User:Eschoryii

Retired - Not mad at anyone - people just come and go

I am a user who will be most interested in and follow movies.

I need a break. The insiders are driving me crazy. They say they care but only for their own self interest or rather own position on policy or possession of their area or articles. Not everybody is fair and just using the system of rules and regulations. Some really care like Xeno and Gerda Arendt. Hounded out: Jytdog, CFCF and (Doc James has returned). Add Bbb23. Add Kudpung. Add Flyer22 Frozen. Grizzlies needs film summary but why me? Burnout has arrived. Time to do what? For someone slowing down, I just spent n hour on "Ava".

Rollback

Comments to self

A fact that is true and accurate can not be added to Wikipedia unless reliable and referenced. Truth is not the standard. A doctor who knows a medical scientific fact can not add the information because it is original to him and not published and verifiable. No NOV - no original research.

BE BOLD until your edit is reversed. We don't do it that way. Be bold means don't be afraid to edit, not do something new.

Verifiability not truth is Wiki standard (see Cloverfield talk archive 1 by Erik} Its about what can be verified not what is true. No original research (NOV). Truth is irrelevant on Wikipedia.

User:PiCo has a great user pages reference to Wiki world.

1% of editors write 77% of articles. 90% of editors are white males. Still amazing product.

Epilogue v. postscript

Template:WelcomeMenu

Criticism of Wikipedia

January 25, 2020 was my 10,000th edit. I hate counting yet I note my own count. Counterintuative.

Images

Image request template - {{Image request}}

Outside links

www.imdb.com Internet Movie Database - Template brackets then IMDb title/#
www.ibdb.com Internet Broadway Database
www.netflix.com Netflix - Template brackets then Netflix title|#

Links

Help lists

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth

In black and white - if true then fact should control - editors should delete whatever is false - not wiki standard

Template:Typo help inline

WP:Fram
WP:OPS - Tools

Help

Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy

Help:Menu

Help:Menu/Resources and lists

Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with other editors/Handling incivility and personal attacks

Guidelines for writing biographies

Template:Column-generating template families

Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library

Ping template - :User name: :@Username:: Multi user2? Need colons?

Wiki Philosophy

See:

User:Astrocog

About wiki world

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Wikipedia:Adventure

WP:DOS

Template:Basic information

Wikipedia: Your first article

Wikipedia:Article wizard

Wikipedia tutorial

Add Netflix films to External links - see Wolkenbruch's

Wikipedia:List of discussion templates

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

WP:MEDRS

Wikipedia:Editor Assistance

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Wikipedia:No original research (NOV)

Reliability v Truth and Accuracy:

Wikipedia:Verifiability
WP:Source
WP:RS
WP:RSP - List of Publications

WP:HIDDEN - Hidden text

WP:EC

My edits

Unite the Right rally Spike Lee dedication #175

Block May 2019

VPN blocking
Web hosting service
TonyBallioni advice - "Just turn it off"

Bias

Tolerance

Editorial Intolerance, Lack of Transparency and Accountability - "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit"[edit]

Invited here by Hostbot, thank you. Re: myContribution in the Topic: "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit" (now "suspended" by JFG) Complaint Reposted for your response, please: [I have no intention to engage in any "edit war", JFG. As you must know, I have only just begun to contribute to Wikipedia. This initial experience has been very disappointing. Your editing actions - "unsourced" and "off topic" - are totally baffling, arbitrary and untransparent, especially for a Commons encyclopedia. I have some experience in writing and editing for top-class refereed journals. You (and all the purported unknown editors? who?) now decided to delete the entire "Reactions" section of the "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit" - why? What's left are just fluff and dry stuff. An encyclopedia should contain much more facts-based, credibly-sourced perspectives - just compare with the Encyclopedia Britannica (assuming you and other self-appointed editors, truly with due respects, would accept it as a gold standard). And you threatened in a message to "ban" me? Sounds very China's and DPRK's intolerance of free speech and diverse thinking, eh? Why/what are you so afraid of in the "Reactions" contents? They provided interesting background information to inform Wikipedia users of the complex issues of the Summit. JFG, you could have simply pointed me to the proper formatting of the contributions instead of brushing it off as "unsourced" (which of course it is not but contained multiple sources) or "off topic" (which indicated that the 'editors' did not read and/or understand the contents and embedded links). And your "best way" to consider the NationalInterest and my materials is to censor/delete them off? Seriously, people? Your latest action WILL discourage other contributions who would have richly added to the Topic in the run-up to the Summit. myEndNote - Wikipedia processes are well-written and respected, but I think they are being abused and misused by "humans" who are knowingly or unknowingly arrogant in their self-importance and un-selfconsciousness of their own bias and prejudice. You DO NOT have to censor or delete multiple & credibly-sourced materials - however disagreeable they may be to you and then some. Just trust your readers' intelligence to form their own conclusions - isn't that's why the Commons and Wiki movements are about? written by: DrMikoWise (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC) ]

Please DO NOT throw me your beautifully written policies or "processes"; I have NO ISSUE with them.

