Ragout

Welcome!

Hello, Ragout, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kukini 07:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Deuterium 10:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation at Norman Finkelstein

Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Norman Finkelstein. I have disabled your editing permissions for 24 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to return after your block expires, but please take your differences to the talk page and refrain from edit warring in the future. (Note that I in no way endorse or distance myself from the changes made by you or the person who reported you, I merely apply Wikipedia's policy against revert warring.) Cheers, —Ruud 10:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation was in response to Deuterium's violation

1. My first revert at 14:11, 5 April 2006 is mainly just editing for style. There's a lot of red mainly because I shuffled some sentences around. The cuts I made didn't removed others arguments, just cut inessential verbiage.

I don't deny that I violated the 3rd revert rule, since my understanding is that even cutting inessential verbiage counts. My violation was inadvertent.

I think that fairness demands that Deuterium be blocked too for his violation of the 3RR. If his 1st revert is the one in doubt, since it is brief, please note that it is much more substantive than my 1st (he changed "neither of these sources" to "some call it"). If his second is the one in doubt, please not that it is followed by a series of self-reverts that add up to a substantial change.

2. User Deuterium's violation of the 3-revert rule. Also enumerated on [1].

   1st revert 03:08, 5 April 2006
   2nd revert 10:22, 5 April 2006
   3rd revert 22:06, 5 April 2006
   4th revert 22:23, 5 April 2006

NOR

Please don't turn up at a policy page you've never edited and clearly don't understand, and start reverting. The no-unpublished-synthesis rule has existed for as long as I recall. All I did was add an example based on the OR that you added to an article recently. I disguised the example so that no one could identify who the editor was. As I told you, it was a classic example, and a very good one to illustrate the problem. More examples will be added soon, so yours won't be alone for much longer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken: I discussed the revert on the talk page before making it. Only after another editor pointed out that you should not have changed the page without consensus did I revert it.

It is you who don't understand the NOR policy and you are trying to make drastic changes w/o consensus.Ragout 04:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ragout, you've made 71 edits to seven articles! You can't possibly understand our content policies after that. Please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read the policy, which seemed clear enough before you started "clarifying it." A number of other editors seem to agree with me that you are proposing drastic changes.

Further, you are continually rude to me, again suggesting that it is you, not I, who do not understand Wikipedia policies. Ragout 04:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The editors who are supporting you don't understand the policy themselves. I apologize for appearing to be rude to you, which is not my intention, but please understand how frustrating it feels to be told by a very new editor that I don't understand, and have made drastic changes to, a policy page that I've edited regularly for almost 18 months, and the draft of which I played a major role in writing. Please assume good faith. I understand the policy very well, and I can assure you that the example I put up was just that: an example of a point already made several times throughout the text, and which has existed there for as long as I recall. Now, if you disagree with that point, by all means argue your case on talk; but please don't accuse me of having changed anything, and please don't continue to revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

You should fill out your user page -- currently your name appears red on the talk pages and that makes others suspicous of your arguments off the bat. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 05:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point & I feel foolish for not considering it earlier. I'm reluctant to blow the absentminded & rumpled appearance that I so aspire to, but I guess I will have to do it. Thanks! Ragout 05:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

April 10th not April 11th-12th is Important

Ragmout, they keep arguing on NOR skirting around the real issue. It was Slimvirgins edit on April 10th that changed the meaning by adding numerous synthesis definitions that changes the policy against the statement on that page that 'consensus' is needed for doing this. Prior to her change this language was not included. Like in any given law, a simple change in phrase or word can alter the meaning of that law. Or for abstract theory, consider the meaning of the the title "Constitution of the United States" and compare it to "Constitution for the United States" although the change seems minor, in fact the complications are major. If the Constitution is "of the" it is a product of the whole United States as a nation, meant for the whole which consists of the people themselves with ultimate sovereignty. If the Constitution is simply "for the" then it is a product of the States - provided to govern them - where the States exists independently and can seek to expatriate themselves and breakway since the Constitution is "for" rather than "of" them. The point, is the changing of words makes a heck of a lot of difference and in the case before could of altered history. In the case of NOR, it is the matter of the meaning of synthesis which Slimvirgin defines in such a way that could lead to abuse and then following this definiton on April 10th, further provides an example on her new definition - putting in even more 'definition'. She can't do this unilaterally. Get the debate back to the point. Without consensus the original still stands and should be restored, or taking her version of the two sections - mine - and the original - the group of you could work out a consensus forming blueprint for policy; that keeps with the spirit of the original definition, allows a procedure to protect against abusive persons; and addresses the concerns you have and others have. Here is the change (massive!) she made you can use to show the others [2]. --Northmeister 16:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC) PS - Here is Jimbo wales on Original Research - the meaning is being corrupted now: "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides. If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research." - Jimbo Wales" --Northmeister 16:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Further examples of the original meaning of NOR

• "Wikipedia is not the place for original research such as "new" theories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration). A Wikipedia entry is a report not an essay. Please cite sources." 19:19, 3 August 2004

• "Wikipedia is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question. Wikipedia is a secondary source (one that analyzes, assimilates, evaluates, interprets, and/or synthesizes primary sources) or tertiary source (one that generalizes existing research or secondary sources of a specific subject under consideration). A Wikipedia entry is a report not an essay." 25 May 2004

• "An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one. ... I think in part this is just a symptom of an unfortunate tendency of disrespect for history as a professional discipline. Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history" [Jimbo Wales]

