User talk:Redblossom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] Disagreements over Andrew Chumbley
Hi. I've been looking at your recent edits on the discussion page at Andrew D. Chumbley, and there are some important comments I should make.
One: blanking or altering another's comments is generally considered vandalism here at Wikipedia:
- Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon.
Now the comments removed did mention "grave evidence of malicious vandalism" on your part, but this doesn't read like a personal attack so much as a request to cease and desist. Responding to an accusation of vandalism by blanking part of someone's post in a manner that is likely to be interpreted as vandalism isn't doing you any favours.
Second: You also have a rather infuriating habit of dropping your own comments in half-way through someone else's comment, which makes the discussion page a real mess and makes it near impossible to read. I've commented on this before; could you please sort yourself out on this. It's simple: put your comment after the signature on one post and before the start of the text of the following post. Not in the middle of a post.
Third, you claim that the supposed vandalism on other pages has nothing to do with you, originating as it does from other IPs. We however are all aware that you quite often edit anonymously using other IPs; edits such as this one and this one seem quite clearly to originate from you. I seem to remember suggesting to you last year that you get a single login name and use it consistently, since that would improve the level of trust you would get from other members of the community. Using multiple login names and anonymous IPs is known as sock-puppetry, and we take a fairly dim view of it.
Fourth, accusations of "slander" are serious accusations tantamount to legal threat. This is very much discouraged, and if you continue talking in legal terms you are liable to be blocked from editing until the issue has been solved through legal channels, to avoid exacerbating the issue (see WP:NLT). Now if you are accused of vandalism within Wikipedia that is very unlikely to be treated seriously in a court of law slander trial, since Wikipedia has its own quite effective dispute resolution procedures, and also since you anonymous here, known only as Redblossom (and perhaps Bongo666). This doesn't affect your reputation anywhere except in Wikipedia.
The best way to respond to charges of vandalism is in a calm, level-headed manner, demonstrating that your intentions and actions are for the benefit of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community. I have been accused of vandalism in the past, and I know how upsetting it can be, when you feel your actions have all been honest and good. Normally a good response to such accusations is to give evidence to the contrary and request that the person retract their statement. Most common situations are clearly covered in Wikipedia policy, and you should be able to direct them to a section of policy that supports your position. However editing their comment yourself, or claiming that their concerns are "irrelevant" is not likely to help your case.
Fifth, and I am repeating myself here, external sources quoted in Wikipedia are not required or expected to be unbiased. The fact that Mike Howard was a student of Chumbley's does not prevent us quoting him in the article. The article itself should strive to be unbiased and prevent a balanced view, and that involves discussing the views of various people who may be biased. Think of the analogy of a court of law conducting a criminal trial. The court must remain unbiased, but it will hear the testimony of those who are biased, and even those who are lying through their teeth. The job of the trial is to make sure all important evidence is considered and all significant parties are represented and have their fair say. And it is up to the jury (analogous to Wikipedia's readers) to make up their own mind. If you, as the prosecution, feel that Mike Howard's testimony is flawed in some way, it is up to you to find other evidence or an opposing witness who will undermine what he says.
I hope this helps. I'm going to archive the old discussion, since it doesn't seem very relevant to the current state of the article, and since I think you're right that this would be better pursued on personal discussion pages now. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The Hine reference is substantiated. Follow the link. STOP striking it. The reference to Hine that is not substantiated is in another part of the article, as I have patiently explained on the discussion page-twice. You are striking a reference that is substantiated. Please stop making commentary on the article page. I see above that you have been asked to stop many times. Lulubyrd 00:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redblossom, you say you have nothing to apologise to Lulubyrd for. You say "The 'dishonesty' label was directed at the first paragraph of the Azoetia paragraph". No it wasn't. You repeatedly accused Lulu personally of being dishonest.
- I quote you: "Lulubyrd you are in the wrong here. And the fact your purposely manipulating peoples work to fit you view of Chumbley is close to a personal biography of him and not a neutral presentation of the material". And "So this borders on dishonesty. Again. Also Lulubyrd how can you state the Hine reference has a positive review when its only a further reading page in the bibliography of Oven ready Chaos by Hine? Again you are seeing reviews which dont exist . Dishonest.". And "so this is historical revisionism and dishonesty at worst. [...] So again critics like Lulubyrd are putting their own interests and opinions ahead of the article.". And "So again your portrayal of Hine is dishonest.". And "You cant expect to turn this page into a personal shrine for Chumbley which you seem to be attempting to do with the non existent references.".
- You've been pointed to the assume good faith policy in the past, but you chose to go on a tirade against another editor anyway, not bothering to read her multiple attempts to point out that you've completely misunderstood the situation. Now that you finally realise your mistake you should be adult enough to at least apologise to her.
- Instead of apologising, you took the opportunity to make further insulting innuendo about her being disconnected from reality: "dont use the Chumbley article to air greviances which exist only in your head." You obviously haven't taken on board my request that you stick to editorial issues rather than discussing the editors themselves. This is totally out of line. Pull your head in, apologise, and don't be a dick. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Questions about what happens in covens
Hello there, I've been following the discussions you initiated here and here. You are asking questions about what is and is not commonly done in Wiccan covens: such questions are not really on-topic in Wikipedia, whose talk pages exist only to discuss improvements to the articles. Rather than asking "Why doesn't the article mention topics X Y or Z", you could propose or make an edit, with appropriately cited references. If you can't find any references then that answers your question about why the article doesn't mention those topics. If you want to ask questions about the covens in Wicca, there are plenty of email lists and similar fora out there where you can ask these questions and I'm sure you'll get a range of stimulating replies. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redblossom, you say you know some victims of such abuse by Gardnerian and/or Alexandrian high priesthood, and you want to know how we respond to such situations. We have simple and obvious recourse to the police, and indeed I know of a couple of cases where BTW priesthood have alerted the police to non-BTW "covens" requiring sex for initiation as well as trying to recruit minors, and so on. I'm not aware of any such cases surrounding BTW covens. Abuse can of course be of different varieties so that, though it's still unethical and highly damaging, it would be hard or impossible to convict someone for it. In such situations there is generally a lot of rapid discussion amongst the BTW community followed by a public "outing" of the people responsible, so that the wider pagan community knows to avoid them. There may also be work done behind the scenes to more subtly limit the ability of these people to do any harm, but that is generally left the decision of the local BTW group(s), and of course that side of things goes beyond what you really need to know.
- In a nutshell, abusers are publicly denounced and, if they have broken the law or seem on the verge of doing so, they are reported to the police.
- I hope this helps, and if you know some victims of abuse, I hope you will encourage them to approach the police and/or other BTW priesthood or the pagan community to expose the perpetrators. Fuzzypeg★ 00:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Improper use of talk pages
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Sam Webster are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Obiter dictum (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
