User talk:Redslider

[Please Note: The charges of "Vandalism" by 'Sparthorse', in the message below, are specious at best. A full discussion of the matter, including a counter-charge that it is 'Sparthorse' who has vandalized my textual revisions to the biography of 'Charles R. Pellegrino', can be found in the 'Talk' section on 'Charles R. Pellegrino page.' ]

Please note that WP:Administrators' noticeboard is for reporting incidents that require the attention of administrators, not for posting politically-motivated statements (see this). Also, when posting on a discussion page or noticeboard, don't forget to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~); that appends your signature and the time and date of posting to the comment, making it easier to keep track of.

Aside from that.... Welcome!

Hello, Redslider, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Charles R. Pellegrino. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Sparthorse (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRN case closed

You may not have seen this: "Consensus is clear that we cannot claim that Pellegrino has a PhD with the sources we currently have. If Redslider continues to edit against this consensus then a request for comment on user conduct may become necessary. Best regards, Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 7:22 am, Today (UTC+0)" Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Charles R. Pellegrino. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious use warning - note, consensus does not rule in cases governing malicious attacks on the subject in a BLP. We suggest you carefully read WP:BLP Policy and other WP policy regarding malicious attempts to discredit, defame or impugn the character of a living person. Also note that it appears your comments here are of malicious intent and constitute threats meant to intimidate an editor to abandon pursuing corrective action against editor's who are defaming or otherwise causing harm to the subject of a BLP. This, along with false and unsupportable charges of "vandalism" and other matters may be brought before WP authorities for disciplinary actions against those employing such tactics.

Please Note: If those editors who persist in edit warring by continuously revising or reverting edits made to protect the subject (Charles R. Pellegrino) from malicious and defamatory text, it may be necessary request of WP administration that they be blocked or otherwise barred from editorial access to the BLP of Charles R. Pellegrino. Redslider (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is at WP:RSN

Where you (and I) should have raised it at the first place. I copied over your post from BLPN to RSN (it's now at both venues) - I don't know why you thought it was deleted. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I think we've got an 'irreconcilable differences' problem on our hands. Not that I meant it to be so, but expected from the history of the BLP that it would be. In any case, I elected to take the matter to mediation. I have not received a response as yet, but I think that is where a neutral position is to be found, if there is one. I did put your name on the parties list along with the other principles, and I hope you will join in, if and when they elect to take the matter up. That's really all I have to say for now. I'm forgoing further discussion until I hear from them. best to you, red. Redslider (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Charles R. Pellegrino. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the serious doubts that have been raised about the validity of sources and allegations questioning the validity of Dr Pellegrino's degree; and the new evidence and reliable sources that indicate those allegations to be false; and, given the discussions that have been opened in Talk, BLPN, RSN, et. al. and that mediation has been requested, the revisions that were made to normalize his degree status are quite in order. The inclusion of Pellegrino's degree does not require any further sourcing, verifiability or treatment different from the those in numerous other Wikipedia BPLs. I refer you to the BPLs of Isaac Azimov or [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan Carl Sagan], for example. The editorial note in the history section plainly described the foundation of the revisions made.

