User talk:IntlWriter/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:IntlWriter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Your recent edits

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there, I have closed your post at WP:ANI as the matter is already being discussed at WP:BLPN, and there is no need to have to two identical discussions at seperate noticeboards, it could be seen as forum shopping. If you need any further help please ask. Giant Snowman 16:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I do need help. I would prefer the discussion in the forum you closed. I think this needs immediate attention. Please reopen the discussion.

What do you feel needs the attention of Administrators? Giant Snowman 16:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The article Thomas Smith (author) has been renamed twice, subjected to a discussion for deletion where the originator clearly states a disparaging comment. The rogue nature and continuance of actions by a group of geographically connected users on this cite is something that may have long term serious consequences of Wikipedia. The BDSM author, BDSM activists, and Gay Writers categories where this article is located appears to have been subjected to dissimilar treatment.

So regarding page moves, I take it you disagree with the move from Thomas Smith (Author and Activist) → Thomas Smith (author)? If you believe that the term 'activist' (no capitals) deserves to be in the article title then I suggest you try WP:RM.

As for the "disparaging comment", what comment do you refer to?

Please can you clarify your comment of "The rogue nature and continuance of actions by a group of geographically connected users on this cite is something that may have long term serious consequences of Wikipedia"?

Please can you provide evidence of "The BDSM author, BDSM activists, and Gay Writers categories where this article is located appears to have been subjected to dissimilar treatment"?

Regards, Giant Snowman 16:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

SEE HISTORY FOR ARTICLE AND DISCUSSION ON DELETION. (Note the William ... leather and picture comment for supporting information.

Please stop SHOUTING!

Please sign your posts using ~~~~

Please can you clarify your comments further, I am struggling to understand your concerns, which is restricting my ability to help you.

Do you have any link in real life to Mr Smith?

Regards, Giant Snowman 16:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My statements have been clear on this matter. You closed the matter which I requested you to reopen. I request again you reopen the discussion. WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid your statements have been clear as mud, and you not answered any of my questions. As I cannot see anything requiring the attention, or intervention, of Administrators, I will not re-open the thread at ANI. Giant Snowman 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What are your connections with the originator of the deletion discussion? This entire episode is 'clear as mud' and I was not the one who started it. I hope that others will override your decision.WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no connection whatsoever. Please can you now answer my questions? Giant Snowman 18:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. All of the reference and notability considerations were reviewed prior to any article submission. Reviewing the criteria stated there is no conflict to be disclosed. Based on my review of the stated standards, it was my belief that there was some flexibility within the standards for both references and notability. I think the article meets the standards, perhaps not the opinions expressed in the comments made to the discussions. I appreciate your time in discussing this but would like you to know that I reviewed the standards prior to submission. I spent considerable time researching to ensure compliance with the standards. And while I have no conflict, it was not my desire to have subject subjected to this treatment. That was not the reason I initiated the article.

Thank you for your time. I understand your view on this matter and hope that I have been able to offer you information that you will consider.WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

It looks like you're having some troubles. Communication on Wikipedia is a tricky thing sometimes. Editors who have been around for a while have lower patience for educating newcomers, and the newcomers don't really know the details of how Wikipedia works yet, so everyone ends up talking past each other and digging in their heels. It never ends well for anyone.

I'm hoping that maybe you and I can have a conversation and I can help understand what your concerns are, and help you understand what everyone else's concerns are, and thus help everyone come to an understanding. Is this a conversation you are willing to have?

Please note, I have not ever edited the article you are concerned about or the deletion discussion. I have no dog in this fight. The only thing I want to do is help out a very new editor. Wikipedia's coverage of LGBT subjects isn't always that great, so it's a good thing to have new editors who are interested in the subject area.

So can we talk? I will be watching this page so you can just reply here. Please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of your posts. This makes it a lot easier for everyone to tell who has said what. — The Potato Hose 17:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have written a supported article that seems to be the subject of a delete. The references are not mainstream but the categories are not mainstream. The subject was Chair of the national leadership conference and an international titleholder; and an author with prestigious awards from the leather/fetish world.

I would appreciate your help. I am taking a break now since this appears to me to be nothing but a quick support to delete from the Scottish editors.

Thanks Again! WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi William. First things first, please refrain from comments like 'the Scottish editors.' As much as possible on Wikipedia we try to comment on content, not on contributors. Their behaviour in this situation is completely in line with Wikipedia policies and standard procedures, so casting aspersions on their behaviour is inappropriate here. Also, when people leave links for you in conversations on Wikipedia, those links expand on the information provided, so it's a good idea to follow them.

Second, let's go to some first principles of how Wikipedia works. The basic criteria for having an article is the concept of notability. In a nutshell, article subjects must be relatively well-known. There is a basic guide to notability located here, and I suggest you read it. The best way to show that a subject is notable is through independent and unbiased coverage in reliable sources.

