Wikipedia talk:Pulling a rabbit out of a hat

Start
As I start this essay, (my first one) I am keeping the rating at low. It needs content to be rated anything else.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

While I have learned a great deal from interacting with others on Wikipedia this should not be seen as a direct criticism of any single individual, including myself. In a recent editing dispute involving content for an article I was editing I encountered an editor that I saw using what I call the "Hat Trick" of pulling information out of numerous references to combine into a synthesized conclusion.

This reminded me of my own use of synthesis when I was new to Wikipedia and had not fully understood the concept of Original Research. What occurred was an interesting and little seen demonstration of wikiality. Where one creates a fact based on the original research of seeing something, recording it somehwere and having it be picked up elsewhere to be used as a reference on Wikipedia that then gets referenced from Wikipedia elsewhere. Having been the originator of the information and the editor who paced it in the article and then later attempting to researching it back only to find my name all over it.... was a bit of a shock and a major lesson.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I gotta say that after working OWS article, this essay should make our work over their easier. 완젬스 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Humor Tag?
I was thinking of writing a funny essay, basically satirizing the unethical behavior over at the OWS pages, but I don't want to WP:OWN this essay. I know this page is basically a satiziration of our edit warring with Dualus, which I think is kinda uncivil because he's my friend now. There were plenty of other issues we could write an essay about (such as people wanting to add the nazi party affiliation, or adding rape allegations or violence sections even though it is WP:FRINGE) so I'll wait and see the direction this essay heads. At the very least, if we put a humor tag, then we won't offend anybody. 완젬스 (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this isn't a satirization of edit warring or Dualus, although he was the inspiration to remembering my own problems. I am glad you made friends with him. I also don't really own the article. As it's not a real article about a policy or subject and is just an essay invitations can be made without it being considered canvasing. It's my essay in that I started it and at this point is basicly my point of view...which is allowed for essays. I felt the subject was more important than any other I have encountered with either others or myself and since there is no current essay on it I could find, I thought I would begin one.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Humor tags are not needed for these types of articles as it isn't intended as a joke. While it is presented with some humor, it deals with a serious issue and real Wikipedia policy. Sometimes this is the best way to get a message across and is also a good teachable moment for all envolved.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it okay if I add WP:MPOV to the "see also" section? Don't worry about humor, because I'm fixing to start my own WP:Essay but you stole my angle, lol. I want to write one about making a major change, then arguing it 완젬스 (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added WP:MPOV, but it's 100% fine if anyone wants to revert it, here's the link and no harm, no foul, definitely. 완젬스 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bwahahahahahaha! OK....I am seeing now why maybe my user name may not have been the best choice! LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Mad scientist.svg

Nut Shell
I moved the prose that replaced the nut shell information to the lede. The nut shell should contain a basic three point summary of the essay, although the essay can be much longer. I have separated it into: combining facts, combining sources and using them on talk pages. The last one was more tongue in cheek.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we suggest proposal on how to trim it down to just 2? (if we're keeping this essay as is) If yes, I'll lay down my proposals right below. 완젬스 (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Propose it. I am all ears. But the reason I used three was the basic set up I was intending for the article...but i'm not glued to anything yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How about improving this bulletpoint Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. and changing it to Do not creatively combine material from different sources in a novel way. because that basically adds double-redundancy ("creatively" & "in a novel way") to hammer down what we're trying to say, in a more easily understandable way. Your way sounds too legalese, are you a lawyer? ;-) Can't believe I forgot about this page. I guess now that Dualus is gone, I don't need as many stress-releases anymore! 완젬스 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh! What about using the word "magical" instead of "novel" to my suggestion? (because this is about magic tricks & pulling rabits out of empty hats, lol) 완젬스 (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSURE (with a "c" or an "s")
What do you think of a humor essay and portmanteau about "using consensus to provide censureship" and me placing a humor tag? I can take the examples people have given me of censuring the article by a "mob of 10 editors" and turn the accusations into an essay? What do you think? How long did it take you to make your essay, and did it get too work-intensive after the fun ran out? If it only takes 30 minutes to make an essay (albeit an error-free and funny one) then what advice can you give me? I like consensure idea, kinda creative & can link to this essay too! Anyways, I'm excited. 완젬스 (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, what do you like better consensure or concensure? 완젬스 (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)