User:Scholarlyarticles/archive of sandbox

This page is gibberish and just a series of different articles I'm working on. Please do not interpret any material in here.

Blogs are not considered reliable sources Hi, Scholarlyarticles. I see you are once again adding defamatory material based on a blog post with this edit [21]. Blogs are not considered reliable sources for defamatory material on this wiki. I have removed the content.-- Dianna (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 
I'm not sure which you're referring to but the Village Voice article has been around for about 30 years. I also added a huff po article to the same reference. I hope this clarifies things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by - (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2012 Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC) • The one source, Village Voice, would likely be fine for sourcing. Even though it says "blog", all their articles are written blog style and are professionally vetted and written by professional journalists. Click on any article, and it takes you to the subdomain "blogs". While "blogs" in general are not acceptable, this is not a general blog and it is just using blog software for their online paper. http://www.villagevoice.com/about/index/ tells about it, founded in 1955, recipient of three Pulitzer prizes plus other awards, etc. Perfectly fine as a reliable source. I'm sure it is just the word "blog" that confuses it, but hopefully this clears it up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks, Dennis. I have reverted my removal of the material. -- Dianna (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks D and D. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)]]]

It's been a year and a half since the resolution of the Attack at the Quad Issue here at WP, Jimmy Henchman has been sentenced to life imprisonment, and has begun his new trial for murder. His WP is getting worse because he is no longer primarily known as a music mogul, not because of anything we're doing. I haven't worked on it much for a while except to try to protect it from continually being wiped out by numerous anonymous IP addresses. Before January 23, 2014 a number of editors have worked on his page to get it to where it was before 67.81.205.59 raised the complaint and changed the page 22. His or her complaint is completely without substance or merit, making no substantive claim about WP sources except to blame his lawyer, the journalist involved, and Judge Gleeson. Nevertheless, TheRedPenOfDoom now is now using it as a reason to tag-team with alf laylah wa laylah and NeilN. Some examples of the edit wars he's involved with have been with these people RedPenofDoom diff1 23 RedPenofDoom diff2 24 STATicVapors restoration 25 Rmhermen attempts to restore 26 Red Pen of Doom's reversion of Rmhermen 27 (note- he makes a misleading summary) The trio have nearly continually threatened many including STATicVapor, 28 and others with blocks, intimidating us from editing every three sentences, disrupting our edits and even collapsing edits to hide them with with misleading edit summaries such as "more conspiracy theories" 29 thus censoring even the talk page. I asked RedPenofDoom why the three editors why they were complaining about the content of the Jimmy Henchman talk page where no one on the talk page could see it, why they did not inform us of the complaint of IP address 67.81.205.59. He said that is because we, the editors of the Jimmy Henchman page, had made an incompetent page over the last two years and we'd have to start from square one. In other words we'd have to start since before his edit-warring, tag-teaming with Diannaa. The trio of editors have advised us in no uncertain terms that we can make no changes without there approval or we will be blocked. RedPenofDoom simply reverts the material decided on in 2012 RedPenofDoom diff1 30 RedPenofDoom diff2 31 STATicVapors restoration 32 Rmhermen attempts to restore 33 Red Pen of Doom's reversion of Rmhermen 34 (note- he makes a misleading summary I've made an attempt to restore it to the January 23, 2014 version. There is not a lively discussion. There is tag-teaming intimidation to try to re-litigate all the work that was done regarding the attack at the Quad and the crimes of which Henchman has been convicted. Also note STATicVapor's argument 35 Please note the exchange here: I noticed you made this comment from RedPenofDoom: "Jimmy Henchman We have people trying to restore content about criminality sourced to the New York Post, New York Daily News, rap lyrics and court documents. Eyes would be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)" Is this code for let's censor the information from these editors? If so, I think such calls should be made here on the talk page. If there is a coordinated effort to undo the year and a half's worth of work by a number of editors by a few, it should be examined here. (I asked why there wasn't a call for eyes on the Jimmy Henchman talk page, where it was appropriate. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Red responded: "Why didnt I ask here for feedback? because ... Asking for feedback from the current article creators would be like asking a drowning person for swimming lessons." Please his final note to me: [[:::::The version that you prefer is NOT going to happen because it is is major violation of a number of policies and guidelines particularly WP:BLP. How it got from your preferred but completely non compliant version to the one today is explained in the edit summaries. The article is certainly in need of improvement, but it will need to be fixed one step at a time with appropriately reliably published sources used to present appropriate content in an appropriate manner. Suggestions for large scale non compliant edits are going to be dismissed outright. I suggest you start small with sentence or at most paragraph revisions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)]] My question is: Where on Wikipedia was it decided that RedPenofDoom whose argument for excluding the VV source on Henchman's confession, the Dexter Isaac AHH confession etc, and his team of three should be the judge and jury of this page for all the arguments that were resolved before? Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC) I have discussed the situation with another editor just as a way acknowledging what seemed to be his frustration 36 with the tag-teaming. Since you three are following that thread, as well as everything I write, it didn't seem to require notification. I feel that the canvassing between you three for a block of me and asking each other whether you would certify without notifying me 37 38 is not appropriate. You seem to be collecting votes already before it is even submitted. Did I misunderstand? Get a blog somewhere else 39 Chris Christie Traffic jam was here 40 heated COI here and here Chris Christie who is this person? 41 Who is this person? 42 collaboration ? 43 44 
I'm not sure which you're referring to but the Village Voice article has been around for about 30 years. I also added a huff po article to the same reference. I hope this clarifies things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by - (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2012 Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• The one source, Village Voice, would likely be fine for sourcing. Even though it says "blog", all their articles are written blog style and are professionally vetted and written by professional journalists. Click on any article, and it takes you to the subdomain "blogs". While "blogs" in general are not acceptable, this is not a general blog and it is just using blog software for their online paper. http://www.villagevoice.com/about/index/ tells about it, founded in 1955, recipient of three Pulitzer prizes plus other awards, etc. Perfectly fine as a reliable source. I'm sure it is just the word "blog" that confuses it, but hopefully this clears it up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dennis. I have reverted my removal of the material. -- Dianna (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks D and D. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)]]]

