User talk:Tamsier

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

No personal attacks

Please discuss content, not editors. The "disingenuous" in your header here is definitely a personal attack. Discuss civilly, please. And why are you saying the other editor "should open a discussion on the article's talkpage" — isn't that what you are doing? Bishonen | tålk 19:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC).

The redirect was disingenous, not the editor, as stated in the header on the article's talk page i.e., "Undid disingenous redirect". They claimed that, the "editor who created it (the article) used a lot by Dorey..." However, when I checked the edit history and sources cited, only 4 out of the 36 refs cited Dorey. That contradicts "a lot" (my emphasis) which was their reason for the redirect. Even if he believes that Dorey is unreliable (which might be the case), he could have removed that source as he had done numerous times over the years, and in fact, eventually did so here, here, here, here, and here, rather than redirect a notable article. He is an experienced editor, and he knows how to do it. Even if we took away the sources he took issue with, that would still leave plenty of reliable sources. It is good practice to open a discussion on an article's talk page before redirecting a well sourced and notable article. You should know that as an Administrator! Don't you? Why must one wait for me to open a discussion when I didn't redirect the page? My question to you is: Why are you here on my talk page with such tone? A tone which I take as an attempt to try and intimidate and bully me, and to push me into a corner so that you can block me and/or utilise your power on English Wiki to get another Admin to block me. And are you his mouthpiece or personal secretary? I am sure he is quite capable of going to the talk page and defend his rationale for redirecting the article - which is unsupported by the number of sources cited (as stated above). You are here to threaten me in your capacity as Administrator by alluding that I should watch my step as you are watching me or going through my edits, and any misstep you will block me or get others to do it. That is tantamount to hounding and bullying, which goes against WP:CIVIL. I do not appreciate your tone. Never have. It is most unwelcomed and I will not tolerate it. The way you address editors (especially those you view as below your status) is very impolite and comes off as rude, hostile, arrogant, and muscle flexing. I will not tolerate you addressing me like that, Wiki or no Wiki. Let this be the last. I say desist with immediate effect! If you take an issue with my edits by all means raise them with me, but do so properly and respectfully. You have been an Admin for many years. You should know the protocol by now. This message you've left on my talk page is not in good faith, and I do not take it as such for the reasons outlined above. Don't do it again! And your use of "please" does not cut it. I can sense the passive-aggressive undertone, which is most uncivil. Tamsier (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Disingenuous refers to a person. Look it up and see. A redirect or other inanimate thing cannot be disingenuous other than through being created disingenuously by a person, so please don't bother to wikilawyer. Just don't make any more personal attacks or you will be sanctioned.

I'm not going to sanction you for attacking me, but I'm quite surprised at your saying I hound and bully you et cetera et cetera. Surely I have very rarely addressed you at all after 2018, i.e. after your five-year hiatus. This is actually the only time I can recollect. You seemed to appreciate it at the time. Shrug. Bishonen | tålk 10:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC).

You've just proven my point. If you come to me in a respectful manner and tone. I show the same courtesy, and if I'm wrong, I apologiese and take acccountability as demonstrated therein. It's not even that you blocked me couple of times. Believe it or not, it isn't. It's about what transpired after the block(s) and your tone when interracting with me - which comes of as trying to belittle or dehumanise me and other editors you take issue with. I don't know if you are aware or not (or even care), but that's how you come across when interracting with non-Admin editors you seem to have an issue with. Anyway, I have nothing else for you today. Shrug. Tamsier (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Dorey

I hope you agree Dorey isn't an RS. It was in the first version of the article, added by this blocked account you sort of endorse.[1]. I'm surprised that you left her in as a source. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The editor in question is not here to defend herself since she is no longer active on English Wikipedia. Therefore, I rather not comment on her block or make any disparaging remarks against her especially behind her back, and certainly not on article or user take pages. You have done that to me for so many years, and on many, many, many, many, many.... occasions. All one has do is look at the talk pages of the area I've been TB'd. In many cases, when I've been off Wiki for years. I know how that feels, and I will not do that against another editor just to discredit their work or make disparaging remarks against them - especially when they are not here to defend themselves, and are estopped from doing so. I cannnot do that. That is not my nature or character, so I rather not start now, thank you. I will not be able to sleep well at night or live with myself knowing that I've done that to another editor, because I believe in the power of karma, and I don't want any bad karma coming my way. Call me superstitious, but those are my believes. I just can't do that against another editor. I will be filled with guilt and shame, and worry about any bad karma coming to me. I know that might sound silly or superstitious, but that's just who I am. I don't feel comfortable doing that against another editor. I'm sure you can understand.

