User talk:Martial Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martial Laws Archives

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User:Martial Law/archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Contents 1 End of the World 2 Administrator's Noticeboard proposal 3 Questions 4 Your network 5 Your interpretation of WP:EL 6 A Barnstar For Martial Law 7 Pointless posts 8 i'm new 9 Military Brat

[edit] End of the World

If what I read is true there is lots of work to do before May 25th Mahogany-wanna chat?(I really hope it isn't true but what cann I do?)

That will also explain where our "space brothers" are!! Mahogany-wanna chat?

[edit] Administrator's Noticeboard proposal

Martial Law, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Martial Law, where I have proposed some limits on your editing. If I recall correctly, you are under a ban from posting on the Administrator's noticeboard, but to be fair and allow you to reply, the ban won't count for posting to that section. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it. How do I get a mentor, more than one ? I've seen the mentorship page. Martial Law 22:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Bunch of Grapes, when I visited you, I get a Godzilla head turning in circles in the Lower right hand corner of my screen. I was going to indicate my compliance to your proposal and to a mentorship protocol when I saw it. I thought my ISP was going out again (may explain the rotten links as well) when I saw it. Instead of two questions, I now have a few. They are as follows: How do I comply with the link ban w/o any further troubles ? My troublesome ISP may be causing the rotten links. I personally checked a link on WP, then checked it recently, and the link went bad. Talk Page Probation: Can you enlighten me on this ? If I find something interesting, how do I place the info. incl. the source(s) ? This may appear to be a bad question: Why is there a spinning Godzilla figure on your pages ? I am really looking for some mentors to assist me. Do you have any other suggestions for me to follow ? I am only seeking knowledge, compliance, thus is why I am asking questions. Martial Law 09:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I shall take you on as a semi-official mentor (whatever that may mean), perhaps along with User:Armedblowfish. You may ask questions on my page (just ignore any spinning graphics, they are only a bit of fun) but let me start out with some ground rules:

1. Do not ask the same questions repeatedly
2. Do not ask about real-world "news" events like hurricanes or other potential disasters and where they should be "reported": they should NOT be reported
3. Do not ask about Coast-to-Coast AM or any other similar talk-radio sources. Any questions on the topic will have the same answer: it is NOT a Reliable Source and cannot be used as a source of information.
4. One of the conditions of my mentorship is that you are restricted from adding any external links to articles without running them by me first. Moreover, if you run the same class of unreliable self-published web "sources" by me over and over, I will swiftly lose patience. We only take newspapers, books, journals, and other similar non-self-published sources. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
5. I will deal with nonproductive talk-page edits as they come. Remember above all else: the talk page is there to help improve the article, nothing more. Similarly with Wikiproject pages, they are there to help improve a class of articles, NOT for general discussion.

Please read the list above very carefully and ask me if there is anything you do not understand about it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your network

You said that you think your network might be causing the "malformed links". I'm pretty sure the complaints were about the quality of links, not about dead links. Anyways, while it is theoretically possible that bits are changing from ones to zeros, or vice versa, corrupting the data, I think it is more likely that it is not the links themselves that are broken, but rather your network connection to the server hosting the link. In other words, you might have trouble accessing the links at times, but it might be working fine for almost everyone else.

Anyways, I'm sorry you have to deal with a bad internet connection. However, I don't think that is related to the complaints about the external links you have added.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your interpretation of WP:EL

Okay, question for you - what is your interpretation of Wikipedia:External links? What parts do you think are most important? What do you think is the overall spirit of the guideline? You might consider looking at the talk page to see how the consensus for this guideline was formed. No hurry on answering this - a thoughtful response would be most appreciated. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The following (in italic) was copied from my talk page:

From what I have seen about WP:EL, these are to assist the reader in the search for more info. referenced in a article. Can you please enlighten me if I'm incorrect ? I have noticed on the WP:RS page that there is a debate of some kind going on. Will that affect me, others ? Martial Law 22:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess the first important distiction is between references and external links. References, which are required by WP:VERIFY, are the sources one uses when writing an article, or to verify statements already made in the article. WP:RS discusses what should be considered trustworthy, and which ones should not be, and thus should not be used. Sources are most often placed in the "References" section of an article, although other variations include "Notes", "Sources", "Citations", and "Works cited". (Sometimes, they may also be placed inline, without any listing at the end.)