NOTE: The messages, here and elsewhere, threatening blocks, charges of "edit war" or "vandalism" and so forth are being saved and may be used as evidence of deliberate attempts by the posters to intimidate an editor from taking proper steps, consistent with WP policy, to prevent injury and prevent harm to the subject of a BPL. If you continue to make such threats, you may face disciplinary actions. It is strongly recommended that you cease such improper and inappropriate threats, or reversions of proper edits immediately. Redslider (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redslider, several editors have made efforts to help you understand how things work at Wikipedia. You are choosing to ignore the advice you have been offered. If you carry on adding unsourced material to BLPs, you will very likely end up being blocked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, 'Nomoskedasticity', a number of editors have questioned the validity of claims causing injury to Dr. Pellegrino. Far from telling any of us "how things work at Wikipedia", some of your "several editors" have been exposed as intentionally desiring to maintain false allegations that defame and malign the subject, despite the mounting evidence showing such allegations to be unjustified. None of those "several editors" are appointed spokespeople for Wikipedia, or the Wikipedia Foundation, as far as I know. But I will no longer respond to further threats. I prefer to wait and see what, if anything, WP:mediation can do. Redslider (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense you would benefit from being familiar with WP:NLT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have restored the STRIKEOUT version, which is the preferred method of doing this. When you retract any statement, you strike it and state that you retract (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: DO NOT STRIKE OUT OR REVISE ANY OF MY OWN REMARKS OR REVISIONS TO THEM THAT I MAKE ON MY USER PAGE WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. I am informed that I may revise/delete my own remarks on this page as I wish. I did not "retract" the remarks of mine which you revised with strike-outs. I deleted the first as per the promise I made to NLT. I do not retract or delete the second remark of mine that you revised. I stand by that remark. Redslider (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

I suggest you quickly reply to the thread I've started at WP:ANI#Possible legal threat by User:Redslider. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no legal threat was made, nor do I have any legal threat to make. What i did say was simply to advise people that they should be aware of what they do and use common sense. Especially when it comes to things that may cause personal or professional injury to others. That, I believe is in the best tradition of Wikipedia. Nothing more than that. Redslider (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reply at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the statement made clearly is intended to "chill" a discussion, and suggests to others that they should behave differently, or else legal action can be taken against them. Indeed, the majority of your interactions on Wikipedia appear to contain faux legalese, which if you truly believed in the community nature of this project, would not be necessary. You would be best to read WP:NLT very carefully, and consider your next steps extremely carefully (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the remarks in question, on your advice. Not intended for the purpose you suggest, but I will not argue the point. if you care to reference or paste any samples of particular remarks I've made that seem to you to be "faux legalese" of a species not permitted by WP, that would be instructive. I'm used to vigorous debate, but perhaps WP interprets that differently than I do. Thank you for your input. Redslider (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You haven't noticed the continual "evidence"..."cease such", and many other phrases. You are acting like you WP:OWN the article on Pellegrino, and that can never be the case. Your word has as much weight as anyone else's. Ridiculous claims that failing to include an unproven PhD are "defamatory" against him...are you seriously suggesting that? By the way, the BLP policy is clear: if he's alive, then proof from reliable sources must be included. You have suggested that you'll take action to have others barred from that article, when you yourself are more likely to be the one barred. I even wonder now if you have some form of conflict of interest with the individual, as your intent appears to be to WP:PROMOTE them, and are not permitting any form of "negative" which is required to have a truly balanced, neutral article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Bwilkins, you have not referenced the terms you find fault with or their context, so I have no idea what you are talking about or where it is to be found. I am quite seriously suggesting that to suggest an individual's Phd. is not valid or their claim to have one is doubtful, when the evidence to support that is shaky at best, is indeed defamatory and can cause serious injury to that person and their reputation. It was the case that the sources used for that purpose turned out to be, non-existent, "poor" or very doubtful at best (I refer you to the BLP guide to see what is supposed to be done with "poorly" sourced, harmful material). If you read the original reversion by Sparthouse, you would see how that claim was repeated and inferred throughout the biography. The damage was done, and has proven unjustifiable. The only decent thing to do is to return the matter to the state that other BPLs normally use (references are provided in talk and elsewhere) - the degree is stated without further need for support. Leaving an earned degree off of a BLP is injurious, too. Someone reads it and thinks the subject is not qualified to do what he does, or doesn't contact him for a proposal or grant opportunity, or a dozen other things garnered through the false impression that he doesn't have a Phd. What do you find "ridiculous" about that, about wishing to give someone the same benefit that everyone else with a similar degree gets on Wikipedia? I will ignore the rest of your remarks which are patently insulting and contentious, and for which you haven't a single shred of evidence. You are clearly not an objective observer in this matter, have not read the full arguments in the case, and which others continue to sort out even now, to their credit. Rather, it looks like you are simply trying to kill the messenger with a lot of baloney references to WP acronyms. The message is simple. The article maligned the personal and professional reputation of a man from the outset and continues to do so. I have many other disagreements with other parts of the biography, but I haven't touched them. However, an obvious injustice was being done, and I couldn't and wouldn't leave that alone. No one should. Redslider (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator on this project - and someone who has never heard of the individual in question - I assure you that I am 100% neutral; my role is to ensure that policy is followed, not bastardized to someone else's whim. The message is quite simple: unless something is properly referenced in a biography of a living person, the default is to REMOVE it; period. If you are not prepared to work within the policies and guidelines of the project, and fail to acknowledge/understand and work within the consensus model, then this is not going to be a long editing career on Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

