SageMab

Hello, SageMab! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dureo 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

John Michell (writer)

Please stop your revert-warring. I have tried to reason with you civilly, respecting WP:BITE. Now you even add bogus protection tempates to the page. What gives? Have you read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? If you don't want to consider my points, you should ask for wider input via WP:RfC or WP:3O. Edit-warring will not yield your desired revision. Your account has less than 40 edits. How about you take some time finding out how Wikipedia works instead of jumping into edit-wars immediately? dab (𒁳) 21:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

also see WP:SOCK. If you continue like this, you may be blocked from editing. dab (𒁳) 22:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You were the one who blanked out whole pages, paragraphs and salient information, plus a potentially libelous review, of a living author. I wrote the lions share of this article on John Michell and you attempted to pseudoscience POV the entire piece. Request a review of the article if you like. To slap a bogus sock puppet charge in order to block my editing is not worthy of a Wiki editor. Shame on you, I will not be bullied. Others on your Talk Page have reported on your persistant starting of edit wars, uncivil behavior and POV problems. By the way, I have over 80 plus edits so I see from your 40 comment above that your reporting of facts is as poor as your edits.

Vandalism May Be Resolved Edit War Instead

Please see Wikipedia's definition of vandalism and devote special attention to section on What vandalism is not. Do not accuse others of vandalism simply because you disagree with them, as you have done | here. Persistence in such behavior is inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards on civility and the assumption of good faith on the part of your colleagues. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, your point is well taken. Thanks for your interest. I kept adding salient facts about an author's life and Dab kept reverting them and was not clear why. I certainly did not mean to be uncivil but his use of loaded words like "pseudoscience", "opus" "lavish praise" and "hilarious" seemed to suggest a strong POV. How could it of been handled more gracefully? No offense was meant but I do have the right to an opinion especially since I wrote most of the article. I did feel it was important to add reviews of "Who Wrote Shakespeare" from well-regarded sources such as the Folger Library., "Richmond Review" and the "Shakespeare Oxford Society Newsletter".SageMab (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab

I have read it and if you read Dbachmann's edit of the article on John Michell (Writer) you would agree also. Dbachmann repeatedly blanks pages, he deletes facts about the author John Michell such as his servce in the Royal Navy and his work as a Russian translator and surveyor, he adds tainted words such as "fawning", he deletes whole paragraphs, etc. He slants the entire article because of his POV problem and then tries to engange in edit warring. It is also vandalism to add, and then delete reverts. I point you to his addition of a potentially libelous review (see crank') of a living author which is contrary to Wiki policy and is repeated on the author's article Talk page. If you go to Dbachmann's user talk page you will see repeated allegations of his POV and vandalism. I have followed a link from that page on administrative RtC action taken on Dbachmann and I suggest you read the comment from a fellow editor -SageMab

[(User:Pigman) at the current RfC on Dbachmann]

I agree with Pigman.SageMab (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab

Just a few more thoughts, folks. When I logged out on this computer I did not clear my cache nor shut down. It is very likely that the next user of this computer looked under GO, saw what I was up to and put in their own two cents. Someone did access the computer right after I left. David, congrats on the new admin position, and Jeffrey, don't be so quick to brand someone. I have been on Wiki for a while and I have never had this come up. Dbachmann, on the other hand, gets POV mix-it-ups with other editors all the time so I am not surprised at his recent edits of the article in question.SageMab (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab

yes. I suggest you answer for your sins and I'll answer for mine. Pointing to alleged misbehaviour on my part in unrelated disputes hardly goes to excuse your sockpuppetry. I suggest you just resolve to stick to a single account and we won't mention it again. dab (𒁳) 19:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the comments on your Talk page and on your RfC problem seemed to suggest that you had a [[POV] problem with other articles which also showed up with John Michell (Writer). You blanked out a large section about you by Pigman (on your User Talk page) on this page which is your right. You perhaps overlooked the fact that I semi-protected the article on John Michell (Writer) from new or unregisterd editors well before newbie ArchangelMichael signed on so there was no sock puppet, just perhaps someone who went to History on a common computer with an uncleared cache. Assume good faith is wise advice from Wiki and I, for one, will heed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs)

