User talk:Theunbeliever
Doesn't it violate Wikipedia sockpuppet policies for an experienced Wikipedian, which you clearly are, to create a new anonymous account for the single purpose of trying to insert damaging material into a BLP? HouseOfChange (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I take it as a compliment :-) I would not say I am an experienced Wikipedian. In the past I have written just one page. I reckon it was almost ten years ago, by now; it never saw the light because Wikipedians thought it did not have encyclopedic value (it was about an artist who was a friend of mine, with published work, who had just died; apparently his work was not significant enough). Since then, I have just corrected typos here and there when I noticed them and had the time, and maybe edited/corrected paragraphs in a movie review and in a couple of technical articles on topics on which I am an expert. Stuff for which I did not even think it was worth having an account. I learnt about Wikipedia policies and principles just by reading the links and by checking the acronyms people have thrown at me in the past couple of days. Until three days ago I did not know any of that jargon, or how to use markups to create sections or subparagraphs in discussions, or references, or how to sign (or even that you have to sign) in talk pages. I learnt in the process. Does this count as experienced Wikipedian? :-) I am a curious person, I'd say, and I admit that now I got interested in seeing how Wikipedia(ns) will handle this kind of event. I appreciate the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia; objectively speaking, I do not think there is a particular hurry for inserting the information about the scandal in Krauss' page. On the other hand, I think we are already at a stage where inserting the information in the page would be justified, and not in violation of WP:BLP, if done in the right way. I admit I was too rushed at the beginning because we had not seen yet the fallout of the allegations, and that I failed to report that Krauss denies the allegations. (said Unbeliever)
- Fair enough, and I apologize for assuming you were also using a different Wiki account elsewhere. As a new Wikipedian you are doing an excellent job of being respectful and helpful, as well as quickly gaining knowledge of acronyms we use here. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I take it as a compliment :-) I would not say I am an experienced Wikipedian. In the past I have written just one page. I reckon it was almost ten years ago, by now; it never saw the light because Wikipedians thought it did not have encyclopedic value (it was about an artist who was a friend of mine, with published work, who had just died; apparently his work was not significant enough). Since then, I have just corrected typos here and there when I noticed them and had the time, and maybe edited/corrected paragraphs in a movie review and in a couple of technical articles on topics on which I am an expert. Stuff for which I did not even think it was worth having an account. I learnt about Wikipedia policies and principles just by reading the links and by checking the acronyms people have thrown at me in the past couple of days. Until three days ago I did not know any of that jargon, or how to use markups to create sections or subparagraphs in discussions, or references, or how to sign (or even that you have to sign) in talk pages. I learnt in the process. Does this count as experienced Wikipedian? :-) I am a curious person, I'd say, and I admit that now I got interested in seeing how Wikipedia(ns) will handle this kind of event. I appreciate the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia; objectively speaking, I do not think there is a particular hurry for inserting the information about the scandal in Krauss' page. On the other hand, I think we are already at a stage where inserting the information in the page would be justified, and not in violation of WP:BLP, if done in the right way. I admit I was too rushed at the beginning because we had not seen yet the fallout of the allegations, and that I failed to report that Krauss denies the allegations. (said Unbeliever)