NOTE on above: I provide them to you for your case and as a starting point in how Slimvirgin is changing the original meaning without proper consensus from editors. She has done this for sometime, and has been challenged for it on occasion. The mos important thing is to have a fair and accurate accounting of NOR, and one that consists of a policy that does not allow individual editors to abuse this NOR policy to advance their interests against another editor. Safeguards are necessary in any policy. Who is to determine in the final analysis when an charging editor is wrong about 'synthesis' being novel or new or out of the ordinary? Who is to determine whether a source is 'valid'? What stops an editor from abusive behavior (especially administrators) concerning the above? In a NUTSHELL her new words are made clear by my addition of CONSENSUS - otherwise there is no real standard. Well...enough. Stuff to consider. Sorry for the long posts. --Northmeister 16:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC) -PS. I read your comments, I am not a vandal. I reverted to try to protect the original and I edited Slimvirgins material to try to bring discussion on here changes which affect policy and can lead to abuse. I was wrong in how many times I reverted and admit that; which is one of the reasons I've pulled back from direct discussion. I am however not wrong about Consensus for changing policy pages. There is none at the moment. --Northmeister 19:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have accused you of vandalism. I just crossed out vandal in favor of "multiple-reverter," which is clunkier, but has the advantage of being true. Ragout 02:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. See my proposals on Slimvirgins talk page to see if you concur. Also, maybe a RFC/RFA is needed in this dispute. The community needs to decide whether we keep the old, add the new Slimvirgin stuff, or move to reform it to address concerns of others. --Northmeister 02:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out. In general, I certainly agree that changing even one word can matter a lot, and it's unbelievable that many "old hands" claim there haven't been any changes. At this point, I feel like the issue has been raised & new people have been drawn to the discussion, so something's been accomplished. The old hands aren't listening any more, even to the limited extent they had been. I'm not sure there's much point in continuing the discussion on talk:NOR for a while. Ragout 02:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just remember, that Wikipedia is not an elitist organization and you have every right to add your input as anyone else. They might have been here longer but it never gives them any greater rights than you. Right now they wish to ban users who don't have a lot of edits or who haven't been aroud awhile from editing policy pages. If they would only follow the actual policy of reaching consensus in the first place this would be even to them unecessary. But this group (and it is rather small really) is intent changing the rules to suit themselves and their ongoing pursuits across Wikipedia to silence views and to make this place some sort of Censored mess of a Encylcopedic tyranny or some version thereof. Rather than rationality, they resort often to name calling and personal insult. How long this will be allowed to continue I am unsure, but if the community is aware of it; being that the greater part is a fair minded bunch - by our objections to outright violations of policy in remaking a policy - then that is all the better. Victory of right is not won overnight; it is won by a slow and sometimes grueling advance through mud-filled prairies and sun scorched deserts. Voices of reason always prevail in the end. Best wishes and good luck. - --Northmeister 03:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

666

I have no content disputes with 666, but I do have an issue with his continued disruption. Until you have actively edited on Wikipedia for at least 6 months, on a significant variety of articles, and have actually familiarized yourself with Wikipedia and its policies, please do not post to me any more about policy. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Excessively on policy talk page

This is a subjective evaluation. What is "excessively" for one is "generously" for another. Why do you have a negative evaluation of my contributions on the policy talk pages? Also, I am not even sure that in average over the last four months I contributed that much more to the policy talk pages than others did. My ratio policy/main-space is very low (in comparison to others), but this is not an indication that I contribute more than others to these pages. If they were not told, other editors on the policy pages would not even notice this low ratio. This low ratio does not create a problem, until after you are told about it, but why is this a problem? If I have a difficulty with the way the policy is used and understood, it is normal that I try to work at that level first. -Lumière 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really read your comments on the policy talk pages. I'm just basing my comments on the case presented on WP:RfC. I suggest, without meaning to be snarky, that you post your view of the dispute in the Response Section.Ragout 05:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The main point is that this Rfc is totally unjustified. The only fact is that I have a low ratio of edits on the policy over edits on the main space. As far as I can see, this is not against policy. What is the problem with a low ratio? I do not disrupt the policy talk pages at all. I contribute with thoughtful posts. I am not saying that my posts are perfect. One or two times, they were too lengthy, but that does not justify at all a Rfc. Of course, this is another case where those "who actually understand the policy" will explain that a low ratio somehow violates the policy. I suggest that they first have their view of the policy about this low ratio accepted by a consensus (but not just of those who actually understand the policy), and then there will be no need for a Rfc-- I would simply follow the policy (about low ratio) that is adopted by this true consensus. This issue is not so complicated that people like you, Bensaccount, Harald88, IanTresman, etc. cannot understand it, so a true consensus will have to include these people. -Lumière 06:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I consider that my opinion in the response section is useless. It is the opinion of other editors like you that really matter, and I prefer to address myself personally to you. -Lumière 06:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Projecting

I'm wikistalking you again? I've never wikistalked you a first time that I recall. I agree that the last bit of the Chomsky thing is OR-ish, but the first few sentences are fine, where it sticks to what D. said. It's odd that you haven't edited since May, but suddenly arrive today at NOR, and yet it's me who's wikistalking you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

i've been stalked by slim too: after i unwisely refused to bow to her superior wisdom on certain political matters, she suddenly popped up to rebuke me for an edit on lithium, which i suspect had never been a big interest of hers until it appeared on my contributions list. i wouldn't worry, tho: the pure of heart do not need to follow the rules applied to lesser mortals. jamaissur ^{lemon or lime?}