User talk:MsHyde

Regarding your edit to Postmodern literature:

Your recent edit to Postmodern literature (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 05:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that this was an error by the bot and that MsHyde was actually removing defacement. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer 05:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the bots are usually quite helpful, but they do make mistakes from time to time. I've left some additional information for Voice of All, specifically, I've shown him the mistaken reverts made by the bot, which will likely help him improve its performance. Good work removing the defacement from that article. Heimstern Läufer 06:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 06:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brad Nichol

You cannot delete articles, but you can suggest an article be deleted and begin the process toward deletion. You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Notability (people), as this guideline may help you know if this biographical article is notable enough to be an article at Wikipedia. I hope this is helpful. Heimstern Läufer 06:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a sockpuppet?

It is very unusual for a genuine newbie to Wikipedia to propose so many deletions in their first 24 hours as an editor. This suggests you may have been here before under another ID. Explanation Invited. - Saga City 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a similar comment at the village pump. It is quite odd for a new user to begin their WP editing with so little actual article editing. CMummert · talk 13:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting articles

I clicked on random article button to find things to read, and I saw a page about a sailor that didn't seem very important. I asked if I could delete it, and someone I just met told me no, but to read a lit up link. I read that, and found a thing to cut and paste to put on the sailor article. I clicked on random article about a hundred times. A lot of the articles looked ok. But I found some more articles like the sailor article, too, that didn't seem very important. -MsHyde 16:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Like this one: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_School_%28Sapphire_%26_Steel%29. I don't get why it is in here. Someone has taken off the sign, too.-MsHyde 16:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that there are long-established conventions as to what articles are, and are not, sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I do not know how long you have been accessing this resource and what research you allowed yourself before invoking quick deletion processes. However if you are a bona fide newbie then welcome but please do not get off on the wrong foot with the Wikipedia community by randomly trawling through this work suggesting removal of those parts that you think "didn't seem very important". This is not the way that Wikipedia works. If this is a genuine misunderstanding may I propose that you remove this mischiefs you have added. Best Wishes Saga City 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your deletion tag from Brad Nichol. After looking at the reference sources the article meets wikipedia guidelines. As Saga said, please get a feel for Wikipedia before deleting other people's hard work. What may be uninteresting to you could be important to others. Welcome!

--Kevin Murray 02:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are procedures to be followed and you are way overstepping. Just ease into the process. --Kevin Murray 02:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde, in response to your message. Yes the solution is speedy delete. As I said, hang around for a while and learn the ropes before trying to do too much. As you can see from your messages here you are stirring up quite a ruccous on your first day. --Kevin Murray 08:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced tags

Hello. You added {{unreferenced}} to numerical stability and third normal form, even though these articles do have a section listing the reference. Looking at your contributions, I see you have added this tag to many articles. The template should only be used for articles that have no references at all. What are you trying to achieve? I've revert your edits to the two articles mentioned above and I'd appreciate it if you are more careful in the future. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I understood from reading is that there is a difference between citing references and listing them. Just because you have listed references doesn't mean you have used them as citations. How are people supposed to know what information goes with which reference?-MsHyde 07:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unreferenced is for a specific purpose: marking articles (or sections) with no references. It should not be used for other purposes. Also, the template page explains that it should not be used at the top of the article. Your question "How are people supposed to know what information goes with which reference?" is a valid one, but different from the question implied by slapping on the unreferenced tag. Anyway, it is not easy to address this issue within the current framework of Wikipedia, because we lack any method to mark the region of text supported by a certain reference. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I left a comment at the village pump page on policy. I'm CCing it here.)

Can I kindly suggest that you read the guidelines at WP:SCG before tagging any more math or science articles? It reads in part:

The verifiability criteria require that such [uncontroversial, widely known] statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement. In addition, such dense referencing can obscure the logical interdependence of statements.

Thanks, Lunch 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between dense referencing and citing no references whatsoever. There is also a difference between citing references and listing references.-MsHyde 20:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Experiments Lain

Why did you add {{unreferenced}} to that episode of SEL? The reference is that episode, the subject of the article. --Gwern (contribs) 05:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors (episode). --Gwern (contribs) 05:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Hey, in this comment you posted a link, presumably in regards to some article up for deletion or something, maybe something I was involved in? I'm sorry, but I can't for the life of me figure out what article you're referencing, could you help me out? Milto LOL pia 09:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course,

Welcome!