I don't have a "POV problem", I get into bona fide disputes with other editors. There is nothing wrong with that. It's how Wikipedia operates. I took pains to show you how you are supposed to proceed when you find yourself in a content dispute. You chose to ignore my advice and indulge in sock-warring instead. I am most willing to engage in civil and reasonable debate. I have no patience with people trying to game the system or dodge the rules. Unsurprisingly, there are many such people at large on the internet, and they often end up venting spleen on my talkpage. Just from the fact that people rant at me, you cannot conclude that I have a "problem": you might also conclude that I am doing a good job protecting Wikipedia against nutcases and malicious editing. You didn't semi-protect anything: only admins can do that. I'll ask again for the minimal courtesy that you actually review the policy and guidelines you are pointed to before you try arguing Wikipedia fundamentals with me. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I did put a semi-protected template on the John Michell (Writer) article to protect it from new and unregistered users right before the so-called sock puppet incident and you reverted the edit and said in your coment "what's going on with this". I had no idea that only an administrator could do this, and I am sorry, but this also clearly points to the fact that the newbie ArchangelMichael who reverted your edit was not a sock. You also blanked out a whole portion of my UserTalk page in which another editor, Pigman, made a convincing case for your POV problem and cited examples. Frankly, I was not interested in the rants of other editors against you, nor of disiplinary actions against you, on your User Talk page. I felt you had a POV, point of view, problem from reading the discussion page on John Michell (Writer) where you bandied about the word hilarious to refer to a living author's work and I noted your edit calling the Joscelyn Godwin commentary "fawning". I have also read your edits on other articles and your insertion of pseudoscience to the anomalous phenomena article was telling. You also tried to get me to admit, in your words, that JM's work was pseudoscience on his article discussion page, which was not germane to the subject at hand.SageMab 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Giving cautions

Hi SageMab, after removing potentially libelous material, it's often helpful to leave the editor a note explaining your actions. There are several templates you could use, such as {{uw-blp1}}, for example. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks PhilKnight. Good suggestion.SageMab (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

John Michell

Thanks for the note - I've added it to my watchlist and will look into the issue later when I've got some time. (Emperor (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

Thanks! Please look at the history of the Discussion page. This guy is citing things and drawing wrong conclusions that he is using to slander a living author. SageMab (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Toddst1 (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You could try reposting on WP:BLPN.--PhilKnight (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Confused as to what you mean by calling an edit of mine NPOV

Hi Sagemab - I'm not sure what you mean when you write 'NPOV'. For instance, you seem to have called an edit of mine NPOV, what did that mean? I think you are an enthusiastic editor and that's great, but in this case I don't understand what you mean, and I think it would be constructive if we discussed it. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi DougWeller, I think when it comes to WP:BLP , WP:NPOV, WP:OR is a good idea. I will assume good faith, along with your "Sagemob" in your above quote.SageMab (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, typo there, corrected. I still don't know what you think NPOV means. If an edit of mine is NPOV, as you wrote, is that supposed to be good or bad? What makes something NPOV? Doug Weller (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your latest edit on Michell talk page (something weird happened)

We've lost whole sections there it seems. Could you please undo your last edit and then write your edits again? I'm afraid if I do it you'll take it wrongly. I noticed it because your comment, "I do think a comment about number should be included to balance the Catholic Church's rep comment." has vanished, and that's the comment I took as saying a negative comment should be balanced by praise, ie a positive one (and what does 'rep' mean)? Doug Weller (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa, traced it down to a 'ref' without a close. Sorry about that. And I did actually think that your username was Sagemob and wondered if the mob stood for mobile. Doug Weller (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No Vandalism By Verbal

Please strike your comment about my reverting you "4 or 5 times" using <s>your comments</s>, as this has not happened. I have not reverted you anywhere near this number of times, and I was reverting incorrect additions to the article. You seem to be conflating edits and reverts. Please check assertions before you add them to articles, as this save others from having to remove them if they are found to be incorrect and stops people from being mislead. Verbal chat 16:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Your frist edit summary on the John Michell article says you reversed 3 edits of mine. And you did. And in subsequent edits. SageMab (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a single revert. Verbal chat 16:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And susequent reverts. I do not have to agree with your reverts. I am not calling them vandalism. SageMab (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You have implied I have broken the 3RR. Please strike the implication. Verbal chat 17:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In all good faith, you might want to add to this article rather than removing information. Did you remove the direct quote from the Christopher Gibbs catalogue? Instead of removing the quote from Princeton's Bliven's which advanced the article you could of easily done a little search and properly referenced it online. This is an easy to reseach quote and yet no one has corrected it. SageMab (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as John Michell (writer). If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Verbal chat 13:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove salient information from an article. Try to contribte facts about a living author. Do not try to force me to stop editing when I am about the only editor that has added facts, most of the ISBNs and bibliography to this author. Several editors often do much of the writing of an article if noone steps forward. Go back to a version of the article from about nine months ago. Nothing much was done until recently. I have no interest, nor do I, own this article. You are free to complain to an adminsitrator but be willing to explain your own edits on this article that removed much material rather than you doing a little research to solidify solid references like the Blivens from Princeton quote which was a good neutral quote about the book in question. SageMab (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor mentorship

Hi SageMab. In order to resolve certain conflicts, show good faith, and so that everyone can continue to advance wikipedia, as you put it, you might be interested in the adopt-a-user program. Please see WP:ADOPT. As they say, being adopted is easy and fun. If you'd like someone to adopt you, simply leave a message for someone on the list of adopters.

Alternatively, you may edit your user page and add this: {{subst:dated adoptme}}. However, it is better to contact an adopter directly if you'd prefer to be adopted right away. If you'd like some more information, visit the Adoptee's Area.

