234:, then rant, then suddenly you began rambling on and on and on about civil-war armies and blood and sex and how you wanted to sniff Morgan's crotch and have sex with her daughter. And did you stop there when people asked you to stop? No, you kept right on going, rambling on and on about how Knowledge (XXG) was a huge consipiracy against you, how the opera Turandot had relevance to the Morgan article and needed to be included in the article amoung it's citations - and all of this in between inserting various comments about how you'd had psychotherapy and how your own child had been taken from you, so this had become your personal crusade. Then, when you get banned from here twice, you post a hateful page on your website that lambastes me as being the leader of some grand conspiracy against you here on Knowledge (XXG), and begin filling my e-mail box with even more of this odd, eerie and flatly frightening prose, in e-mail after e-mail written from both your home and from work. Some of them, to me, even look like death threats.
238:
trying to accomplish? Think about it - I am an occasional contributor to
Knowledge (XXG) who is considered so trivial that my votes on VfD have been publicly declared invalid TWICE because of the short time I have been posting here. This proposal, which you have decried on your website as my secret attempt to become a "cop" for Knowledge (XXG), has drawn a whopping TWO comments, neither of which endorse this suggestion. And yet you're trying to present me as actually being some kind of grand conspiratorial leader of Knowledge (XXG) on your website?
226:
because You WERE done. The article was GOOD, you had proper citations for everything, you did not need the extra crap you were trying to stick in. THAT'S WHY I DID NOT EDIT IT. I LIKED IT. It was a GOOD article. As far as I was concerned, you were DONE. Contrary to your assertations on your webpage, I didn't insert a =) to be sarcastic. Look at the time-date stamps. That was my first comment to you. I actually meant it - the article was good, you were done.
94:- The mechanism laid out in the suggestion. Valid citations are those which are valid from a scholarly point of view. A blog, for example, is not valid, no matter who writes it. Major newspapers and major magazines would be valid (though, obviously, the "Weekly World News" does not count, despite it's circulation).
225:
Now, somehow, I have become "The Enemy," and you're all hot and bothered over the
Elizabeth Morgan article and how I'm blocking you from telling the world the truth. For your information, Mister Morrow, I was not being sarcastic when I said you were done. When I wrote "This article is done", that's
198:
Note: It is EASY to delete this message because it is unsigned. If it is ACTUALLY deleted, it is clear sign that the person who does so does not wish the reader to THINK. Such a need to "control the discussion" is a serious sign is WEAKNESS. If the argument is without merit, let the reader decided
108:
or procedure for reviewing citations and deleting "invalid" citations. As 204.147.187.240 points out below, without a controlled way to review citations we could end up with a worse problem than we have now. Basically, you need to have the same sort of VfD process for citations that we have now for
252:
You want to edit the
Elizabeth Morgan article to put in your citations? Go ahead. It's obvious nobody can stop you, you can't be banned from here. If you can edit this page, you can edit that one - so go ahead. DO WHAT YOU WANT with that page. You love to say "check the edit history." I invite
248:
And yes, I mean it. It is VERY clear to me that those in charge of
Knowledge (XXG) can't keep you out despite banning you twice, and it's equally clear that so long as I participate here, you are going to continue to follow me around with various proxies and attack every post I make as being a post
237:
Mister Morrow, I say this with all possible respect and without any intent to offend: Have you ever considered that, looking back on all the scary, creepy comments you wrote about
Elizabeth Morgan, a woman you don't even know, that this kind of behavior is having the opposite effect to what you are
194:
Note that if this policy is adopted (even in hypocrisy), but that the promulgator of the policy has no role in the ENFORCEMENT of the policy, then you might still be OK. That is why the U.S. Gov't has separate LEGISLATIVE and EXECUTIVE branches. You also need to not have the authors of the policy
71:
I can see a lot of thought went into this proposal, but I am concerned that we are just shifting the burden to the citation system. What mechanism do we use for validating citations? What happens if a citation is declared invalid? If someone makes a change without a valid citation, is their whole
52:
Even if this isn't part of the final deletion proposal, the essence of this is what I believe will make
Knowledge (XXG) shine: not only a comprehensive summary of the subject, but also an extensive set of citations to, not just web sites, but peer-reviewed journals and scholarly articles that could
244:
I realize that nearly all of what I have said above will fly completely over your head. And I realize that you have fixated on me as being the source of all your problems. So, I am going to make your life easier, because unlike you, I *don't* enjoy fighting. I am going to not only withdraw this
123:- If the article is based on one single citation and it is invalid, then the article would be VfD'ed. If the problem is merely with a single assertation (like "Abraham Lincoln died in 1869 from influenza"), then that assertation would be deleted from the article.