Hello, MsHyde, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! . >Radiant< 10:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

Someone has defaced an AfD tag, made the discussion disappear: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Path_To_Nowhere-MsHyde 10:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. A quicker place to ask help or information on a variety of subjects is the Village Pump, since that's where a lot of people hang out. >Radiant< 10:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.-MsHyde 10:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I'm wondering why you added a "needs references" tag to Shane A. Parker when the article clearly has references? >Radiant< 10:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the tag because it also says cite the references, not just have the references. If the references are not in the article, how can anyone tell in which reference to look for which information?-MsHyde 10:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (hint: you can use the 'edit' tag next to this section to put a response in this section)
- On a short article with two clear references, that is hardly a problem. It is not necessary to add a link to each and every statement to point out which reference it came from. It'd be more worthwhile to find articles that do not list references at all. >Radiant< 10:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I will not put the tag on short articles with references at the bottom anymore. Most of the articles I put the tag have no references at all. Some are quite long.-MsHyde 10:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please stop spamming articles with the {{references}} tag

For Pete's sake, please stop. Tagging all these articles doesn't particularly help, and it's getting annoying. It would be much, much better if you would add content and not tags. Go and find these references that you seek and add them to the articles. Lunch 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for help at the help desk about the article you are referring to, Nixie Tubes, and I see that someone else has now replaced the reference tag you twice removed. I am sorry if you do not think it is helpful, I am trying to help. Nixie Tubes is a good article, but it would be even better with references.-MsHyde 19:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug's Huge Zit / Doug Flies A Kite