All the best!

Verbal chat 10:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stones

The Lachman book talks about the Rolling Stones, and specifically uses the word "entourage" You can view the relevant pages on Google Books. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Reinstate then. Michell is friends with them to this day I have read. Thanks for adding to this article. 17:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Signing edits, user pages, and good faith

Hi again Sage. Thanks for the faith you put in me on the JM talk page. You seem to have a bit of a problem with signing your contributions - you do this by writing four tildes after your comment, like this: ~~~~. It says this at the top of the page when you are editing. It has to be four as any more or less and it doesn't work properly. Also, please remember to indent your comments by putting the correct number of colons in front ":", so that your comment can be distinguished from the one before. This is the kind of thing that the adopt a user process would help you with and hopefully get you sorted in no time. Also, you jumped on the anon editor quite hard over on the JM talk page - their intentions might be good and they made no objectionable remarks in their post so we should still assume good faith, even with what has happened in the past. I'm sure this wasn't your intention. Also, be careful posting on people's user pages rather than their talk pages - this is vandalism, but I've fixed it for you. I hope you don't mind. Once again, this is something the user adoption process can help you with. It's like a foundation course on wikipedia, but tailored specifically to you (more or less) and gives you someone you can turn to immediately if you have a question or problem, who knows you and what you're about. All the best. Verbal chat

Thanks Verbal, good points. Not my intension to post on a user page which is what a JM vandal did to me. Just in a hurry. Thanks for the correction edit. My concern with this anon user is that this is part of an attempt to link the philosophy of John Michell to Evola and Michael Monahan which is not true. Not OR. I really suspect a puppet master here with the anon IP posters who post details of people who is not this author in order to create a ficticious link between them. Michell is of democratic mind and he rails against the closed-minded thoughts of fascists which can get you in trouble with those very same fascists.

Best back, SageMab (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of text

If someone does this, just ask them on the talk page to explain why. Then it can be discussed and agreement reached on what would be suitable. I saw a large chunk removed that was difficult to follow. On the other hand, it was referenced and seemed to have at least some material in it which should be kept. There is far too much quotation in the article compared with the rest of the text. Summarise what someone is saying and maybe quote a key sentence. The important point is find the reliable source, read what it says, use that material and reference it.

BLP does not allow street addresses, but generally towns are acceptable, if they are in reliable sources. BLP does not forbid negative material per se: it forbids such material when it is not soundly referenced (same for laudatory material). Focus talk on sources, and ask others to provide sources for their comments. And take a long view. It doesn't need to be solved in a day or a week, or even a month. Wiki will still be around next year, and articles will continue to be edited for the forseeable future.

Ty 01:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you wise Ty. I have asked on the talk page, especially in regard to that longish text block. and the editor involved in the removal of the text in question thought it had something to do with Michell having a degree in metrology, which was posited by a previous anonymous IP! I asked him to clarify, perhaps rewrite and directed him to a source and....nothing, so I went to the primary sources and gave it a whack since I had posted this bit (along wih most of the "facts" in the article). Agreed. There are too many quotes. Someone should paraphrase them without mangling the content.

Good pointers, thanks. Wiki will, indeed, be around for a very long time.

SageMab (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you have been blocked. If you want to talk in the meantime, feel free to email me. (Go to my user page and click in the bottom box on the left of the page "E-mail this user). Ty 02:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Michell (writer). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. DMacks (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock please

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SageMab (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

being ganged up on by a small group of editors who admitt their pseudo-science bias, added most of the facts to this article which saw repeated page blanking and removal of verifiable content, editors ignoring BLP and OR for which they have been warned by admins, had no idea that an appeal for help, which Wiki advises, could be construed as a troll;see Moreschi adding pseudoscience labels and edit remark "have done with it" on article page, have gone to discussion page, was followed about by DougWeller and agressively questioned on points Jimbo says not to discuss on the discussion page for verifiability of BLP, put up with name calling and rude behavior on discussion page by editors and anonymous users who have been slapped with vandalism charges by admins, please read article John Michell (writer) and discussion page, repeatedly asked for admin help for out of control discussion page with attempts at bullying and intimidation, ignored trolls, stated not interested in edit wars and remained polite, attempt to keep me from editing unwaranted

Decline reason:

You were advised to take this to the article's talk page, WP:SSP or WP:ANI but you chose not to and to continued edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Another attempt at reconciliaton

SageMab, I'd like to renew my invitation to discuss NPOV. You talk the talk about assuming good faith (rather undermined perhaps by your comments above, but hopefully we can move on) but you need,as they say, to walk the walk. A major step forward would be if you would enter into dialog with me about how you understand NPOV (with some specific examples). I don't think you have anything to lose and it seems to me you'd have a lot to gain. Please think about it. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

DougWeller a good start in a Wikipedia:NPOV discussion would be if you would kindly explain to me the reason behind your website entitled "Doug's Archaeological SIte:Skeptical views of fringe archaeology" that you say "which exposes 'cult' or 'fringe' archaeology. " SageMab (talk)

