prod tag, which is used when you want all of the article deleted.Unomi (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the appropriate tag? Perhaps you can help by advising the correct one to use, versus deleting a request for the section to be deleted. If it were possible to add factual information, it would have been done in the last year, or more. It is not possible due to the lack of information. Your suggestions is impossible and irresponsible. Following the earlier explanations, it appears you are simply creating a circular argument without possible resolution.Clftruthseeking (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are looking for something like what is mentioned here: Template:Unreferenced. You stated you had some sources indicating that the current information in the section was wrong, why don't you simply delete, or better yet, move to the talk page, the information which is unverifiable? Again, the issue was solely with the improper use of theProposed_deletion tag. Best, Unomi (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making the suggestion to use the "Unreferenced" tag. Instead of "undo"-ing your edit once again, I ask you what is meant by "challenged and deleted" in the context of the Unverifiable" tag that has been in place on that section since June of 2008? I have challenged it and requested deletion of the section. There already exists two templates from other users regarding "unverifiable" information and "reference" problems. Just so I know who I am dealing with, do you have an official capacity within Wikipedia? Thanks. Clftruthseeking (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Clftruthseeking, First of all, let me affirm that my removal of the tag you put on the page was due to the fact that you were engaging in a misuse of the tag. Per your rationale as stated in the tag you took issue with the existence and content of a section and not with the article. The PROD tag is strictly for use when requesting an entire article to be deleted. As for your question regarding "challenged and deleted",  generally speaking one should strive to preserve information. This obviously does not extend to information which is not verifiable by a  reliable source. I have no reason to doubt what you have stated previously, that you are in fact in possession of reliable sources which present an alternative version of that particular section. I previously suggested that you rewrite the offending section so that it complies with the reliable sources that are available. I also suggested that you could simply move the material to the talk page if you felt it was problematic. I have no official capacity within Wikipedia. Love, Unomi (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

unreferenced does not say "challenged and deleted". It says "challenged and removed". That's removal with the ordinary editing tool, not deletion with the administrator-only deletion tool. Uncle G (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)