I hope to see the "conversations" among the editors who concluded that myContribution was "unsourced" and "off topic", both misconceived and untrue. And why did you accused me of initiating a "edit war" and threatened to "ban" me (like some totalitarian regimes)?

In the 1st instance, myContribution was simply off-format - it should be simply pointed out and guided. And when MULTIPLE sources were properly formatted and introduced, your editor(s?) decided that it was "opinion and conjecture", again without substantiation, and decided to DELETE and CENSOR it altogether with an earlier NationalInterest article. Your editor(s?) now awaits some "Neutral Text" (what this?) so as to restore the unreasonable edits. The ORIGINAL contribution was under the "REACTIONS" heading of the Topic - please explain and elaborate on the oxymoronic "Neutral Reactions".

I hope JFG and other editors involved in this seeming editorial intolerance could kindly educate me, a newbie to Wikipedia but very familiar to well-sourced writings, with SPECIFIC reference to myContribution. Your transparency and accountability are extremely CRITICAL to the integrity of Wikipedia. Thank you.

Whither Editorial Intolerance, Lack of Transparency and Accountability - "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit"? DrMikoWise (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi DrMikoWise. It appears that you've found Talk:2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit and have started a discussion about this topic there. That's really the best place for a discussion about the content of 2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit since that it where those interested in the subject matter are likely going to be found. In addition, when you're WP:BOLD and make changes to an article which are subsequently reverted by someone else, the general thing to do is follow Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and engage in article talk page discussion. Please try and remember that the ultimate goal is to the improve the overall quality of the article, not to try and have the article reflect our own personal viewpoints, etc., and any disagreements among editors as to how to achieve this goal are expected to be resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. So, you're going to have to establish a consensus in favor of making the changes you want to make by showing how the changes comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're not familiar with how article talk pages work, you can find some more information in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Help:Talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, MarchJuly, for the the sensible advisory reminder to one and all. Your fellow editors should also read AGAIN the Wikipedia Guidelines before rushing to judgement and delete the "disputed" content. Acting contrary to your own Wiki-Guidelines, they DID NOT first attempt to edit or improve on the content but simply dismissing it WRONGFULLY as "unsourced" and "off topic". Neither did any of the arrogant self-righteous editors follow the CONSENSUS guideline to "take into account all of the proper concerns raised, (so as) ... to arrive with an absence of objections ...(or) ... settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached". And since "there is (YET) no wide agreement, consensus-building ...(SHOULD)... involve adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal". In accordance with the Guidelines, I had in fact "DISCUSSED" why I made the Contribution and then "REVERTED" the wrongful edits, before being threatened with a "BAN" for daring to start an "EDIT WAR". Such behaviors by your editor(s) are reprehensible and should not be condoned by the rest of us who feel more ordinary and less self-righteous. How indeed can you build CONSENSUS, as advised by the Guidelines, when the purported "offending" content have already been removed so arbitrarily by a few editors before any Consensus decision, thereby preventing others from viewing them (with their multiple sources which also contained other multiple embedded sources!) so as to adjudge publication suitability. Up to this very moment, the editor(s) involved HAVE NOT even bothered to explain and shared their thinking driving their rush to "delete" instead of building the recommended "Consensus" in the Wiki-Guidelines. Do the said Wiki-Guidelines NOT apply to these "editors"? Did they have special EXEMPTIONS from the Wiki-Guidelines because of some superior "editor" status? Their stubborn refusal and failure to explain their actions denies critical accountability in editorial decision-making and constitutes a DANGEROUS and blatant disregard for basic and decent human respect accorded to every Wiki Contributor. Suggest the edits be restored for others to read and to debate further HERE so as to build the needed Consensus ... in accordance with the Wiki-Guidelines.

The proverbial ball is clearly now in the hands of those few editors (JFG /and others) who are guilty of gross editorial negligence by disregarding Wiki-Guidelines and acting prematurely in haste without first the requisite due diligence and mutual consultations.

DrMikoWise (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@DrMikoWise: Firstly, I'd advise you, strongly, to stop WP:SHOUT'ing. It doesn't help convince anyone of your viewpoint, and only gives the impression that you're throwing a tantrum over this (even if that's not your intent).

You seem to have read a lot of pages, but was one of them WP:NPOV? Even reliably sourced opinions are still opinions, and when not clearly the overwhelming overwhelming majority of opinions, especially on political matters, we should not state them as fact. Therefore, your edits were removed entirely – also because of WP:BRD wherein the burden is on you, not them, to develop consensus for your edit. Any editor has the right to challenge an addition by reverting it, and the other editors in your situation have chosen to do so.