It's been a year and a half since the resolution of the Attack at the Quad Issue here at WP, Jimmy Henchman has been sentenced to life imprisonment, and has begun his new trial for murder. His WP is getting worse because he is no longer primarily known as a music mogul, not because of anything we're doing. I haven't worked on it much for a while except to try to protect it from continually being wiped out by numerous anonymous IP addresses. Before January 23, 2014 a number of editors have worked on his page to get it to where it was before 67.81.205.59 raised the complaint and changed the page [[1]]. His or her complaint is completely without substance or merit, making no substantive claim about WP sources except to blame his lawyer, the journalist involved, and Judge Gleeson.

Nevertheless, TheRedPenOfDoom now is now using it as a reason to tag-team with alf laylah wa laylah and NeilN. Some examples of the edit wars he's involved with have been with these people RedPenofDoom diff1 [[2]] RedPenofDoom diff2 [[3]] STATicVapors restoration [[4]] Rmhermen attempts to restore [[5]] Red Pen of Doom's reversion of Rmhermen [[6]] (note- he makes a misleading summary)

The trio have nearly continually threatened many including STATicVapor, [[7]] and others with blocks, intimidating us from editing every three sentences, disrupting our edits and even collapsing edits to hide them with with misleading edit summaries such as "more conspiracy theories" [[8]] thus censoring even the talk page. I asked RedPenofDoom why the three editors why they were complaining about the content of the Jimmy Henchman talk page where no one on the talk page could see it, why they did not inform us of the complaint of IP address 67.81.205.59. He said that is because we, the editors of the Jimmy Henchman page, had made an incompetent page over the last two years and we'd have to start from square one. In other words we'd have to start since before his edit-warring, tag-teaming with Diannaa. The trio of editors have advised us in no uncertain terms that we can make no changes without there approval or we will be blocked. RedPenofDoom simply reverts the material decided on in 2012