Great. I think some "some specific examples" as you say would be to answer this question. How would you explain Wikipedia Neutral Point of view? The page in a nutshell states: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.? Thanks for your reply to this directlly. It will help me assume good faith.SageMab (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the relationship could be between my web site and Wikipedia, because my website doesn't pretend to be encyclopedic. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Why do you ask? What I was hoping for was some examples from the edits on the John Michell article, I think that would be fruitful. Doug Weller (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Doug, I would like to know how you can balance being a skeptic with a website dedicated to debunking topics like the subjects covered by John Michell and still write "from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly", and, this is the point, "proportionately, and with out bias" as Wiki says? An example to this would be the Hutton quote you placed on the discussion page, which I did not even notice until I was blocked. You posted a very long quote from Hutton. Why did you not summerize his views and provide a link on the talk page? This material provided tinder for another editor who may not be as up on skeptical arguments as you and he edited Hutton into the article after asking how it could be handled sensitively. I am not questioning his edit. Why did "you" not make the original Hutton material into an edit first on the article and then discuss it on the discussion page? Why did you not use this in the article as one of your own edits? Why not balance this Hutton information by providing an edit for the article from a favorable point of view from any other notable such as notable academic Michael Vickers? Why did you not provide a even a neutral 3-third party source to edit and place and on the article page to balance the Hutton edit? Correct me if am wrong, but Wikipedia says the burden is on the person who brings new information to the table. Wiki says proportionately, and without bias. Please answer these questions directly, thank you. I think it would clarify things for me about you and your edits. I am always interested in learning more about the WIki process. SageMab (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC), SageMab (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC), SageMab (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

First, you need to understand that one's own POV should not ever be a barrier to helping make an article NPOV. If it did, we wouldn't have an editors as everyone has a POV. Secondly, there is no way a discussion page can be kept NPOV, it is a place to discuss how to make the article a better article, including making it NPOV. I didn't feel it would be right to pick and choose which bits of Hutton I was going to post, and by giving the whole section I wasn't just picking bits out of their context. As it was on the talk page, there is absolutely no need or reason to go hunting for anything to balance it, that isn't the way discussion pages work (and I suspect balance doesn't mean what you think it does). Vickers has nothing to say about the accuracy of the book Hutton was writing about. And Vickers has already been discussed, why would I bring him up on the talk page? Anyway, I'm carrying on, NPOV does not apply to discussion pages. And the other editor you mention probably knows more about Ron Hutton than I do.

My turn. Your edit summary for this edit [1] says "restored content of article much of which was removed by Moreschi, edited down for pertinent information, removed several NPOV issues)". What NPOV issues did you remove and why? We should be discussing the article, not the discussion page. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to change an edit on a talk page, because the person replying may not know you've done that. As just happened. I wasn't adding Hutton to the article so there was no reason for me to add anything else to the article. I was simply using the discussion page in one of the ways it should be used, letting people know of additional material not yet used in the article. Again, nothing to do with NPOV as I wasn't editing the article using Hutton Doug Weller (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing the Michell article. I agree with the talk page parameters but you introduced the Hutton material there and I would think you would want to add it to the article yourself. Please answer my first question in this discussion directly about your website and your possible pseudo-science bias in editing an article such as John Michell (writer). You have not directly answered 2nd my question: since you originated this matterial by Hutton why did you not insert your edit of it into the article along with other references to balance it? Please enlighten me on this specific issue and then we can move on. Thanks. SageMab (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about changing an edit on a talk page.19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC), 19:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you changed your edit above, adding a bit to it, after I'd replied. I've already said everyone has a POV. Mine is in favour of good, solid relialbe evidence for things. I repeat, there is no reason that a POV should stop an editor from contributing to an article so long as they follow Wikipedia's policies. As for your question about Hutton - I've been busy doing things in the real world (and I do watch a lot of other Wikipedia articles for vandalism so I don't just work on the Michell one), and I felt it was a good idea to discuss how to use the Hutton stuff rather than just put it in myself. That's a good thing. As for balance, are you saying that it means that whenever you, for instance, add a positive review you should find a negative one to balance it? I think that's a misunderstanding of NPOV policy. Doug Weller (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC

Aha, I thought you were alking about the JM article talk page. I was tightening up a comment of mine and there was an edit conflict. Your comment showed up just as I hit save.