I don't think picking one episode out of List of Doug episodes was a good idea. If you truly think they are not notable then I would suggest that you send the entire set to AfD. Don't think it will work though. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right about these TV episodes. I also think it is a bigger problem than I realized. There are many TV shows with separate articles with a plot summary of each episode. I do not agree that these articles should exist, but I will not single out any more single episodes.-MsHyde 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you seem to have appointed yourself some sort of Guardian Angel for Wikipedia. What makes you think there is any kind of problem let alone "a bigger problem than I realized"? You seem not to have taken into account the fact that thousands of people have spent millions of hours on this project and have collectively reached consensus on what - and how - it should develop. I would imagine all of us have views on what is trivial or uninteresting and is not worthy of inclusion and can point to individual and series of articles that we would like deleted. Many of us have queried notablity in the proper manner. But your wholesale random trawling and tagging is plain aggravating. Please tell us isn't real and is some sort of sociology experiment to test our collective patience. Saga City 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like User:Lunch, you are upset about a specific article, not tagging unreferenced articles in general. The article in question is about a town of two hundred people, and should be merged into a larger article. Do not conflate the tagging of one article about which you have strong subjective feelings with all the articles I have tagged. Thank you,-MsHyde 20:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Hi MsHyde, I've run across a couple of your {{prod}} taggings and I'd just like to politely request that you're a little more careful in where you apply this tag. One of the articles you tagged (now removed by another editor) was Mothercare; now, if you're not from the UK then you quite possibly wouldn't have heard of Mothercare. That doesn't mean that its deletion would be uncontroversial - Mothercare is an established high-street chain which I would expect near enough every British parent to have heard of. The 8th Google result for "Mothercare" is an article in The Guardian which states that it has 319 stores including 18 in Russia and 10 in India - hardly "non-notable". It wouldn't have taken more than a cursory search to find that out - it took me less than 30 seconds. Please exercise more care in future, or you risk undoing the hard work of a lot of other contributors and causing considerable aggravation. If you are not familiar with the subject matter (or the locality where the subject is considered notable) I suggest you first do some research and only then open an AfD. --YFB ¿ 22:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen that Guardian article--it tells only that Mothercare did very bad sales in Christmas 2007. I do not see how a stub that looks like it was written by a company is anyone's hard work. I am going to AfD it. I will post this on your talkpage also so you will not miss the chance to vote if you still disagree.-MsHyde 22:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Very bad sales" is dubious, they still expect to make £22m profit. Please don't do any more of this sort of thing, without at least checking your facts. --YFB ¿ 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do check before I AfD. Look at the articles I have proposed for AfD. I have read many of the AfD discussions, too. When the result is keep, it is still good to have the discussion if the article is very poor, because then it is improved.-MsHyde 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that you didn't even AfD, you prod-ed. That's only for uncontroversial deletions, which means you need to be pretty sure of your facts. How is prod-ing articles going to promote their improvement? --YFB ¿ 22:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an extremely poor article, and now someone from the AfD says they will add references: improvement. -MsHyde 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it wouldn't have been if the prod tag hadn't been removed. As I said, you could have provided some references yourself rather than relying on an AfD to persuade someone else to do it. I don't think there's much more to discuss here, just please refrain from hasty prod-ing in future. Happy editing, --YFB ¿ 23:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant essay is WP:SNOW, which in this situation says: if an article has only miniscule chance of getting deleted, it isn't appropriate to recommend it for deletion. In particular, since lack of references is not an AfD criteria, you shouldn't nominate notable topics for deletion merely because they don't yet have references. CMummert · talk 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lack of references not only at the article, but in a Google search for the name. Background knowledge was essential for determining that the article was notable. You're off-base, argumentative, and adding to a dead discussion about a good faith nomination.-MsHyde 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YFB, you're not quite right on the facts. Speedy delete is (supposedly) for uncontroversial deletions. {{prod}} is well, to prod people into improving the article. If nobody cares enough to remove a prod in 5 days, then it's a signal to admins on prod-patrol that the article should be deleted. The point of prod is to generate controversy - someone says "Hey - that article shouldn't be deleted", reads the reason, and either fixes the article, or argues with the prodder. The rules say you can't add back a prod once it's been removed; it must then go to AfD if someone thinks it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argyriou (talk • contribs) 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think you are confused about prod. According to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, the purpose of prod is "Proposed deletion is a process for deleting articles (and, under certain circumstances, user pages) that are uncontroversial deletion candidates but do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion." Essentially, it is a way to put an article up for AfD without all the trouble. Prod is not a technique for getting improvement in the article or for generating controversy, since it is only intended for uncontroversial deletions. I agree with WP:SNOW that is should only be used when there is actually a good chance it will succeed without being removed - it is a waste of everyone's time to propose an article for deletion when you don't believe it will get deleted. CMummert · talk 21:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as with AfD, Prod serves to challenge people who want the article to stay to improve it so that other people agree it's worth keeping. My experience with prod has been that it frequently motivates article authors to improve articles enough that the article no longer shoudl go to AfD, in which case it's not a waste of time to prod an article, even if the prod gets removed. Argyriou (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actual state of the article should, if the closing admin follows policy, have nothing to do with whether the article is deleted. As long as the topic is suitable for inclusion in WP, no matter how bad the current article is it does not qualify for deletion (although it might get chopped down to a stub). That is, if the the article could be improved so that it is worth keeping then it already does not meet the deletion criteria and so it already won't be deleted. AfD does not include any concept of "improve the article so it's worth keeping". CMummert · talk 01:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) As pointed out already, I had my facts right and prod is only supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions. My point was that prod-ing puts the onus on people who are watching the article to remove the tag or have the article deleted. For little-edited or single-author articles (which might be perfectly suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and, by MsHyde's method, just lacking some references) and particularly where a user goes on a massive prod-ing spree, the chances are that at least some of the time a perfectly notable article will come to the end of its 5 days without attracting any comment except MsHyde's, and subsequently be deleted. This method seems to me more likely to harm the encyclopaedia than help it. --YFB ¿ 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be unaware that Radiant doesn't see any problems with the prods I have made. (Note also that the Grey Sky Black prod I made that you un-prodded and I AfD's is now being deleted.)-MsHyde 05:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant suggested you might need to read up on WP:V and WP:BIO. The Grey Sky Black AfD only has one vote each way excluding yours, so I think it's a bit premature to say that it's "being deleted". Frankly I think the fact that you've attracted so many messages on your talk page about unwarranted prod-ing speaks for itself. I have no objection to you putting up AfDs if you believe they're warranted, but it would perhaps be better to discuss guidelines you disagree with rather than trying to make "test cases" out of specific articles. Again, I'd encourage you to spend a little more time trying to improve articles yourself before using prod/AfD as a means of getting others to do it for you. References for things like the Mothercare article are not at all hard to come by even for someone who isn't familiar with the subject. --YFB ¿ 19:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, get over it. Among the messages I have received (and there are very few in proportion to the tags I have placed or prods/AFDs I have made) they are from people who absurdly took things personally that were not personal at all, and in fact totally random. That and some weird territorial behavior. Article ownership in general or in particular is not in any policy I have read. Your problem seems to be that you couldn't back down from the ridiculous accusation that prodding Mothercare was "deleting someone's hard work," when in fact it was an extremely poor article that nobody put any work into. Also, I have seen prod tags left up for a month--deletion is hardly quick. I think Argyriou is right that in practice, prod is a better first step than AfD, because AfD takes up more of more people's time, and if nobody is watching the article to remove a prod notice, nobody is going to improve a crap article either, and it would be fine to delete it and let someone recreate a better one later, if the subject is truly worthy of an article. If you felt strongly about the article and had background knowledge, the constructive thing to do would have been improve the article, not harass somebody for making a good faith nomination.-MsHyde 19:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Colquhoun