See also WP:NOTTABLOID: paraphrases of opinion pieces do not belong here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Jasper, thank you for rushing to advise me. Truly appreciated. No, I am NOT "shouting". Yes, read NPOV. And if my "disputed" Contribution could be read in its entirety, together with all the multiple sources and their corresponding embedded sources, you would also discover that they complied largely and squarely with the NPOV Guidelines governing writing from "a (balanced and) neutral point of view". You will see that the supporting sources "represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on or related to the Topic entitled: "US Holds Key to Korean Peace". The sources which even included admittedly controversial wall street journal (wsj.com) and politifact, among others, also do not point to any particular editorial bias. I also noted that the "editors" has earlier already allowed an article by NationalInterest whose bias is well-known. I am a deep believer in even handed and balanced perspectives, and to allow my intelligent readers to form their own conclusions. While the Title may suggest a particular stand for effect, the arguments contained therein relied on many "reliable published sources" dating as far back as 2014. True, opinions are not facts; and the facts of informed opinion whatever their degree of consensus can only be taken prima facie, nothing more and certainly not to be equated with scientific facts. The "editors" who first concluded my materials erroneously as "unsourced" and "off topic", and then changed their mind to ""opinion and conjecture" did not clearly ground their conclusion in the material facts. They should be held accountable by explaining their decisions referring to SPECIFIC statements and sources which informed their "factual" conclusions. That when their edits were legitimately challenged in accordance with Wiki-Guidelines, they have been unable or unwilling to do so tarnished all Wiki editors, notwithstanding beautifully written guidelines which they apparently did not apply to themselves and adhere to eg Consensus.

Indeed, Jasper, instead of confining to just a few of us, why not just restore the edits - even temporarily - for others Wiki Readers to weight in and debate @ Teahouse?

Why do you and just a couple of editors object to this? WE must and should have faith in the wisdom of the Commons which FACTUALLY provides the soul to the Wiki movement.

DrMikoWise (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Because this is not the place to debate anything, DrMikoWise. Because the way content disputes are handled is outlined in WP:BRD and that is not it. Because the content you added and another editor rightfully removed is still visible in the article's edit history and there is no need to restore it. And stop shouting. John from Idegon (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@DrMikoWise: Clearly you did not actually click my link, so here it is again: WP:SHOUT. Specifically, your overuse of all-capitals and boldened text, as well as not being concise, makes it very hard for others to want to work with you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear John and Jasper, it is not my intention to hurt your sensitivity with CAPs and bolden text. Pls accept myApologies. They are usually use for respectful emphasis, not rudeness. Will use less of them in future here. Have you et al actually read fully my article together with all the sourcing and their embedded sources? Don't be offended by my question. Let me explain. It usually takes me some time to read thoroughly and referee an article fairly and giving it the due consideration; that is, checking and reading the references as well as lookup the sources and sourcing of quotes, in addition to grasping the thrust and logic of the arguments. From the discussions so far on the "disputed" Topic, it does not seem that the primary editors had actually fully read everything before making their erroneous decision to exclude. I sense the other editors are merely "protecting" the primary editors out of commendable collegiality. I can understand that. Correct me if I were mistaken here. There is no need to "protect" them - they are under no threats of harm from anything. In fact, I think they would become better editors if they were encouraged to fully explain their decisions by referring to specific material statements and facts from my "disputed" article and sources which had informed their final decision. I do that with any author whose article has been rejected, without even being asked. That's being professional, respectful and polite. Can we afford to be less than professional and respectful in Wikipedia? The most impolite and disrespectful is to throw the proverbial book at them, quoting verses and chapters of policies, processes and rules. Again, I must reiterate that Wiki policies and processes are beautifully written and I do not have any issue with them. Your editorial transparency and accountability however leave a really sour aftertaste to this newbie to Wikipedia. Thanks for all your good intention and advice.