From my experience, whilst she was active on English Wiki, she tried very hard to improve African related articles which is most underrepresented, and for that, I appreciate her work over the years - as I would with any editor. I'm sure she'd made numerous mistakes on the way. We all do, no one is perfect, but I rather not try to discredit her or attack her character/edits especially when she is not here to defend herself. I'm sure you would agree that is the noble thing to do, and one must endeavour their utmost to act accordingly. After all, we are all editors here, and working to advance the project. If an experienced editor sees a newbie doing something they believe to be wrong or contrary to our policies, pull them aside (figurative) on their talk page, try to understand their perspective, and correct them in a supportive and encouraging manner. After all, Wiki needs editors and depend on editors. Without editors, there is no Wiki, and Admins, would be rendered redundant. An Admin can't spent their entire Wiki career indefinitely blocking editors without ever (or rarely) creating full article themselves. In the long run, that could cause immense damage to the project. Yes, some indef blocking may be warranted at times, but that should be used as a very last resort after all avenues have been tried, including coaching - in a supporting and encouraging manner, rather than as a go-to at almost every opportunity. I don't know whether we have an essay on that. I hope we do, if not, perhaps that's an essay worth creating. Those admin tools are very powerful not just within Wiki, but outside too - in terms of potential implications, because in the wrong hands, one can suppress the flow of information to the general reader. We must always remember the vision of this project, and that none of us is more important than the project - no matter which tools (or lack of) one holds. I'm sure you would agree with that sentiment.

Now, on the subject of endorsement, what I "endorse" is the notability of the article in question - which you redirected. I've never contributed to that article until recently after I undid your redirect, and few minor edits thereafter. If you say Dorey is not a reliable source, then I'll have to take your word for it since I do not have her works. However, you could have removed Dorey as a source and/or find an alternative RS, or failing that, reword parts of the article you took issue with - supported by RS and in line with our neutrality and weight guidelines rather than just redirect the article without initiating discussion on the article's talk page - so other editors (and contributors) can reach consensus as to whether to redirect (or merge) or not. That was a controversial redirect wouldn't you agree? Especially for a notable African article like this - which is well written about for decades, and by so many scholars!

In any case, you have now removed the sources you deem unreliable after I undid your redirect. If a source is unreliable or "fringe" as you've stated, then it is of course permissible to remove them and I would have no issue with that, and would fully support their removal. After all, we are all trying to advance the project in our own 'small' way. Of course, sometimes, we all make mistakes, but I choose to believe that unless of course, proven otherwise. I just wished you simply removed the sources you took issue with rather than redirect the article. You are an experienced editor and administrator who has been here for many years. Surely you can appreciate how controversial that redirect was!

I hope the issue is now fixed. However, if you have any further concerns kindly share them civilly with the community on the article's talk page - so other editors can contribute to the discussion and reach a consensus. This, I hope, will prevent such controversial redirects moving forward. I've added the article on my watch list. Thank you for adding my talk page on your watch list, and thanks for commenting. I wish you a wonderful weekend. Tamsier (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

A thoughtful response, although I believe I am almost always civil. I'm cross with myself for not explaining that irretrievable didn't mean Dorey but also the unsourced material, sg the Sigi section which even included "The 60-year interval is so precise it has baffled some scholars such as anthropologist and filmmaker Jean Rouch—many of whose works are about the subject". Using some to mean one is a pet peeve of mine, and in any case it isn't sourced.

What's worse is the glaring NPOV issue. No mention at all of van Beek even though there is a Nommo section linking to the main article which does use van Beek. As of course does the Dogon people article. You really can't have a separate article about their religion without that, and Ridpath, Oberg, Carroll. I hope you agree. I am not at all happy about having to spend time on this. I would appreciate if if you would look at my talk page to see why. Doug Weller talk 08:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendations. I will exert myself to the fullest, and ensure that the views of Ian Ridpath, James Oberg, van Beek, and Robert Todd Carroll are added in order to reflect our NPOV policy. Time permitting, I would be much grateful if you could take a look at the article again once I've done that. Of course, that is, if you are still interested in the article. This is what I love about the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia. As editors who create full articles from start to finish (and I'm not talking about redirects or page moves), sometimes we edit based the materials we have access to. This is why I'm always weary of criticising editors who've managed to create full articles, because I appreciate the amount of work and time it takes to do so, and the likelihood of not having all RS at their finger tips and/or not knowing about their very existence. However, with the collaborative aspect of this project, one might have access to other sources/materials which provides a different view that one might not have, and vice-versa. By putting their resources together, it can create magic, and possibly, advance an article to GA. I take the view that editors should be bold. If they come across an issue, they should fix it, with respect to Wiki policies. Further, Wikipedia is a working progress, and another editor(s) might continue where the article's initial creator left off. Being bold and fixing the issue yourself when you come across one - especially if you have access to resources and can help - is one of our founding principles and greatest assets. After all, Ancient Egypt was not built in a day, but stone by stone, we can build temples. With your invaluable recommendations, I have plenty of reading to do this week. Back to the grindstone! Tamsier (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of help. I'm not sure how much time I have left to me, so any assistance is wonderful. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)