RedPenofDoom diff1 [[9]] RedPenofDoom diff2 [[10]] STATicVapors restoration [[11]] Rmhermen attempts to restore [[12]] Red Pen of Doom's reversion of Rmhermen [[13]] (note- he makes a misleading summary

I've made an attempt to restore it to the January 23, 2014 version. There is not a lively discussion. There is tag-teaming intimidation to try to re-litigate all the work that was done regarding the attack at the Quad and the crimes of which Henchman has been convicted. Also note STATicVapor's argument [[14]] Please note the exchange here:

I noticed you made this comment from RedPenofDoom: "Jimmy Henchman We have people trying to restore content about criminality sourced to the New York Post, New York Daily News, rap lyrics and court documents. Eyes would be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)" Is this code for let's censor the information from these editors? If so, I think such calls should be made here on the talk page. If there is a coordinated effort to undo the year and a half's worth of work by a number of editors by a few, it should be examined here. (I asked why there wasn't a call for eyes on the Jimmy Henchman talk page, where it was appropriate. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Red responded: "Why didnt I ask here for feedback? because ... Asking for feedback from the current article creators would be like asking a drowning person for swimming lessons."

Please his final note to me:

[[:::::The version that you prefer is NOT going to happen because it is is major violation of a number of policies and guidelines particularly WP:BLP.

How it got from your preferred but completely non compliant version to the one today is explained in the edit summaries.

The article is certainly in need of improvement, but it will need to be fixed one step at a time with appropriately reliably published sources used to present appropriate content in an appropriate manner.

Suggestions for large scale non compliant edits are going to be dismissed outright.

I suggest you start small with sentence or at most paragraph revisions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)]]

My question is: Where on Wikipedia was it decided that RedPenofDoom whose argument for excluding the VV source on Henchman's confession, the Dexter Isaac AHH confession etc, and his team of three should be the judge and jury of this page for all the arguments that were resolved before? Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have discussed the situation with another editor just as a way acknowledging what seemed to be his frustration [[15]] with the tag-teaming. Since you three are following that thread, as well as everything I write, it didn't seem to require notification. I feel that the canvassing between you three for a block of me and asking each other whether you would certify without notifying me [[16]] [[17]] is not appropriate. You seem to be collecting votes already before it is even submitted. Did I misunderstand?

Get a blog somewhere else [[18]]

Chris Christie [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] COI here and here Chris Christie who is this person? Who is this person? [[22]] collaboration ? [[23]] [[24]]

User talk:NeilN/sandbox From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < User talk:NeilN This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a user page or subpage requested to be deleted by its user. Note that in some cases such pages may need to be retained for administrative purposes. Before deleting, administrators are advised to check the contribution history of such pages to be sure they are not deleting a user talk page that has been moved. See CSD U1. If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice. This page was last edited by NeilN (contribs | logs) at 07:31 UTC (0 seconds ago)

Scholarlyarticles[edit]

FYI, I'm having a similar issue with the same user, although they are not as eloquent with me. But now I just saw that you have noticed it here. You're quick! Fnordware (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC) I also notice that Scholarlyarticles seems to be putting Chuck Philips in other places. For example, the Biggie Smalls article frequently mentions that Chuck Philips wrote an article about something in the article text thanks to edits like this one. And then this link you mentioned refers to Chuck Philips as "my client." So it appears that Scholarlyarticles may actually be working for the subjects of articles he's editing. Fnordware (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Fnordware, the IP was talking about Jimmy Henchman, not Philips. I don't think Scholarlyarticles has any COI, just deep misunderstandings of several policies and guidelines. By the way, do you mind if I move this conversation to my talk page where it belongs? Lastly, note I mentioned her edit on your talk page here. --NeilN talk to me 07:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)