I agree with Wiki that a balanced POV is a must. Since you are so concerned about the one way slant of the article, a good concern, why not add the Hutton piece to the article and then talk about it on the talk page? Isn't that the way things are supposed to work? Isn't it especially important when a piece like the Hutton comment is likely to set off a lively discussion on the talk page? I think a lot of subsequent edit wars on the article page can be encouraged on a talk page, although not with this one specific example. And isn't it your job, as suggested by Wiki, to present both sides of Hutton's viewpoint when the material is likely an issue? I am glad the Hutton material is on the article page but I think since it is a pan of the authors' work that a counter argument should be part of the article. I think that editors have to be careful that one critique either pro or con, in a long prolific writers' career, should not be given undue weight in an article. This is stated in Wiki's BLP. Is that correct? SageMab (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think I've explained this. I haven't had time to even think about putting Hutton in the article. It isn't particularly my job to present both sides of Hutton's viewpoint -- I'm not even sure what that means, although if I'd found an archaeologist who'd disagreed with Hutton I've had put that on the talk page at least. And to be straight with you, most of your edits over the past year seem to have been pro Michell with little evidence that you were looking for your 'balance'. Indeed, one of the perceived problems with the article was its lack of balance and undue weight. Now let's take the focus off of me and discuss the diff above, please? Doug Weller (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem in editing the John Michell article is the lack of negative commentary on his work. You and I both agree that is there not a lot of what Wiki calls 3rd party reliability sources on this author. I have added most of the pro commentary but to one side the article or to puff piece it was not my intent. I have found later that good reference materials are there if you really dig. Michell has had a long writing career and he does sell a lot of books to an enthusiastic public, many of whom are notable. I added links to myth and legends, geometry etc to key words in the lead but they were reverted with no explaination in either the edit summary or on the talk page. Not that every edit needs a large explaination but removing things that describe an author should say a bit. I agee the aricle was too one sided. I would also like your assesssment of the Gary Lachmann book as a reliable source since Lachmann is widely thought of as a sensationalist rather than someone who is mindful of facts. I would like to see the JM not swing totally towards the other way such as the removal of Vickers validation of Michell in Nature magazine but I have no intent of making this article my baby. I also think there needs to be a discussion on using the word metrology in the lead rather than the pseudo subsitute. You know I was editing copy on this page and hit preview and got an edit conflict. I was just reading about diff when I returned to this page and saw your comment. Sorry about the diff. I understand. Thanks for the reminder Doug. SageMab (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I must get to bed. I think moving towards a biography is a good idea. Michell was an interesting person (yes, he still is in a way but in a different way). I really think that technically what Michell wrote was pretty different from metrology as a scientific discipline, just as Sacred geometry is different from the mathematical discipline. A sentence about Vickers is fine, and maybe some commentary about Michell's involvement in the anti-metrication movement as part of his biography, but we don't want a lot about other authors (and the book in question was self-published.... I will look at the Gary Lachmann book tomorrow, I haven't really looked at it yet. Doug Weller (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you have moved your material on Hutton towards the bottom of the article discussion page. Someone has just archived the first half of the article discussion page which gives a good history of the beginnings of the article, my part in editing it and also my conversations with dbachmann.

Since the fact that these same issues were discussed, and often put to bed, don't you think it would be helpful for other editors to be able to readily see that material? Not all editors go through an archive for a newish or shortish article like John Michell (writer). Important discussions and examples of editors viewpoints can be lost.

Moving towards a biography was whose idea? This is the first I have heard of it and I have no opinion of it until it is first discussed thoroughly on the article discussion page. Since the current article discussion page is full of OR, it would have to be discussed without bias. WIki policy on BLP is very clear that poorly supported material such as the anonymous IP users allegations about Hitler, Evola, Radical Traditionalism, Manson and so on should be immediately removed. How come no editor or adminstrator like dbachmann has removed them from the article discussion page? The answer to this would really illuminute me more on NPOV. 00:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Keyboarding with a sprained hand, forgive the typos the last week. SageMab (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to clarify my previous statement Doug. I want to know please: the talk article discussion page of a BLP has OR or poorly suported material, should it be removed immediately? This was my undersanding when reading Wiki BLP and NPOV. Who has the obligation to remove it? SageMab (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the typos.

I do think the article should be about Michell the man, not just his books. Most good biographies I think do this, I'll get back to you on that.

As for the talk page, remember NPOV doesn't apply there. BLP policy does. But although I understand your concerns, and if you look at my edits you will see I do, at the moment I really do think it is still within the guidelines and is legitimate discussion -- it's rather different from the earlier bits that did go OTT. You can't just ignore Evola for instance. Hm, looking againg there is the bit 'makes it clear he is a fascist'. Now I honestly don't know what the best way is to deal with that, it is part of a discussion and although maybe something should be done, the best thing would be to get some guidance. I'll tell you what, I'll ask at the appropriate place myself, ok? What is important now is that the issue itself be raised civilly.

Archiving -- fairly standard practice. But in this case? I'd ask the editor who did it. It's a side issue at the moment I'd say, you want to come back to the discussion without too many issues, starting fresh.