DrMikoWise (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have responded to this editor's complaints on talk after reviewing their edit and JFG's reversion. That is the proper place for this discussion, though I'm afraid it's not going to get very far if DrMikoWise doesn't calm down and learn how to engage others without all the hyperbole I've been seeing in their comments so far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear MjolnirPants et al, don't worry. I am very cool and calm. I am not the basic problem focus here. The primary editors who arbitrarily decided to edit off my voluntary Contribution is Wikipedia's main problem for refusing to explain their thinking driving the final decision to exclude. That's accountability and editorial transparency, which should be the key cornerstone of Wikipedia should you value integrity in your media. Why is it none of you fellow "editors" getting JFG (and others? involved) to just respond to my query? Their silence is deafening indeed. And your strange brotherly conspiracy of silence simply emboldens and encourages their irresponsible and intolerable editorial misbehavior. Trust me when I say that I have never encountered such a poor editorial standard, notwithstanding beautifully written Wiki policies and processes. Seriously, I am mulling giving up on Wikipedia as a serious and credible "encyclopedia" given my newbie experience with your "editors" who evidently lack a sense of professional accountability and the value of editorial transparency - both key ingredients of familiar highly professional editorial boards deserving to be taken seriously. Clearly, I am engaging with some of you more mature ones who are responding very positively, except those who first created the issues and seem to lack the personal credibility or professional locus standi to engage and rebut my allegations of their editorial incompetence. I am however prepared and willing to accept their remorse and regrets for admitting being wrong in this instance. Know that Silence is a self-defeating guilty option. DrMikoWise (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to examine your argument. I'm going to quote your response here. I will highlight false statements in red, logically unsound arguments in green, unnecessarily emotive language in blue and spurious and irrelevant claims which are not verifiable in yellow.

Dear MjolnirPants et al, don't worry. I am very cool and calm. I am not the basic problem focus here. The primary editors who arbitrarily decided to edit off my voluntary Contribution is Wikipedia's main problem for refusing to explain their thinking driving the final decision to exclude. That's accountability and editorial transparency, which should be the key cornerstone of Wikipedia should you value integrity in your media. Why is it none of you fellow "editors" getting JFG (and others? involved) to just respond to my query? Their silence is deafening indeed. And your strange brotherly conspiracy of silence simply emboldens and encourages their irresponsible and intolerable editorial misbehavior. Trust me when I say that I have never encountered such a poor editorial standard, notwithstanding beautifully written Wiki policies and processes. Seriously, I am mulling giving up on Wikipedia as a serious and credible "encyclopedia" given my newbie experience with your "editors" who evidently lack a sense of professional accountability and the value of editorial transparency - both key ingredients of familiar highly professional editorial boards deserving to be taken seriously. Clearly, I am engaging with some of you more mature ones who are responding very positively, except those who first created the issues and seem to lack the personal credibility or professional locus standi to engage and rebut my allegations of their editorial incompetence. I am however prepared and willing to accept their remorse and regrets for admitting being wrong in this instance. Know that Silence is a self-defeating guilty option.

Once one eliminates all the fluff and -frankly- bullshit from your statement, what we arrive at is something like "I'm upset I got reverted."

Well, I explained why you were reverted at talk. JFG used the thank button to endorse that explanation.

If you come here preaching that WP lacks integrity and professionalism, all the while ignoring the people trying to help you, then I'm afraid it is you who lacks professionalism and integrity, and we will quickly stop trying to help you. So go read my response and talk and try to take my advice. If you can't or won't, then you will need to stop complaining about this before an admin decides you've caused enough disruption and blocks you. I hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear DrMikoWise, Wikipedia is a complex social construct that has remarkably managed to deliver a sensible presentation of over 5 million topics while relying only on the good will of volunteer editors like you and me. Our five pillars and our core policies were not imposed from high on by capricious dictators, but rather painstakingly refined by the same community of volunteer editors over many years and many disputes regarding content or behaviour. Those rules and guidelines are very, very far from arbitrary, and they are actually designed to welcome and embrace contributions from all good-faith editors, old or young, experienced or newbies, rich or poor, academics or amateurs. Your initial contributions did not by themselves cause trouble, but your attitude after your edits were rejected is the main reason why several people are going out of their way to explain how things work here, in an effort to help you come to terms with the Wikipedian ethos. In my own communications with you, the only sin I will confess to was perhaps coming through as biting the newbies due to my use of standard warning templates on your talk page, and for this I do apologise.

However, when several editors revert your content, point out in their own words how it was not appropriate, advise you on policy, try to engage with you in various forums, and still you remain perched on your high horse, accusing people of "gross editorial negligence" and pretending to teach us how to uphold "editorial transparency and accountability", you do come out as daft, and we have a humorous guideline that may help you come to your senses. Finally, while pondering your next reply here or elsewhere, you may wish to meditate on the First Law of Holes. Rest assured that there is no cabal against you.

Now, if you still would like to discuss the merits of inserting some content into a particular article, I and other interested editors will be happy to debate on the relevant talk pages of said articles. While such discussions are ongoing, the disputed content temporarily stays out, because the WP:ONUS is on the initial contributor to convince his/her fellow editors that said content should remain. Only this way can we ensure the best possible experience for our readers. — JFG talk 21:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow does DrMikoWise understand? A lot of effort was made. This question and answer should be saved and refer future editors to read. Opinion and point of view are hard subject for new editors. Eschoryii (talk) 07:24, 16 Fe