owntalk

Note that per WP:OWNTALK you may simply remove any comments you wish from your talk page. Nobody Ent 12:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, Nobody Ent. I thought that might be the case (seemed reasonable) but then somebody else turned my deletion into a strike-out and I didn't want to get into some 'edit war'. Appreciate your advice.

... of course, that doesn't necessarily apply in WP:NLT retractions. WP:REFACTOR says to not change the meaning of discussions by later editing. If you want to WP:ARCHIVE the above, then that's even better (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hey 'Bwilkins, you sure do like throwing those WP acronyms around around, don't you? But the fact is, it didn't change the meaning of anything and I kept my promise to the NLT people that I would remove any "offending" material if "only a single individual" over there didn't like them. So you didn't and I deleted them (and you were the only one, as far as I can tell). The rest of the text was left there, only the lines that you thought might "chill" someone were removed. And if anyone was really curious about the actual "NLT" (though now that you've turned it into a Pellegrino fight I'm not so sure it really was a bona fide an NLT) the way ordinary administrators might view it. But I'll have to check on that some other time. No, I don't want to archive the thing. I've got better things to do with my time. I do save my own copies though, just for reference. Redslider (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could certainly remove the whole section. Nobody Ent 15:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yet another ani thread

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Other_threats_from_User:Redslider Nobody Ent 15:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ent, went there and tried to post reply. There was an 'edit conflict' and then I was unable to repost. Went to history and couldn't even find the item. I'm posting the remarks (defense) I made here. Let me know if you can find it, and I will move my reply back there. (yes, I tried to get back there from here, still no dice.) Redslider (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just try again -- edit conflict just means two people tried to post at the same time. You should be able to copy and paste your comments below. Nobody Ent 18:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Went there. It seems to be gone. If I recall, it was thread #27. Now there are only 26 threads. Went to history, don't see it there either??? Redslider (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Most of Mangoe's charges on the incident board can be inferred from this reply. I couldn't manage to keep his original, but my defense gives a pretty clear idea of what was being said:)

Contrary to Mangoe's assertion that i have "shopped" the matter re: continuing BLP remarks doing harm to a living person, I have followed the advice of other WP administrators/editors on where the matter should be taken. In fact, in the case of its being opened at RSN, it was Dougweller who copied it there. That ought to settle Manoe's shopping charge. If one reads my user page on these matters, they will also note that the threats have actually come from others and been made to me and not by me (vandalism, edit warring, Rfcs on editor conduct, NLTs, - though I do not agree with the result, i promised the NLT committee to delete the offending text if one person objected. Someone did, I removed the remarks immediately. Subsequently someone keeps restoring them as strike-outs). In any case, I think one can see the preponderance of threats and warnings have come from others, unjustifiably. I see no good reason to respond to what are clearly attempts to intimidate me into giving the matter up (I believe its advised in WP that, if one plans to take such actions, they let the other party know before they take them - giving the other party a chance to respond and perhaps resolve the issue informally). The remark that Mangoe quotes, "may face..." was actually a response to threats made to have me blocked, report me for thus and such.... It was to say, intimidation is not ok, and I will try to do something about it if it doesn't stop. You need only go to my user talk page and search on "disciplinary" to verify this. You will find two instances, both of them related to threats being made to me.

