User talk:DoverWheels

Comics project

Comment re ILT

Replied. Just so you know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Attempted ban evasion

So now User:ItsLassieTime is a "she"? Again I ask, DoverWheels, which appears to me to be your current sockpuppet identity, how would you know such personal specifics about that banned puppetmaster editor?

Easily. It's all archived here at Wikipedia. Anyone can read it. ILT has claimed to be a she. I don't know if ILT is a he, she, an it, a they, or a whatever. I'm only using what ILT has indicated. DoverWheels (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Tenebrae should gather the sources ITL used to build the article and methodically go through the article revising passages that are too closely paraphrased from the original source." That's exactly what I'm doing, among other things. I've found word-for-word passages that I'm scrubbing.

Fine, and that's all you should be doing. But you're not. You're adding new and questionable stuff to the original article, using unreliable sources never mentioned in the original article. You're creating a new article. This is not the purpose of the "scrubbing" procedure.

"The business about the Japanese scrolls is cited to two Japanese museums. Neither of these museums posit any connection between the ghost scrolls and the western horror comic book." No, and that's why they are just two of the three sources cites. They are very much needed to establish A) that these scrolls exist and B) what they are formally and properly titled. It's always best to get these kinds of technical specifics from the official source.

They're not needed at all because all this ghost scroll stuff is a fringe theory, and Wikipedia does not publish fringe theories by Stephn Bissette or anyone else. Nor does Wikipedia publish footnotes that essentially tell the reader, "Go here and look. Isn't it true that these ghost scrolls look exactly like modern horror comic books?" It is Bissette's opinion and only Bissette's opinion that these ghost scrolls are related to modern western horror. You should be seeking scholarly consensus on this, but you're not. You're accepting the opinion of one high school and vocational school graduate that these scroll are connected to western horror. They are not. There's no proof, no connection established by the museums involved, and nothing established by comics scholars and historians that these scrolls are related in some way to western horror comic books. It's not your job as editor to try to establish some connection between these scrolls and western horror. There is none, and you are misleading the reader by incorporating a fringe theory into the article. As I wrote elsewhere, you could just as easily claim that Greek vase paintings are connected to modern horror becuase they depict gorgons and other monsters.

"The passage in the article is actually a 'fringe theory' of Stephen Bissette, a cartoonist whose only education is a two year cartooning course at a vocational school...." First, one can gather knowledge and experience in many ways through the years. I don't know how you'd know for absolute certain that he has never had adult-education classes, or gone to museums or attended lectures. But your claim based on incomplete knowledge is beside the point — I, likewise, don't know if he has done those things. I do know that if he has spent years making making lengthy, multi-part lectures about a subject at a series of mainstream events that he is a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. I also don't see how it can possibly be controversial to say that these three citations say, "This old sequential art has ghosts. Ghosts are a widely recognized horror trope." Seriously. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Gathering "knowledge and experience through the years" is not what Wikipedia based upon. It is based upon serious scholarly research. I know Bissette's background from his bio article right here at Wikipedia -- one he probably wrote himself -- and one he would update with every single little evening class he took. He may have spent years lecturing on horror comics but so what? I could do the same, but that doesn't mean I should be cited in this article. This is not a scholar lecturing -- it's a cartoonist with two years of vocational training lecturing on his fringe theories. Scholarly research is a discipline and this guy doesn't have it. Bissette is not cited by other comics scholars or historians. This should give you a clue about the sort of esteem in which he is held by the scholarly community. He never will be a member of the scholarly commuinity because he simply does not have the educational background. "This old sequential art has ghosts. Ghosts are a widely recognized horror trope." This is not cited to a scholarly source! I can't seem to get through to you on this. You seem to think that someone who is nothing more than a high school graduate with two years instruction at a vocational training school is competent to speak with scholarly expertise on this subject. He's not competent and you refuse to understand this! And worst of all, you refuse to follow the "scrubbing" procedure established by Wikipedia -- gathering the cited sources and going through the article passage by passage and revising any too close paraphrasing -- but choose instead to write a whole new article over an existing GA article and incorporating unreliable sources into it. This is NOT what you should be doing. You're in over your head on this. You're doing things in violation of Wikipedia's established procedure.DoverWheels (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)