External links, on the other hand, are a form of "Further reading", although by far the most common type. (By this, I don't mean in the technical sense of a link that points to another site, but rather the links that should go in either the "External links" or "Further reading" section of the article.) External links are not used as sources for writing or for verifying the article. Instead, they are links which, although not used as sources, are considered useful for the reader to find further information. In practice, editors may add something to the external links section when they think it might be a useful source, but are either unsure of its reliability, or do not have time for fact-checking.

This misunderstanding is very common. However, last I checked, the distiction between sources and external links/further reading was undisputed on the talk pages WT:RS and WT:EL. (The exception to this is convenience links, which are an issue of their own, but you probably don't have to worry about that.)

As for the debate on WT:RS right now, I haven't been following closely, but I think people mostly disagree on the details of WP:RS, not the overall idea. Not agreeing that well on the details, the dispute is basically over how official the page should be (policy / guideline / essay), and how much it needs to be rewritten (fine as is / somewhat / a lot / start over).

Anyways, I hope that helps. If all of that sounds good, would you like to continue to discuss the quality expectations set out by WP:RS and WP:EL? Or do you have more questions about the above?

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The following (in italic) was copied from my talk page, and indentation was modified:

U asked about the discussion about WP:EL and WP:RS. Can we continue the discussion ? By the way, how am I doing ? I have a feeling that I'm a model to be followed ? Hope so. Can I suggest that these discussions be linked to my toolbox for future reference ? Martial Law 17:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Reason I asked is that our Archive devices will bury it at some point. I'm just looking for a way to access it instantly. Martial Law 17:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about adding it to the toolbox on the left of the page, but it would be quite easy to link to this discussion from your userpage. Before it is archived, you can simply link to User talk:Martial Law#Your_interpretation_of_WP:EL. Afterwards, it will be at User:Martial Law/archive 1#Your_interpretation_of_WP:EL. Alternatively, you could manually (copy-paste) archive it to it's own subpage/archive, e.g. User talk:Martial law/Interpretation of WP:EL or User talk:Martial law/Mentorship archive, which you could link to / watchlist. By the way, I have your talk page watchlisted, so feel free to relpy here.

As for how you are doing, you have been very cooperative, and I thank you for that. I encourage you to tell me, in your own words, about your current interpretation of the guidelines we are discussing though. This will help me understand where you are coming from, and what we should talk about more. Perhaps the process of writing will help you, too. Don't be afraid to be wrong.

So, as I said above, there is a difference between sources and further reading. Perhaps we should talk about WP:VERIFY (WP:V) and WP:RS first. The key idea of WP:V is verifiability, not truth. This means that when adding information to articles, it is not our place to judge what the truth is, but to simply say in our own words what other people say is the truth, citing them. This leads to the question of who/what we can cite, which is should cite WP:RS is about. If some random Joe Shmoe says that the sky is falling, we aren't going to say that the sky is falling, because we don't trust random Joe Shmoes. We aren't even going to say "According to Joe Shmoe, the sky is falling" because Joe Shmoe's opinion doesn't matter, and including it would be giving Joe Shmoe's opinion undue weight.

This is not to say that how extraordinary a claim something is has nothing to do with how reliable a source we need, Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. However, even if Joe Shmoe were saying something broadly accepted like, "People need to breathe air to survive", we would still be able to find far better sources to back up this claim.

What to look for, then? Good sources should preferably go through some sort of peer-reviewed fact-checking process. For example, the New York Times checks facts against multiple sources before publishing it. We prefer sources from expert authors, writing within their area of expertise. For example, if Professor X has a degree in linguistics, we might accept Professor X's statements on the evolution of the English language, but not Professor X's statements on nuclear weapons.

Sometimes, expert sources will all agree on a statement. In this case, we will consider the statement to be a fact, for the purpose of Wikipedia. Other times, they may not agree, in which case we will consider the statements to be opinions, and WP:NPOV becomes relevant.

