User talk:Owlmonkey

Naropa University

Seems to be some agreement around reverting to an earlier version of the Naropa page under its 'discussion' tab. What do you say? 205.170.134.65 (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Commented and reverted. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is another raging debate over at the Naropa University page. It is very similar to the previous one. Your opinion seems to be respected and, perhaps, you could weigh in as a more neutral arbiter? 205.170.134.65 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Hello, can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_breese and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual bullies, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Also please look into another article that was deleted that has been there for years at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_metaphysical_sciences but was deleted by a user as soon as I linked to it. Thanx (SpiritBeing (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)

Thanks for letting me know about it. Sadly, such an overwhelming number of delete opinions are unlikely to be overcome. To establish notability she really needs to encourage being talked about by others, having people review her books and expand upon the material, especially critiques, will better establish her notability. My suggestion is to keep the work you've done and as she gains that kind of secondary source commentary about her work over time the article can be recreated. - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Curtis Silwa

On May 16, 2007 on the FOX News network's Hannity & Colmes show, Silwa advocated the use of violence against XM Satellite radio shock jocks Opie and Anthony for engaging in discussion about forced sex with the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others. Clip available on YouTube

You don't think that's major? This is a guy who started an organization to fight violence and crime advocating the use of violence?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felicityhughes (talk • contribs) 21:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well two thoughts. 1) it was awhile ago but it didn't really get pickup up by secondary sources and commented upon. I see a couple blogs mentioning it, but no news sources. but 2) when i watched it I didn't see that he was advocating violence generally, just that he was steaming mad at what he perceived these two guys as doing: advocating rape. And then specifically, what he said was that in his old neighborhood if people were advocating rape the local ruffians would rough them up. he did say yes to the follow up question "so you're advocating violence?" but that was specifically framed by his earlier statements. That is to say, by this idea that these folks were advocating rape. Whether or not the DJ's really were advocating rape was then a topic of discussion and rebut in that youtube segment and the subsequent part 2 segment. But back to point #1, if his comments weren't really noteworthy to be reported upon in citable references - beyond the original source - then we probably shouldn't be including it in an encyclopedia article about him. Especially because he's a living person (see WP:BLP) and any criticisms must have secondary sources per that guideline. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is why Google's Knol project is so much more superior to Wikipedia. You think secondary sources are necessary with the original source is the person himself, recording on video tape with audio? I'll create my own Curtis Silwa page on Google Knol, where authors don't have to tolerate fools like yourself.

It's not a question of what he said, it's a question of notability and how it is viewed. If no secondary sources think it was relevant, then why should it be here? This is especially important for biographies of living persons, per wikipedia policy. Sounds like Knol is a better fit for your style of editing, since your idea of collaboration includes insulting other editors. But a word of caution: the wikipedia policy is to avoid libel, and if you go around writing potentially libelous statements about living persons then it is you who are potentially accountable for them — in civil court — and every article on knol as far as i know has your full name listed as the author. That's a different kind of forum and writing biographies about people there is more like publishing an unauthorized biography about someone and putting your name on it. It's going to be really interesting to see how biographic entries play out there, especially concerning criticism. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First you wrote, "it was awhile ago but it didn't really get pickup up by secondary sources and commented upon" then you wrote "If no secondary sources think it was relevant, then why should it be here?"

But secondary sources DID pick it up.

http://digg.com/people/Guardian_Angels_Curtis_Sliwa_advocates_violence_against_Opie_Anthony 282 diggs is pretty significant, and there are dozens of comments on the youtube video page and on the digg page.

I don't read dailykos, but I understand it's a major political blog: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/29/1028/25810/730/466083 M. Sliwa is Maria Sliwa, the sister of right-wing New York City talk show host Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels and a strong supporter of the Republican Party who regularly speaks at Republican fund-raisers and national conventions. Curtis Sliwa himself advocates violence (against talk radio hosts Opie and Anthony).

You have no business editing any biographies of living persons if you think it's libelous to point out what someone himself (or herself) said on a recorded and nationally televised program. Raising that concern in reaction to my edit is seriously ridiculous. Sounds like your idea of collaboration is making up rubbish excuses so you can be a win an argument and be a control freak.

a ha, just read your bio. You list Guardian Angels and Curtis Silwa as your personal interests, that makes you unfairly biased. Stop making excuses and let the truth be told. This whole ordeal doesn't make you much of a Buddhist in my book.

It's not biased to have an interest. How else would you care about an article to edit? I list it as an interest because I've put energy into those articles here. I found and solicited the pictures for it, for example. You seem to have an interest in the article too, yes?

