User talk:Sleddog116

Feel free to discuss any of my changes to articles here.

I try to be as academic and reliable as possible when contributing to Wikipedia, but I'm learning recently (through people who think newbies are tasty) that even sources I always thought were reliable (like the State Department and National Park Service) are apparently not always acceptable. If you can help me learn more about reliable sources (beyond the WP pages on the subject), feel free to discuss it with me here.

Also, my talk and user pages don't really amount to much at the moment, but that's because I really am more interested in contributing to Wikipedia than I am in making my page look pretty. That, and I'm not really good at all the formatting stuff yet ;)

Advice

I've taken a look and I think I need a bit more explanation about what the problem is. You can email me from my talk page if you like. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - there isn't a "problem" per se; I just wanted to know if you think I'm going about things the right way (in my edit summaries and whatnot). It's okay. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries are very good! Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Insanity Defense

In the interest of saving space on my page, I'm marking this resolved discussion as closed. If anyone has anything to add or reopen, please click "new section" at the top of the page. Thanks.

Hi, not sure why you removed my addition to the Insanity Defence page without consultation? Doc Insanity 13:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc insanity (talk • contribs)

Your action seems heavy-handed Sleddog - especially the point it was correcting was itself unreferenced (in fact the entire article is not that well referenced). Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave any more comments on my talk page - thanks Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I will respect your wish and continue the discussion here. However, my statements still stand. If you can provide references, why are you unwilling to do so? If you consider being committed to providing verifiable information as being "sanctimonious," then I suppose I am sanctimonious. However, that is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, so Wikipedia itself would be sanctimonious by that standard. From that page: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources." Unsourced, unreferenced material may be challenged and removed - any number of experienced Wikipedians will tell you the same. Just because it's a point you want to make doesn't mean you can arbitrarily say it without providing references - regardless of how well the rest of the article is sourced. I still don't understand your reluctance to provide sources - if you have such good sources, as you insist that you do, why are you unwilling to cite them? Sleddog116 (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't I cite my sources? In two words - your attitude. I have the citations to support my statement on my Refworks and the articles and papers I have already written, I can assure you. You pulled my addition on the basis that it wasn't referenced, but the original statement (that those found NGRI generally receive psychiatric treatment) wasn't referenced. I just find it very strange, and if you were really committing to helping make Wikipedia an authoritative encyclopaedia you would want people who are actually experts on the subject matter to contribute. The legal articles on mental condition defences are really substandard I'm afraid, and I was intending to contribute as when work allowed to improve their standard. Not anymore. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My attitude has nothing to do with the verifiability of your source information. Expert attention is valued, but that doesn't mean that it's allowed to follow lower standards than anyone else's additions. Anyone can claim to be an expert. You are turning something simple into something complicated; if you are so certain that your addition was accurate and can truly provide sources as you claim you can, then doing so should be a simple matter. Even if you could site the legal language from the Act itself (providing a link to the Act's text), that would be fine. In discussing attitude, you asked me why I reverted your edits. I patiently explained, citing all of the appropriate WP guidelines. You, on the other hand, have become belligerent and almost hostile towards me though I have done nothing but calmly reinforce the guidelines. If you had read ANY of the wikilinks I provided in my previous posts, you would know that self-published sources aren't considered reliable. You need to use third-party sources and not original research. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're not willing to accept that you had a bad attitude. Fine. I wash my hands of this. And incidentally, I was not talking about citing my own articles. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be, but it still sidesteps the issue at hand - the need for verification, which you are still unwilling to provide. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that IS the issue. As I explained, I have the references for all my assertions in that article because they are in papers I have already written! I don't make assertions that I can't prove. It comes from being an academic. What beats me is how someone who knows next to nothing about the subject matter can reasonably expect to do a decent job of editing an article about it? Unbelievable. No doubt next you will tell me it makes no difference what you know about a subject, you can still edit a Wiki page on it. Of course not. How on earth can you work out when someone is being highly selective? Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Just to add, since you think that quoting Wiki policy gives you legitimacy -[reply]

"Try to fix problems

Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts. Instead of deleting text, consider:

rephrasing or copyediting to improve grammar, more accurately represent the sources, or balance the article's contents

correcting inaccuracy, while keeping the rest of the content intact

moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)

adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced

requesting a citation by adding the ^{[citation needed]} tag doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself

adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you are unable to fix yourself

repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located

merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge"

I see nothing there that states that any addition that is not supported by a citation should be summarily removed in the manner you have done. Anything to say? Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk)

Admittedly - I will make this concession - instead of removing the text, I should have tagged it. I'll accept that. If it will make you happy, we can restore the text and add a CN tag to it. The fact remains, however, that the material needs to be cited. You've made an assumption by saying I know "next to nothing about the subject" (resorting to the ad hominem argument? Disappointing, but predictable. Pity - I was hoping for better from an "academic"), when for all you know, I could be a lawyer, a judge, or even the US Attorney General (not saying I am, but you couldn't know that). The point you're still missing is that this is the Internet, and ANYONE can CLAIM to be an expert. If you "don't make assertions that [you] can't prove," then prove them by providing these great sources you claim to have. If you can't, then your claims of being an "expert" don't really have much validity. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not missing the point. If the section is restored, I will happily put the appropriate citations to peer-reviewed journals and standard texts on the issue. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Very well; let's restore it, add the tags, and put an end to this unfortunate disagreement. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great - thank you Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

Wifione ^Message 09:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sleddog116. You have new messages at TransporterMan's talk page.
Message added 22:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

TransporterMan (TALK) 22:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

Nice work here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Sleddog116 (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me second that. Thanks for all your help at the noticeboard! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And let me third it. Exemplary. Haploidavey (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For your work at the Aviators dispute and, indeed, in general in dispute resolution. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! What I do, though, I learned mostly from you. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sleddog116. You have new messages at TransporterMan's talk page.
Message added 16:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