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Colquhoun

I have done as you suggested and would now like you to revise your decision to delete.

Thanks. 02:21, 7 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krome007 (talk • contribs).

No. I do not believe you are notable. Looking at your block log, I do not think it is a good idea for you to vote three times or pressure others to change their vote.-MsHyde 20:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVP

Instead of continuing your tag rampage, make an effort to address whatever concerns you may have. Your behavior indicates a decided lack of interest in doing so, and I cannot see these problems you seem to have with the article. You won't get to blindly tag it though, so find another page to complain about or do something useful for this one. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below. An editor who has long been involved at his article believes the POV problem has been so bad for so long that arbitration may be necessary. Trying to deny it or blame me is patently ridiculous.-MsHyde 20:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should help

...WP:NOTAG... >Radiant< 16:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of how placing unreferenced tags is helpful. Note also that there was initially very strong objection to the placement of this tag, and from only one editor: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Nixie_tube#references_tag-MsHyde 19:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a careful reading of the edit history for the article itself shows that Nickds1 had planned to add those references before you came along. He had previously edited as an anon, but signed up for an account and then came back and edited the article. This history you seem to be entirely unaware of, but you could be if you spent a little more time examing the articles you tag.

I might direct you to WP:POINT or WP:SPIDER. Lunch 20:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are harassing me at this point, and I ask you to stop. As you were told on the article talkpage by someone else, the tag was both appropriate and needed. Someone was inspired by the tag to provide refererences, and the article was greatly improved. Your resistance to the tag was ridiculous and pointless, as was your ad hominem attack on me. -MsHyde 20:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVP?

Please drop a note on my Talk page explaining specifically which items in the article you feel violate NPOV. If I agree, I will add my support in keeping the NPOV tag on the page until the shortcomings are addressed. --- LuckyLouie 19:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on point #1. Attibuting a skeptical view of EVP to mainstream science (the majority view) - although accurate - has, so far, been difficult to establish. Mainstream science journals don't bother to comment on the latest paranormal fads. This creates the mistaken impression that - because something is ignored - it is somehow viable by default. There is also a push from paranormal advocates to establish parapsychology as the default "authority" for defining the status of paranormal claims. This is also misleading. I would look to WP:FRINGE for guidance.
On point #2 - I am willing to accept that a sound sample identified as "purported EVP" as long as we attribute WHO believes it is EVP. Saying that "some" believe it or (worse) "some researchers" believe it is misleading, and obscures the fact that believers represent a small minority on the fringes of society.
Edit/revert wars have proven inadequate for bringing this article to compliance. Given the history of this article and the current choreographed effort of POV pushing by EVP proponents, the best course of action may be arbitration. --- LuckyLouie 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how do we do that? who else should be notified, is concerned with the POV problems at this article?-MsHyde 20:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have enough experience with WP to advise you on how to initiate arbitration. You could try contacting individuals on the Wikiproject Rational Skepticism roster. If science is being misrepresented in this article, a scientist would be an ideal advisor. --- LuckyLouie 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything gets rolling on that article, give me a heads up. It might be beneficial to get additional outside opinions, possibly from WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:RFC and even WP:COI since an editor with a linked website is editing the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I feel sort of overwhelmed. From what I have read so far, it seems that someone named ScienceApologist has been very involved, but is now on a long break. I do not know how to contact him. I have requested attention for the article from the Wikiproject Rational Skepticism Louie mentioned, and joined their group. More participants, especially scientists could help balance the POV, I think. But maybe that would only be a temporary solution, which would last only as long as a number of people are always watching the article to make sure the COI guy etc. don't change it back to their POV version?-MsHyde 00:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: overwhelmed. Just remember you will not be able to remedy the problems of the article in a day or two. It is a long-term undertaking. Taking frequent breaks from the article helps. --- LuckyLouie 00:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't have ScienceApologist's email. You might try User:JamesMLane. --- LuckyLouie 02:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summaries