Please read the whole WP:BLP policy, it's been given a lot of thought, to avoid wikipedia turning into a place where anyone with an ax to grind doesn't weigh in on every controversial, notable figure. Can you imagine for a moment what would happen without those guidelines? The rules about adding criticism or controversial statements are there for a reason. We don't add random facts to try to imply something, we summarize notable views on a topic. How? By using credible and neutral secondary sources. DailyKos is not a neutral source and he doesn't talk *about* the incident he just mentions the youtube video to make a point. If he was talking about it, then we could cite it as a criticism specifically from "the liberal blog DailyKos" or some qualifier but then is really that trustable or noteworthy if an anti-conservative blog criticizes a conservative popular figure? and Digg is equivalent to a forum or blog, not a fact-checked, neutral news source. Review WP:SOURCES more about sources and questionable sources. I'm not making all this up.

I'm sorry you don't like my efforts here, but I'm trying to understand and help keep wikipedia articles about living persons within guidelines. It's too easy for wikipedia to turn into place where anyone can criticize anyone they want otherwise, to the point of libel. You are welcome to disagree with me. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You might also find it interesting to read the ongoing discussion about the BLP policy, on its talk page, as a way to get more of a sense of the ongoing evolution and thoughts on it. Why blogs are generally avoided as sources was a recent discussion point there, for example, in regards to biographic articles. It has also been a recent topic among the administrators, and it looks like it is becoming an area where even more strict control is occurring. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument - COI

I think the long await HBDI COI has arrived today. I've reverted once & am holding off for a few hours before exercising another revert. Grateful if you'd do ... whatever you think best. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Will keep an eye on it too. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your David Roach fix

Yep thanks for fixing it so fast. bbx (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Got yer back. :) - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Shoshanna Lonstein Gruss "Spam link removal"

I didn't realize that cityfile.com was a site that had been spamming Wikipedia. I found some of the information I used my re-write of her entry on Cityfile.com after googleing around for details. That why I put it in. I do some work for Shoshanna and did not intend to post a link to a place considered "spam". qraali 00:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. A few other accounts just recently started actively linking to cityfile - on a number of articles in a systematic fashion - and I was going through removing them. I didn't think you added that cite with any kind of spamming intention though. Cheers. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Tory Burch

I do not understand why you yanked all the citations. They seem to go along with most other sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your usage was fine, it's just they are proving to be an unreliable source generally and then in addition someone started promoting that site by adding external links to them across a number of biographical articles. You'll find a list of accounts that were doing that spamming in the spam reports. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam and look for cityfile. Owlmonkey (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Christy Turlington & Ed Burns

I added additional references to these profiles and they were taken out and marked as spam. I just started using Wikipedia, but I thought additional links to outside sources for information were useful? If there's some other way I should be sourcing things like that (or from some other place) please let me know. Thanks! 01:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)GreenTeaz (talk)

Generally yes but there has been a pattern of adding promotional links to cityfile.com across biographic articles here recently. Also, another editor has made the case that cityfile.com does not meet reliable source standards for citations and I tend to agree. You're welcome to discuss those points. Also, make sure to familiarize yourself with the WP:RS and WP:EL guidelines. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read all those pages, but I guess I'm still a bit confused. The New York Times lists the site as a resource on some of its Times Topics pages [1] (which were chosen by staff researchers and editors), and I would assume that the New York Times' criteria for a reliable source would not be lower than Wikipedia's generally. Also, the Reliable Sources page mentions that sources are "in relation to the subject at hand," which is why I thought my adding sources to two celebrity profiles was perfectly legitimate. Thanks.GreenTeaz (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Spamming aside for a moment, the NYT lists cityfile as one of "A list of resources from around the Web about Richard S. Fuld as selected by researchers and editors of The New York Times." That's not the same as the NYT using cityfile as a citation source for fact checking. And citations here are about validating facts. So if cityfile lists a birthdate of a celebrity, is it trustable? In other words, how do I know that cityfile is ensuring their facts are accurate? Do they adhere to the same journalistic standards as the NYT? Birthdays are potentially innocuous but then what of more substantial rumors, gossip, or viewpoints that are contentious? another guideline to make sure you're familiar with concerns biographies of living persons, which are more strict here in terms of ensuring accuracy than other articles. Cityfile might be a reliable source, but they don't disclose their standards or methods and editors here have pointed out some example cityfile pages which demonstrate a lack of neutrality. You're welcome to contest that. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a good point about adding rumors, gossip, etc., especially concerning the biographies of living people. I was just trying to add some sources of additional information for profiles of the wikipedia pages of celebrities I like. But I'll definitely take all of the above into consideration anytime I'm using wikipedia in the future. One more quick question: Is the talk page of a specific profile the best place to explain why I put in a link, or is that best left to the edit summary line? Thanks for all the help! GreenTeaz (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I find, personally, that good "edit summary" comments really help when reviewing lots of changes across articles. edit summaries are convenient, but they only hold so much so if more explanation is needed the talk page is the place to go. Especially for controversial or contested changes. Then adding "see talk page for explanation" in the edit summary is helpful so we know that you're leaving more information there. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On break

Note: I'm taking a break for awhile as I turn my attention to tanjur.org, my buddhist community wiki project. If you'd like to invite me to a discussion or review you might try contacting me there.