TransporterMan (TALK) 16:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Clerk comment"

Hi. Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoneSleddog116 (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971_discussion

Could we have your input for "Proposal 2" where the first reliable source has been found for POW & civilian internee figures in 1971? AshLin (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

commented Sleddog116 (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maple syrup

I don't want to clutter up DRN even more so I thought I'd check here - you say that the fact it's at DRN means there isn't consensus, but I brought the issue to DRN because I thought there was consensus but that one editor was still reinstating it whenever it was removed. The issue in my mind is whether, especially when there are no policy issues, one editor can block 5 (and now 7). Sadly, it appears that the answer at DRN by one clerk (but not by another) is yes. So did you really mean that the fact I took it to DRN proved lack of consenus? Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. In fact, I'm inclined to agree with your side of the argument on DRN. However, the fact that we have one editor who is not willing to accept that obviously demonstrates that she's not willing to go along with that. Simply saying, "There is consensus, so don't do it" isn't going to stop her from doing what she wants to do - which is why it's on DRN. Perhaps I put that badly on DRN. Do you see my point, though? I'm not sure how this moves forward from here, but I would prefer it to stay on DRN (instead of here on my talk page) so that everyone involved can see the conversation. Part of what makes DRN work is transparency. I do appreciate your coming to me for explanation, though. I apologize if you took my earlier statements the wrong way. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just wasn't sure what you meant. The DRN is closed, but I am not at all happy. What seems to have been decided there is that consensus can't be settled on a talk page, you have to go to DRN and then somehow get an outside uninvolved statement that there is consensus - ideally without that person having ever discussed it on the talk page. And even now the lone editor is unhappy, and would clearly not have conceded if I hadn't gone to DRN. I've never seen one editor being allowed to block other editors for so long, especially on a non-policy issue. I'm not sure if I should just drop this now (the principle) or pursue it. And it looks to me that if the other clerk had seen this first things would have gone differently. Thanks for replying. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke too soon, it's been reopened. Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, to me it was a matter of AGF. Once Nikki had made the claim that the consensus arguments against her weren't sufficient, then that claim was entitled to AGF until it was evaluated under Wikipedia:CONS#Determining_consensus. It didn't have to come to DRN or other DR to be evaluated, somebody uninvolved just had to weigh in and make the determination. (BTW, that section of CONS has only been there since December: Discussed here, added here, modified here to remove the suggestion that the determination ought to usually be made by an admin.) If she had not made that claim (or if that policy change had not been made), then consensus would either have existed or not and the proper forum to judge it would have been ANI if she had replaced the category after it was removed (as is, indeed, the situation right now if she does so). Please understand that in saying what I am here, I'm (still) not passing judgment on who did or did not have the better argument, just commenting on process. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 16:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the process issue I'm concerned about. I actually expected that to be settled at DRN by a clerk. I was a bit bothered that because someone had posted to the talk page first they were considered involved. I think that Wikipedia:CONS#Determining_consensus may still need some tweaking and have been wondering whether to ask there or not, but I don't want to dump you into it. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf DRN

Sled, You beat me to the punch on the Persian Gulf dispute. I was going to close it with the following closing comment which you should feel free to use or lose as you may wish:

Closing notes: I am a regular mediator/clerk at this noticeboard. I am going to close this discussion for inadequate discussion in this instance but would note that all four of these articles have used "Persian Gulf" for a substantial period of time until the recent introduction of "Arabian Gulf" or "The Gulf". As noted on the talk page of the Persian Gulf article, the change from Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf has been a perennial request which has always been soundly refused by the consensus of the community. In these particular articles, the established use of Persian Gulf followed by a prompt objection to the change to Arabian Gulf means that in accordance with the consensus policy a consensus for the change must be established. No such consensus exists, so Persian Gulf must remain in the articles until a consensus in favor of the change to Arabian Gulf is established. Consensus can, of course, change. If Uishaki wishes to obtain such a change in consensus, then a far better way of going about it, rather than making usage changes in individual articles, would be to propose that the Persian Gulf article be renamed. If successful there, then changes in usage in other articles could follow. Alternatively, it might be done through proposing an amendment to the Manual of Style. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above was originally sent in an e-mail; some personal information was removed, and the signature added by me (Sleddog116).

Reply: Thanks for the e-mail. I was thinking about closing that dispute, as well, but I have a feeling that's not really going to help matters in this case. It may seem a little beyond the scope of DRN on the surface, but I really don't think it is, and closing it right now might be a little premature, I think. I'm hoping my comment (I worded it rather strongly, but that was intentional - I'd have trouted everyone involved if I thought it would have done any good) will calm things down a bit and get everyone to step back. Call me a starry-eyed optimist, but I think a candid discussion on this topic would probably help matters. I will likely refer the editors to the MOS, as well, so we'll see what happens from there. I just need a little time (maybe a day or so) to study the situation a little. Thanks for the help, though. I haven't been on DRN nearly as long as you have, and it's always nice to know that someone more experienced is keeping an eye on things. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, not keeping an eye so much as just an edit conflict with me being too vainglorious to let my purple prose go to waste if you could maybe use some of it. Keep up the good work! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I probably will use some of it. As I said - I was probably going to make references to the MOS anyway. Sorry for stealing your thunder. ;) Sleddog116 (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nozette Dispute Comment

Thanks for your input Sleddog. I referred to the "reliable source" only because Scapler called it that. And yes, you would think a Department of Justice link would be reliable. In this case it wasn't. Ah well, I'm not going to try to push this any further. Just tried to right a wrong. Again, thanks for your attention. Whysosirius (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]