The plot summary does not need a ref. The ref is the book. Its material summarizes the book. it does not draw any conclusions, it does not front any views. It only describes. What you're doing doesn't help, because there is nothing on the page to ref. Please find something else to do besides tag articles. Many of these articles you tag can use actual improvement. It would be of much help if you simply did so. These tags simply rot on pages more than half the time. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let someone at the article participate in editing it. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to consist of plot summaries, and plot summaries are subjective. Reviews and references are likely to exist for that book and should be included. You in particular shoulld not be following me around or revert warring with me about anything, as I am preparing an Arbcom case against you for POV editing, edit warring, and article ownership at electronic voice phenomenon.-MsHyde 02:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then get to it. I'm tired of this. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're tired of it, stop. You should have been blocked for 3RR, you claimed you wanted a break, and instead you are continuing to revert war with multiple parties.-MsHyde 02:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only with you, really. I only reverted Tom out of COI purposes and the edit Milo claims as a revert was not intended as such. It was merely a good faith removal of a line I felt was redundant, nothing more. Simply put, if you feel arbcom is required, then get to it. In your 4 days of editing you certainly piled up enough noticeable behavior that I could shoot it down without much effort. I, however, do not wish to make a long, drawn-out dispute of this, as I believe you capable of understanding and working towards a helpful and productive outcome, rather than your present habit of random article tagging. Let's try to talk this out first, because if we have to go to arbcom, it will only be a mess. You'll point out my reverts, I'll point out that at least seven people have warned you in one form or another, and we'll accomplish nothing. If we talk, we can resolve this issue. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted both Milo and I on the same thing. Arbcom was not my idea, it has been suggested by LuckyLouie, due to longstanding POV and edit warring problems at the article, and Milo agrees. That's three already.-MsHyde 02:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were referring to an arbcom on me. My mistake. As for your revert claims, I have never directly reverted Milo. I adjusted the page numerous times in various attempts to please everyone, and have failed overall. I would like a success, and if you feel an arbcom would do the trick, then let's do that. Personally, I don't see the need. I think we can solve this now and without the postering simply if both sides are willing to compromise. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you reverted Milo and me on the same thing. Arbcom has been suggested by a long term contributor to the article, and Milo agrees. The irrationality, aggressive edit warring, and POV pushing are insane, in my opinion.-MsHyde 02:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What thing, specifically? I'm drawing a blank. As for arbcom, very well. Start it. It's clear I can't talk you out of it, so the sooner the better. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science help desk

For future reference: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Electronic_voice_phenomenon

Colin Smythe

You should revert your edits to Electronic voice phenomenon regarding Colin Smythe until we have verification whether Smythe coined the term as a publisher or as an individual. While it's true that he is a publisher, he is also an individual who conducted his own EVP experiments and encouraged psychic investigator and author Raymond Bayless to participate in EVP experiments. A little research will turn up references for these facts. --- LuckyLouie 18:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the reference cited, Smythe Ltd. used the term "we coined," and that they coined it when they published Raudive's book.-MsHyde 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see my note on Talk regarding identification of MacRae, Chisholm, Smythe, etc. as "proponents" - an accurate term to describe those who write books extolling the virtues of EVP. --- LuckyLouie 18:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Also, the "experiements" need other words. Rigging up a tinfoil covered trumpet with a microphone inside of a clothes closet is not an "experiment." I see no reliable sources offering a bio of McRae, and Raudive used a radio receiver...-MsHyde 19:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpe's Triumph