Issues raised about BLP, see here [2]. I hope that the way I've done it works for you. Doug Weller (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's quite a discussion on Michell's talk page right now. See how it plays out without getting involved perhaps? You've made your point clear I think, and I've deleted a sentence. Anyway, back to biographies. This is supposed to be a biography, right? BLP? Seee James Robert Baker and George Moore (novelist), both Featured Articles, for some examples. Doug Weller (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The newly archived article discussion page for John Michell (writer) with a lot of material from last years edit that resulted in this article being judged a start, up from stub status, contains valuable information as to what has been going on in that talk page for the last few weeks, including interesting statements by dbachman and anonymous IP users that point to a pattern of behavior disregarding BLP policies and ignoring both OR and NPOV. To archive this section of the discussion page suggests a cover-up of information that could be used to assess the behavior of the editors working on this article. SageMab (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't be the issue, the issue is how to move forwards. Surely you don't want anyone raking up your past behaviour? And anyone de-archiving that is, if there is stuff there that transgresses BLP, revealing it again. That's something I certainly wouldn't want to do, if it needs excising it shouldn't be de-archived. I hope you see the logic there. Doug Weller (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that this article has been trashed and the discussion page turned into an OR chatroom with no one removing material that could harm the reputation of prolific author, clearly a wholeseale disregard of BLP. To resolve the disregard of BLP would be to further this article with facts. A quick look of some of the material I have provided on this article that has been erased, buried, deleted or incorrectly watered down shows the followng removed, rather than, more importantly, improved:

• Dr. Michael Vickers, notable British academic, explaing and validating Michells work, and the field of metrology in Nature
• The supporting validation of Vickers and Michell in another notable publication from a professor emeritus from Virginia Polytech Institute (VPI)
• Bliven-Humanites Librarian at Princeton critical review of Michell on Shakespeare, not a pro author review
• high profile academic Roger Stritmatter from the Oxford Review crit of the Who Wrote Shakespeare book by Michell, favorable review
• the inclusion of a serious reference series of 68 volumes of Shakespeare criticism with contributions by 6 authors, including Michell where the editors who included these authors concluded "debate will rage on". Important point that furthers the article segment discussion. Review by the Shakespeare Oxford Library of this book to validate.
• Michell as a Russian translator (proper edit would be citation needed as it is mentioned on 25 of his books but a stronger verfiability would to do a little research only to find that he translated an important historical book in Russian, and was credited as a notable translator and geographer
• career in the Navy (where he worked as a Russian Translator) and as a Chartered Surveyor (also credited on 25 or so of his books from publishers as diverse as Columbia University Press, HarperCollins and Thames and Hudson, no lightweights). Surely these numerous publishers (about 18 publishers) would not all repeat incorrect information? According to Wiki policy someone should have kept citation needed tag. These two career tracks are spot on as to this authors development of subjects and germane to discussing the books of this writer, rather than the estate agent edit by another editor that was to replace these facts.
• reviews of Michell in the Independent
• reviews of Michell in the Spectator, Michell's own articles in the Spectator
• teaching career with Keith Critchlow at Princes School for more than 6 years, link with that other author furthers understanding of this author, not necessarily favorable, just balanced
• key words in the lede describing this author accurately with reliable source links included Pythogorus, philosopher (from a notable book), geometer, myths and legend, archaeoastronomy.
• all reference to archaeoastronomy removed despite the proven fact that the author has published extensively on this subject.

I could go on. The point being that information that advances the readers understanding of the authors over 40 titles is more important than the author's connection to the Rolling Stones. I hope that I am mistaken in that your comment about me not wanting a "raking up my past behavior" sounds like a not so subtle threat? Do make a formal complaint if you wish. My block for 31 hours for the 3RR was justified and I have learned from it, and I am still learning from it. Wiki is an open book and I am glad of it. I am always open to scrutiny and will happily either explain my actions, appologize, learn from them or from editors' advice, and relearn Wiki policy, always multi-layered and always interesting. SageMab (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, of course it isn't a threat of any kind. I thought that would be clear both from what I've said here and my recent edits on the Michell talk page. It is advice, and you can take it or ignore it as you wish. I can't deal with everything above, but your notable book really isn't notable and it isn't by a philosopher. You'd need to find people who are 'obviously' philosophers (eg professors of philosophy) calling Michell a philosopher for an encyclopedia to call him one, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Likewise, I don't think he belongs on this List of geometers and there is no information that he ever studied mathematics at university level (in fact, no information as to what he studied at university or for how long, I can't find evidence he got a degree, did you notice that?) Doug Weller (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it removing the radical traditionalist link, but not because of undue weight, there's no article there.