217:
So far, I have nominated exactly one article you wrote for VfD. It was the article on
Reproduction you wrote, and it was unanimously agreed to be rambling, POV and completely unencyclopedic with zero citations. On the VfD page, even you admitted the article
139:
Obviously, that would be handled the same way it is now - on a case-by-case basis. Did the change put in a cite for the information, or did it just tidy it up for spelling and grammar? If it's just been tidied up and it still doesn't cite, then it doesn't
129:- Yes. That's entirely the point - if it doesn't cite, it doesn't stay. Do we REALLY want people putting in information into Knowledge (XXG) that they can't cite and might have just made up off the top of their head? If so, then what's the point of
221:
So far, I have flagged one of your articles as being a copyright violation - and that is cited both as to where the text appears on the internet, and you even admit yourself in the article's text that you typed parts of the article from a copyrighted
186:
That means, according to Xaa's proposal, that the article will be vfd'ed and disappear completely. Think about it: By annialiatig the supporting material via some "editing process" and then vfd'ing a page via this policy, Xaa become the new
253:
you to do the same, Mister Morrow - I never changed any of your edits to that article. I was never your enemy, Mister Morrow. My first comment you to regarding the Morgan article was that of approval, not of reproach.
249:
by your personal enemy. Well, I've a news-flash for you, Mister Morrow - I don't want to fight you. I never did. The war is over - YOU WON. I am withdrawing from
Knowledge (XXG). DO WHAT YOU WANT with it.
56:
Unfortunantely, it's effect on VfD is limited at most and should be combined with other methods if possible. The general idea of making citations more important, is, in my humble opinion, a very good idea. —
182:
Feedback: The article is good as it stands, your most recent edits that I have looked at aren't really necessary. This article is done - time to move on to another one. =) Xaa 04:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
163:. All of the supporting material was ripped out. Only the text and the link to EM's bussines-promoting web site remain. Only recently were even her credentials added back in.
195:
not "follow it along" by changing roles from policy-makers and policy-enforcers. Otherwise, hypocrisy MAY be problem. Just THINK, and figure it out for yourself.
38:
I hope this inspires some thought on the issue of where the system is really breaking down. I think that the problems with VfD are a symptom, not the cause. =)
241:
Mister Morrow, I say this with all honesty: Please wake up. Your behavior is totally out of line and is actually hindering what you are trying to accomplish.
166:
The supporting material were links, many to very reliable sources, claiming that they were "too stalkerish". They are all gone now. See
17:
199:
that. In other words, do not worry about who the speaker was: pay attention to the argument, and judge for yourself. --
97:
59:
23:
231:
109:
articles. But, since each article has potentially many citations, the problem is just multiplied!!! --
110:
79:
259:
149:
113:
82:
42:
160:
230:
But, unfortunately, that answer did not meet your satisfaction. So, you began to argue on
130:
188:
191:
of all of
Knowledge (XXG), except those pages dealing with fiction and entertainment.
202:
127:
If someone makes a change without a valid citation, is their whole change reversed?
53:
serve as the basis for some researcher's quest for primary sources a lot easier.
72:
change reversed? What if someone else has changed part of the change already?
179:
does not appear to make the changes, but look what he says about the process:
256:
176:
171:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Elizabeth_Morgan&oldid=20457111
146:
39:
245:
suggestion, I am going to cease participating in
Knowledge (XXG).
137:
What if someone else has changed part of the change already?
159:
There is a problem: Look at the changes recently made to
170:
92:What mechanism do we use for validating citations?
214:I do not run Knowledge (XXG), nor do I want to.
121:What happens if a citation is declared invalid?
104:for a valid citation, but does not define the
8:
210:Mister Morrow, you really need to wake up.
24:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Cite sources/Proposal
201:(Above unsigned comment by banned user
88:To answer each question one at a time:
7:
75:Just some things to think about...
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Citing sources
31:
131:the 'no original research' policy
48:Citations... Absolutely Brilliant
1:
63:01:29, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
260:17:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
150:05:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
114:16:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
83:22:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
43:21:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
275:
67:Shifting the problem?
206:
22:(Redirected from
266:
200:
161:Elizabeth Morgan
62:
60:Ambush Commander
27:
274:
273:
269:
268:
267:
265:
264:
263:
189:J. Edgar Hoover
184:
157:
69:
58:
50:
36:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
272:
270:
228:
227:
223:
219:
215:
208:
205:using a proxy)
181:
174:
173:
156:
153:
144:
143:
142:
141:
134:
124:
118:
117:
116:
111:Daedalus-Prime
100:addresses the
98:The suggestion
80:Daedalus-Prime
68:
65:
49:
46:
35:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
271:
262:
261:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
239:
235:
233:
224:
220:
216:
213:
212:
211:
207:
204:
196:
192:
190:
180:
178:
172:
169:
168:
167:
164:
162:
154:
152:
151:
148:
138:
135:
132:
128:
125:
122:
119:
115:
112:
107:
103:
99:
96:
95:
93:
90:
89:
87:
86:
85:
84:
81:
76:
73:
66:
64:
61:
54:
47:
45:
44:
41:
33:
25:
19:
255:
251:
247:
243:
240:
236:
229:
209:
197:
193:
185:
175:
165:
158:
145:
136:
126:
120:
105:
101:
91:
77:
74:
70:
55:
51:
37:
232:this page
155:Hypocrisy
106:mechanism
34:Reasoning
177:User:Xaa
102:criteria
203:Amorrow
218:stank.
222:work.
140:stay.
16:<
133:? =)
257:Xaa
147:Xaa
40:Xaa
78:--
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.