Far from being "rebuffed", as Mangoe claims, nearly all of my remarks call into question the sources being used to defame and discredit the BLP subject. The arguments used in supporting the validity of the Phd, have merely been subjected to shifting argument, unresponsive dismissal, source-fighting (using tertiary sources contrasted to my own gold-standard secondary source) and other unsound methods to win their arguments. I've not been "rebuffed" at all, just worn out.

as a final note, I requested mediation when I felt all other means of fair settlement were exhausted. The request for mediation was rejected by Mr. Stradivarius, an administrator on the mediation committee who has also been a party in the dispute. The arguments given in the matter about protecting Dr. Pellegrino from further injury in a WP BLP are lengthy and scattered over many places, as Mangoe observed. But I invite anyone to visit them and read for themselves if they believe that any of what Mango says is true. There is really nothing more to say. Redslider (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I left the notification on the article talk page which I beleived he was reading at the time. Mangoe (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of what, Mangoe? I'm not sure. The result of my mediation request? This incident notice? Redslider (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly possible -- I've been wrong many times -- but user talk page is probably best place. Nobody Ent 22:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, ent. If Dougweller hadn't replied on my talk page to my saying I was waiting for mediation, I would still be waiting for a notice on that! If I hadn't seen your notice on the same page, I wouldn't have come here to defend. What would that have looked like? Redslider (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not notifying you here. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok. I call your attention to the fact that Dougweller has reposted the purported NLT remarks on RSN (and perhaps elsewhere). I repeat, that if the purpose of NLTs are to keep chilling remarks off of WP, then it seems to serve the opposite effect to repeat them, rather than delete them. People may still be "chilled" reading them. I'll leave it to you to remove them, wherever they might be repeated, if you wish. As far as I'm concerned, I removed them here, as I said I would, and the matter is done. Redslider (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Remsense诉 09:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how to reply to this. For one, whatever I said on talk was removed, and I was naive enough to think I didn't need a copy. For another, I always thought 'talk' was a safe place to just that, talk about the topic. Not some filter that examined the talk on the basis of it being sourced or meeting some other severe, rule book criteria. Just on topic talk that people could engage or not as they wished. I haven't been here for a long time. The last time I was, 'talk' was referred to as 'discussion'. So maybe things have changed. I put my remarks in "talk" precisely because I didn't think they qualified for changing or editing the article at this time. As for "reliable sources" there aren't any regarding the poetry of 'Shi and the Ten Stone Lions' and Yuen Ren Chao's standing as a poet. As far as I know, I'm the only person who has actually solved the riddle of Shi in any logically consistent way. It was published in 'Cha - A literary Journal' some time ago, but has never been peer reviewed. In any case if attempting to show that Yuen Ren Chao wrote a perfectly sensible poem (not "confusing" as the article states.) and that he deserves to be acknowledged as a poet (which he is not, currently) is that not an "improvement" of the article (which has no section on the poem or YRC as a poet.) If it isn't, then Ihave no idea of what the word "improvement" means. That was the only thing my remarks were meant to address. In any case, I'm outta here, and don't expect to be back. Wikipedia was just a side-bar on my attempts to get Yuen Ren Chao the credit he deserves. Wishing everyone the best.03:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)~~ Redslider (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

btw, at the top of this page it says "User talk: Redslider". And the page not only contains remarks I made on 'Shi', but other comments I made on talk on an entirely different subject. So it seems that this is a "talk" page reserved for me, and where things I talk about (and people who respond to that) can be safely put. So I'm wondering what someone else, whom I don't know, comes here, removes things I've said, makes comments in the imperative voice insisting I do this or that. I don't get that. Is this page what the title suggests it is, or isn't it? Don't refer me to some guide or rule book "Remsense." If you have something specific to say about the matter, please say it yourself. And, when you refer to a rule book, please cite what specific rules or complaints you might have. That is the normal way citations and references are used. First comes what is being referred to or cited, then comes the reference or citation. That's how it has always been, and I suggest you keep to that general rule.03:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Redslider (talk) Redslider (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]