See Gary Valentine Lachman - he's got good writing credentials, but in this as in many cases it depends on how you use him whether he is a reliable source. For Michell and counterculture stuff, yes. I see Emperor posted on the article's talk page. hmm, an idea strikes! --Doug Weller (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Doug for assuming it was a threat. I do think think you are giving good advice and that you care. I was wrong about your Hutton post on the talk page of the article. It was correct. I really did think you should of posted it on the article page first and then discussed it. Not correct. I know now that you were asking for consensus. I checked out Lachman also and he has decent credentials but the published buzz on him is that he is heavily opinionated so I would agree it depends on how you use him as a source. I saw your edit summary later, after my edit, on the radical tradionalist link to an article that dbachmann edits and I agree. I'll cruise around and see what's going on. Thanks Doug, really, for your time and efforts. SageMab (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The professor (I did not call him a philosopher) in question is Michael S. Schneider who wrote "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe: Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science"who called " -John Michell (1933-, English philosopher, antiquarian, geometer, writer". This is a solid book reference and the author is a Hayes Fullbright scholar who was once head of the math department at the prestigous Ross School in Long island, NY [[3]]. Semi-reired for a long while now. The major thrust of this school is the classical philosophical underpinning of all knowledge and Schneider was head of a philosophy-based math program. His book is a practical handbook and a philosophical treatise. I have the book. Still, you have an excellent point about getting an orange to describe another orange. This looks a reliable source. Question for you on self taught expertise: how do back up the work of an autodidact? Thanks. SageMab (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to Schneider that says "Michael Schneider - author of: A BEGINNERS GUIDE TO THE UNIVERSE; Dean of Math and Science at The Ross School in E. Hampton NY introduces The Twelve-Fold Designs of Society and Art in explanations straight-forward and easily understood." And "Author / Mathematician Michael S. Schneider discusses organic geometry and the role of the fibonacci number series in growing life." In all fairness, you should be able to use his quotes on Michell as a geometer of note.SageMab (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And a bit on the Ross School and its' philosophical based program SageMab (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. The Ross School is a private school, not a college or university, right? And I don't know what you mean 'philosphy-based', yes, it's based on a philosophy of teaching but that's quite different from being philosophy based (I'm not even sure what that would mean). Schneider's not a philosopher, his degrees aren't from particularly good institutions, you can go to the RS noticeboard and ask but you'd have to prove a better case than that. Not even the HarperCollins site calls him a philosopher. Doug Weller (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is not whether Schneider is a philosopher. The point is that he is a solid academic as a Dean of Math and Science with a solid book that is spot on Michells' subject matter. His book is a reliable source for describing Michell. The Ross School, for the years before college, is different from most schools. It is a school based on and created to study Platonic principles of learning as is many of Michells' books. Please notice I am not making a big deal out of Schneider. I did not remove his quote from the lead. I did edit him into the aricle lede and I do consider him to be a reliable source for a description of Michell. It's a minor point and not worth going to the RS notieceboard, a point that I had not considered as I don't believe in running to noticeboards over every little thing nor do I believe in discussing every edit or comment on article talk. The non ivy school of Schneider does not negate him as a reliable source. On the other hand Gary Lachmann who you have discussed, who has no academic background, lectures at UFO conferences and has self published a book about UFOs in the history of rock and roll in addition to his books on popular culture and it was his source that someone edited in as a reliable source on Michells' academic background in the article. I do agree with consensus but common sense should prevail. SageMab (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I see from the link you provided me to Gary Lachman that you have invited him on his talk page to take part in the article and discussion on John Michell. Will you also extend the same invite to Professor Jocelyn Godwin Ph.D., professor emeritus Keith Critchlow (with whom Michell lectured on philosophy and geometry for over six years) and author Patrick Harpur, all of whom have written about or have taught (in the case of Critchlow) with John Michell? The reliable source links to these three were also removed from the article. Godwin is easily found online and wrote the introduction to what the talk page of the article considers a notable book by Michell. Why invite the one over the others if you want a balanced pov article? 01:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I only invited Lachman because he is already an editor. If they are editors then why not invite them? Otherwise I wouldn't bother them myself, but there is no reason for you not to. Why do you mention 'non ivy' about the Ross School? The Ivy League is a University athletic league, you know? I'm an 'ivy leaguer', a Yalie. From Florida. Who lived in Brooklyn. Schneider's book is no more solid than Lachman so far as I can see -- no academic reviews, only seems mentioned in esoteric books, etc. Where do you get the idea that the Ross School is created to study Platonic principles of learning, by the way? Doug Weller (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. No thanks, I'm not interested in bothering them either and I have no clue if they are editors here. I see that Lachmann is editing his own Wiki entry. The remark about the "ivy" was re: Michael Schneider's reported vitae, not a description of the private school, Ross. It does have a very good academic reputation among educators despite the fact they teach sacred geometry which is not what one would call typical high school fare. I went to a lecture, shanghaied by a friend, in NYC given by Steve Ross' widow who founded the school. Anyway, the point is that "reliable source" books by alternate, or what you call, fringe science, academics with notable by Wiki credentials write about authors like John Michell. If it is someone like Rupert Sheldrake who you probably can't stand (not you personally, an example) how do you override your own bias and judgement in order to use it with NPOV in a BLP? Otherwise, an article, especially a bio, might become a totally skeptical piece. I think the what do you do about an autodidact question needs to be addressed when it comes to subjects outside of the current flavor.SageMab (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, everyone has a POV. Mine comes from a bias towards the scientific method. In some cases it is just the fact that this is a collaborative effort that keeps things NPOV, but hopefully most people can understand what NPOV means and make sure that their contributions don't stop an article from being NPOV. Wikipedia's own bias is towards academic sources and the scientific method of course. Lachman can edit his own entry, he's clearly not prohibited from that (explicitly not prohibited in fact). Before I forget, when you enter links, just use [] as if you use 'ref' they won't work.