Now, there's always some fuzzy areas around specific sources and whether they're reliable, but in general a good rule of thumb is: well-regarded peer-reviewed academic journals (e.g. The Lancet), national and international news organizations (e.g. the New York Times or the BBC or Al-Jazeera), and books by reputable authors will pretty much always be considered as reliable. At the other end of the scale, blog postings, small websites, and small local/niche interest publications will rarely be considered reliable. Many of your sources fall towards the latter end of the scale. I understand that this is not a mainstream subject and therefore it is harder to find sources, and that is a problem that Wikipedia is trying to address. But that doesn't change the basic requirement that sources be reliable and trustworthy.

When we are writing about a living human being, it is even more important that we use reliable sources--Wikipedia has a policy about living persons which requires us to be very, very careful about what we say about people who are alive. Obviously someone who has spent his life living out and proud isn't going to be upset about his biography including his leather work and activism, but that doesn't matter: the policy (editors will usually shorten the policy to BLP, meaning Biography of Living Persons) is strict and applies everywhere on the project.

So, on to the current situation: in a nutshell, it looks like several editors do not believe that the article subject isn't very notable. When that happens, the article is discussed for deletion. This happens dozens if not hundreds of times every day, and has nothing personal involved in it. Again, there is no personal animosity or insult intended. It's just saying "Well, according to policy, it doesn't look like this article belongs on Wikipedia."

A question was asked of you above, and it's actually very important that you answer it: do you have a connection with the subject of the article? If you do, you should read what we have to say about conflicts of interest, and you should declare your conflict, if any.

Before we continue on, can you please let me know if anything I have said is unclear or confusing? I would like to make sure you have a good understanding of how Wikipedia works before we really start delving into the specifics of what is going on here. — The Potato Hose 17:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. All of the above considerations were reviewed prior to any article submission. Reviewing the criteria stated there is no conflict to be disclosed. Based on my review of the stated standards, it was my belief that there was some flexibility within the standards for both references and notability. I think the article meets the standards, perhaps not the opinions expressed in the comments made to the discussions. I appreciate your time in clarifying but would like you to know that I reviewed this prior to submission. I spent considerable time researching to ensure compliance with the standards. And while I have no conflict, it was not my desire to have subject subjected to this treatment. That was not the reason I initiated the article. WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to ask the question a bit more bluntly: do you have a connection with Mr Smith, yes or no?

There is some flexibility in terms of references supporting notability, yes. Some. There is no flexibility when it comes to BLP issues, and unreliable sources making potentially controversial claims about a living person, well, if you reviewed everything as thoroughly as you say you have, you know how that is unacceptable. You think the article meets standards; other people (with much, much more experience) do not. It is up to you to prove that the standards are met, and the best way to fail at doing that is to throw insults around and yell about 'discrimination.' If you believe Mr Smith is notable, then please show that notability using reliable sources. It's really as simple as that.

More to the point, I believe what people show by their actions and not what they say. I believe you have reviewed some of the criteria for articles and so forth, but your actions are showing very clearly that you did not do so in the depth required. if you had, you wouldn't be doing or saying many of the things you are doing and saying. Note: that is not a personal attack. It is very very very very very common for people to think they know a lot more than they actually do. Especially when you're in an environment which has some basic pretty clear rules, and a whole lot of nuance behind them. It takes time to really learn and understand when and how articles are acceptable and when they are not, and you simply haven't been around for long enough. Again, that is not an attack in any way.

As for "not my desire to have subject subjected to this treatment," again, there is no 'treatment' here. There is no insult. There is no personal animus. If you'll forgive the somewhat tortured analogy, this is no different than the New York Times rejecting an article about someone's dog. It's not personal, it just doesn't fit here. That is all. You are going to need to understand this, and you are going to need to show that you understand this, if you want to have a fulfilling time editing Wikipedia.

If you are going to say you have reviewed all sorts of things in depth, you need to show that by your actions. — The Potato Hose 19:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable commentary and a warning

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Okay. I am trying to help you. I have told you multiple times that you must stop accusing people of discriminating, particularly since you are accusing them of being homophobic. This is not acceptable behaviour. Is that clear?

As such, and since I have warned you several times to avoid the personal commentary:

This is your final warning. If you continue to make accusations of that nature, I will have you blocked from editing.

Is that also clear? And before you start that nonsense on me, I'm gay and I've been living out and proud since the early 90's, so don't you dare claim discrimination.

The next edit that you make accusing discrimination and homophobia will, if I have any say in the matter, be your last. — The Potato Hose 22:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I would add that if you think carefully about it, your accusations make little sense. You imply there is some sort of bias or discrimination because of what the subject is involved in and how they identify, then you acknowledge we have a number of articles on others involved in the same thing, and while not explicitly stated, this includes other people who apparently self identify as gay or bisexual. The reason of course is because it is unlikely anyone is discriminating against the subject because of what they may be involved in, but solely because they appear to fail to fulfill our notability criteria, the same as we would, as someone else said, a little old lady who grows petunias. Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)