(in response to the "long rant" that was moved here –G47)

First, compare the plot summary in the article with the Publisher's Weekly plot summary. (+ PW review should be included because it is available.) If a published reliable source is available, that is preferable to the opinions of a Wikipedia editor, and the PW plot summary could be paraphrased and cited.
Second, do a preliminary Google search--this book was adapted for film and TV--references about this should be included.

In short, the article needs references, and references are available. The plot summary is too long, too subjective, and takes up too much of the article, and no other info about the book is given. (The article *is* basically one long plot summary).-MsHyde 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since summarizing plot in an objective fashion is entirely possible, copying ("paraphrasing") a published summary would be unnecessarily difficult and have fair use difficulties. For your other arguments, I make no comment about the specific content of Sharpe's Triumph; I'm simply discussing Wikipedia's policies and your comments and conduct. In summary, thank you for giving me justification for your edits, but such justification would have been better off at the time of your original tagging and your struggle with User:Someguy0830.

Moving on, I believe I see the reason for your flag. You're not saying that the current content is in need of references, but rather that content should be added that references things? If that's the case, an expansion tag is more appropriate. A particularly useful one in this case could also be {{in-universe}}. The unreferenced tags should only be used if existing content is questionable. –Gunslinger47 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong: the unreferenced tags means there are no references, not enough references, and/or the references are not cited. Also, paraphrasing from a reliable source is not difficult, presents zero fair use problems, is what is usually done and is advised, and is far preferable to rambling OR. (The diff between the OR summary and the PW official reference summary from a reliable source is clear.)-MsHyde 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the wrongness of my statement is not so certain. The tag appears to be for content containing unreferenced material, not material that requires expansion utilizing more references beyond the source material. Either way, even if the tag is technically appropriate, it causes more confusion than other more specific tags would. The expansion tags, for example. Creating a new section on the desired content, then placing an expansion tag could work. For example:

==Reception==
{{expand-section}}

If you do this, then write a clear edit summary pointing to a source to utilize, then it would make your intentions much more clear to other editors. –Gunslinger47 23:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quibbling, but at least you have acknowledged that the tag is appropriate, and you aware that I researched the subject of the article before deciding whether to place a tag, and which tag to place. If you don't like it, you are entitled to your opinion-- but so am I. The question is, which is more beneficial to the encyclopedia?--placing a tag that might spur a regular editor or passerby to improve an article with no references, uncited references, insufficient references, or leaving it off? I think the answer is obvious. There is no harm caused by the tag, but the tag could bring improvement.-MsHyde 23:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing against tags in general, that's a red herring. I'm suggesting that the scattered problems you have with editors could be lessened if you used more specific tags, and also that I and other fellow established editors feel that the unreferenced tag is not an expansion tag, but rather a label for preexisting, unreferenced facts and interpretations. –Gunslinger47 23:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be totally unclear on the concept that the "scattered problems" are complaints that were extremely few in proportion to the tags I have placed, and consist of article "owners" with invalid gripes(except for Someguy, who is involved in a POV dispute at EVP and followed me around, revert warring at Sharpes' Triumph for no good reason, after revert warring at EVP). Thanks for moving on,-MsHyde 23:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know who Someguy0830 and would prefer if you not dismiss his arguments ad hominem. Also, the complaints were not "few" from a certain measure. User:Someguy0830, User:Jitse Niesen, User:Gwern, User:Radiant!, User:Lunch and I all questioned your use of the unreferenced tags over the course of the last seven days alone.

…Anyway, since you wish to end this conversation, I'll just leave a closing comment:

Template:Unreferenced states "this article or section does not cite its references or sources". This statement literally implies that there is content currently in the article who's source is unknown and in need of a reference. The text does not call for expansion in any way. –Gunslinger47 23:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]