RS is not a simple concept. Schneider, as a mathematician and really a non-University academic, can't be used to call Michell a philosopher, because that's not Schneider's field. (Funnily, my first two years at Yale found me among the 10% selected to do an interdisciplinary studies program with a philosophy core, but that didn't make me a philosopher of course). Doug Weller (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, everyone has a POV, no one is disputing that. I also have a bias towards the scientific method. Since you have said you are a Skeptic I know you must be especially careful not to skew an article in that direction.

I agree that RS, Reliable Sources are a multi-layed discussion. No one would disagree that Michael Schneider is either an academic source or a reliable non-academic source . See his paper with the ref from the American Mathematical Society [4] for a glimpse at his scholarly publishing history. I don't agree that only a philosopher is qualified to comment on another philosopher althought I do agree a philospher is perferrable. As a mathematician who specializes in geometry, I would say Michael Schneider is well qualified to call Michell a "geometer" and to also comment on Michell's work in that field. SageMab (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you really arguing that Michell is a mathematician? Doug Weller (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2008

(UTC)

I am saying that it is a fact that Michael Schneider is a geometer. 19:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC) SageMab (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't think he can call Michell a 'geometer' as a geometer has to be a mathematician, I can only assume he is using the word in a different way than Wikipedia does. Doug Weller (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide if Schneider can call Michell a 'geometer', according to RS. It's not up to me either. It's a fact that Schneider is qualifed to call Michell a geometer and he does repeatedly. I've read Scheider's book. I don't think it wise for anyone to assume anything; it leads to OR. SageMab (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Does Schneider give a clue as to what he means by 'geometer'? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Extensively. I'd have to dig Schneider's book out of my huge library and pull whole sections of reasoned argument out and diagrams. One quote wouldn't be a sufficient explaination. I just looked over Wiki 'geometer' in 'search' and I think Michell would be in the 'Other Section' with Euclidean geometry on point as in Leonardo da Vinci - Euclidean geometry and Escher along with Bucky Fuller. Without getting into a tendentious discussion of geometry I would also say Newton's algebraic curves are pertinent. You might want to take a look at the link at the bottom of the John Michell page called 'the Hope' which has some of the geometric artwork of John Michell, that is based on some of the principles of geometry he expounds upon in his work. We don't have to agree on Michell's math/geometry or to adjudge it good or bad to call it math/geometry. Let's leave it to the experts. 20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC) SageMab (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking

If you state you will join the adopt-a-user program you will probably get unblocked much quicker, or at least looked upon much more favourably - so long as you actually do I highly recommend it. Verbal chat

Thank you Verbal. You have told me this a half dozen times on this page since August 27, 2008 and as I have mentioned each time: it is good advice. I will consider it. SageMab (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am doing a lot of reading and re-reading of Wikipedia guidelines, especially on sticky, complex policies and edits. SageMab (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for replying. I realised you had said I'd given good advise (thanks!) but I thought that this applied to my advice other than the adopt-a-user program - which you never referred too. A mentor would help you through these policies and guide you to the correct ones, and you can discuss these things and edits with them. Anyway, it's your choice and my intent isn't to harass you. I should say that your block is actually justified by policy, and that you have acted incorrectly - although I don't doubt your good faith. All the best for your future editing. Verbal chat 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you are not harassing me. No worries. I do accept the short block for the 3RR (three reverts) and have read policy again since. I think a proper complaint process when a problem arises is a good thing. Sometime it is hard to know to whom to ask for aid or to whom to complain when a complex issue comes up even when ou have been on WIki for a while. I am doing a lot of reading of Wiki guidelines. SageMab (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:NPOVN as well as the NPOV guideline. It's also a place where you can complain. Doug Weller (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. SageMab (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock todays block please

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SageMab (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would to please appeal this indefinate block. Our university department housing has a computer that is used by other users. Our IT guy says we are using a web charger which may show that one user is online all the time when it is many users online at various times. I left a sticky reminder up and have just met Woodrow Moore who has never met me before in person or online. I am so sorry he got caught up in this. I am not a sock or a sock master by any stretch of the imagination. I am a dedicated editor and I do get over enthusiastic at times but I am willing to learn from my mistakes and an indefinate block seems excessive. Most of all I want to be a good contributor to Wiki and not a problem editor.

Decline reason:

No, you are a sockmaster; your explanation is patently bogus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You're more likely to be unblocked if you tell the truth, apologise, and promise to stay away from this article. Frankly that's the last piece of advice I'm going to give you, since you've ignored all the other advice you've been given. I'm very sorry, and embarrassed by this. Verbal chat 22:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) SageMab (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)