The above mostly covers extreme cases - obviously, there is a wide range of possible sources that fall between Joe Shmoe's personal opinion which he put on a blog, and carefully peer-reviewed papers written by accepted experts with degrees. However, I hope I have improved your understanding of WP:RS somewhat. Please let me know about your present understanding of WP:RS.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Really do understand some of it now. When I go after a source, I look for the primary sources listed in the source. Example: BFRO, which is Loren Coleman's site reports a Bigfoot in Fouke
, I look for the sorce of the report, thus I find it was the Texarkana Gazette AND the Arkansas Democrat/Gazette, and if possible, even locate the witness himself/herself. Of course, due to WP:OR, I can't use the witness himself/herself as a source. Martial Law 18:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right - the sources listed by a source are one of the relevant factors to it's own reliability. However, it's not the only one - I'm going to suggest reading Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/rewrite, which is part of the WP:RS dispute we talked about earlier. It's completely unofficial, and to be honest I'm heavily involved with it, but it is short and sweet, at least right now. You might also want to read WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it, which clarifies that, when using an intermediate source, the credibility of your statement rests on the intermediate source, not the original source. (For example, even if blogger Joe Shmoe does cite the New York Times, we probably don't trust Joe Shmoe to accurately tell us what is in the New York Times. However, we probably do trust the Amazon Online Reader to tell us what is in a book.)

As for primary sources - yes, locating the Texarkana Gazette and the Arkansas Democrat / Gazette would probably be a good idea. (Although I don't know what sort of editorial review processes those gazettes have.) As for the witness him/herself, I'm not sure if you are talking about private communications with that witness, or reading something the witness self-published. Private communications definitely would not be citable, per WP:OR, but something the witness self-published might be debatable. If a witness did self-publish something, under what conditions, if any, do you think it should be acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia?

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The following (in italics) was copied from the below section and indentation was modified:

Would'nt that (see above this subject line(Re.:Your Interpretation of WP:EL)) violate WP:OR ?. MY ISP is now unstable. Martial Law 05:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR means that Wikipedia editors may not use Wikipedia as the first place to publish their own ideas. Instead, a source considered to be reliable should publish it first. So, if a reliable source has original research, it would be a primary source, but using it would not necessarily be original research. That said, coming up with new ideas based on primary sources is original research. Since this may be easy to do, there are some editors who think that primary sources should be avoided altogether, but I believe they are a minority. Does this make sense? Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 14:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Barnstar For Martial Law

Can this be moved to my Userpage ? Martial Law 04:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Would'nt that (see above this subject line(Re.:Your Interpretation of WP:EL)) violate WP:OR ?. MY ISP is now unstable. Martial Law 05:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, by the way, thanks for the award. Really do appreciate it. Martial Law 05:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved it for you :-)Jeffpw 11:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless posts

Hi ML,

Posts like this one, where you ask about glitches Wikipedia might (or might not) be having, are really pointless and you should avoid them. If Wikipedia has a real problem, many, many people will notice it, including people with the technical knowledge to actually do something about it. If it turns out to simply be a problem on your end, you shouldn't announce that to the world either. Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for your information (to Martial Law), the problem was probably somewhere between your computer and a DNS server. The DNS server is what tells your computer en.wikipedia.org's IP address, so that your computer will know where to send a page request. Sometimes clearing you browser's cache can help, if your computer is not resending the DNS request when you try to refresh the page. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Will comply. Martial Law 04:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i'm new

being new to wikipedia, i don't understand some of the terms used in ur user article 1.what's "wikipedia's nuclear option?" 2.what's a "wikipedia warrior"?

Thanks!--67.8.205.97 00:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

1. You get BANNED for comitting a unforgivable offense here, such as grossly insulting another user, especially if the user is a Admin. 2. One who likes to hunt vandals and the like, helping to keep WP clean. Martial Law 21:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Brat

Greetings, I would love for you to take a look at military brat and let me know what you think of it... I've been working on it heavily for the past 2 weeks or so to make it a more worthy article... but I need an independent source that's interested in the subject to look at it... and you seem to fit the bill.Balloonman 10:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Just did. Excellent. As for Armedblowfish, it does make sense. Martial Law 22:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Be advised that some "brats" do go bad, most do NOT "go bad". 1/2 even join the military, other govt. services, law enforcement. Martial Law 23:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)