Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Threeafterthree

Comment
The only thing I wish to respond to now, is in regards to my previous block. Unless you understand the intimate details of that situation, I feel that it should not be used against me or prejudice other parties. I am going to go watch football and drink beer. Then I am going to do family stuff and then watch more football. Then I'll be back. Regards, --Tom 00:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion
I don't know that a formal action like this is warranted. But I think Tom might want to consider whether calling someone's tribute to their recently dead friend junk is being civil. MRN (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the record. --Tom 16:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. What is this for? I'm missing something. For the record, I stated that I don't agree that this action against you is warranted, I just think you might want to consider wording your comments different. That might have avoided this whole thing. MRN (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I must also point out that per WP:Civil, being uncivil is defined as "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." We are required to be civil towards each other (as fellow editors).  We do not need to tip-toe around using an adjective that describes the quality of a source.  Describing a website as junk is not personally targeted behavior, was not directed towards another editor, and is therefore not being uncivil (in wikipedia terms). will381796 (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, as someone pointed out in the article discussion (sorry, don't remember who) an example of uncivility in WP:Civil is "Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap")" MRN (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Directed towards another editor! Not when used in describing a source. will381796 (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My biased opinion
Before I continue, let me clearly state that I: With that out of the way, I'll continue.
 * 1) Am partially responsible (some would say guilty) for running the website on which the tribute to Emily Sander appears;
 * 2) Am here because I was specifically asked to come here by someone involved in this dispute;
 * 3) Have made very few posts to Wikipedia.

I'd like to clarify a few points. First, it was said in  "WP:SOURCES policy on acceptable sources as the tribute website appeared to be hosted on a website 'whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight.'" As it happens, the tribute appears on a website that is operated by a small handful of people, myself included. The ones who are primarily responsible for running the site are all professional writers, admittedly with varying levels of experience. One of us (not me) has worked as an editor, journalist and freelance writer with Pulitzer-, Emmy-, and Oscar-Award winners and nominees, and is also an award-winner. Combined, we've professionally published over 2,000 written pieces ranging from shorts to full-feature articles in newspapers, magazines, online publications, and have written for college text books, radio, theatre and television. Our site has been listed for several months by Quantcast as one of the one percent most visited sites on the Internet--feel free to check for yourself. You might still think our site's a steaming pile of male bovine excrement--fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But perhaps those bits of background will move our site up from the editorial basement it's been stuffed in (assuming you don't think I'm just making this all up. You‘re free to think that, too).

As to whether a link to the site should be included in the Murder of Emily Sander Wikipedia article, I have no idea. But my understanding from reading the dispute is that this is not about the link but is about the comments of an editor. Does this qualify under the bureaucratic multitude of overlapping Wikipedia policies as uncivil? I have no idea. Personally, I don't mind if people call my work junk--a small-town cop called some of my work felonious material (thank Goddess the FBI disagreed). In fact I'd like to thank Tom, who wrote, "Listen, the discordia site or whatever the hell it is, is junk, period and does NOT improve this project." As this person is identified as an experienced editor, I'm sure this means that Tom took the time to examine our whole site before making this determination. Such dedication is to be admired, and I plan to feature this quote on our site.

But in my personal life experience, calling a young woman's tribute to a recently deceased and possibly murdered young friend "junk" is not generally considered to be civil. I have no position on this Wikipedia dispute; but as a human being, I think an apology to the grieving young woman who worked on the tribute would be helpful. Reverend Loveshade (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Reverend Loveshade, First off, if anybody was offended or upset by my calling your web site junk, I apologize. My intention wasn't to harm or upset anybody. For the record, not that it should matter, but I had a cousin who was murdered many years ago when I was young and it was very difficult. There are many, many, many, web sites, places, events, activities, people, ect that are appropriate for grieving, celebrating, remebering, honoring ect victims of crimes, accidents, natural causes, ect. wikipedia is NOT one of them, period. This is an encyclopedia, period. Also, about your background ect, its not that i don't believe you, its about verifiabilty. Wikipedia is not about the "truth" and should not be. Its about reporting already established, peer reviewed, and reliably sourced material. Period. The reason I am frustrated is that a number of editors have pointed out that certain material is not appropriate for this project and a number of low edit, single purpose, possibly the same person editors have now been battling this to no end. I have been brought into this RFC. People have now spent WAY to much time and effort in this matter, time that could have been better spent improving this project rather than be distracted by all this. Anyways,--Tom 15:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)ps, please do not use my quote, I tried to figure out what you folks are about and my head almost exploded :) Cheers, --Tom 15:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)ps, I went to quantcast and all I could find is that you get under 2,000 unique hits per month??--Tom 15:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This month it's ranked 107134 in unique U. S. visits out of 20,267,977 websites on the Internet. And that's not counting any of the hits from outside the U. S. Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)