User talk:Salmon of Doubt/Archive 1

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Welcome!

Hello Salmon of Doubt, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon Button sig.png in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may


And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! --JWSchmidt 19:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

--JWSchmidt 19:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to the ethics project. Things are different here from Wikipedia. Original research is allowed, there is no three revert rule (this add/delete links thing on the ethics project appears to be their first revert war), and it is inclusive meaning people are supposed to add their learning resources (with evidence) and not delete other people's contributions. Feel free to create whatever new learning resources you think would be useful for someone trying to manage a media or encyclopedia project ethically or improve existing learning resources. Collaborative edits are fine; completely changing the meaning should not be done to another's contributions - instead, create an alternative learning resource rather than do that. Others can read either or both and make up their own mind. WAS 4.250 20:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you refering to a specific edit of mine that you believe "completely chang[es] the meaning" of something? I believe my edits were to clarify a series of case studies that could be considered, at best, confusing. Salmon of Doubt 20:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The above is my current standard welcome message to all new participants who seem new to WikiVersity. I came back to this site to do exactly what you did at http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/Case_Studies&diff=309082&oldid=309079 . Thank you for your contrubutions. Feel free to add as many new or alternative learning resources as you like. Thanks again for participating. WAS 4.250 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Salmon of Knowledge?[edit]

I like your name. Is it, by any chance, from an Irish myth? Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, yes, though I was not aware of it. I got it from the Douglass Adams collection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salmon_of_Doubt

I grew up on all of those stories. I have forgotten them all. :( Maybe a future learning project for me. :) Too much on at the moment but I will try to contact you if I start one. Keep learning. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 18:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: No[edit]

What do you want to communicate with this ? I am not sure if I understand correct ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 23:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The question was "any chance I can convince you guys to stop wasting your time and accept this compromise?" My section was already a "compromise." Moulton's MO is to take concessions and push farther. I am no longer granting concessions. Salmon of Doubt 23:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I am still a little confused (also because of some terms I don't know: e.g. MO) - and it seems you replaced the page with the content of Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia/Case Studies2 ? I thought you were working on bringing your POV on the forked page. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I see here further info: "You told me not to edit other people's "educational resources." I did not do so. They are now editing mine. I will commence editing theirs." ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Moulton is being childish about this so I reverted him here http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/Case_Studies&diff=311277&oldid=311264 but since he will probably just revert that, I would like to request that you move your subsection to a page that you mark as yours. Then if he alters it, there are existing proposed policies that the custodians can use to decide how to act. I do not believe that the template physically protects the page from being edited by others. Thank you for your constructive attempts at resolving this. WAS 4.250 18:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I will not yield control over the main page to him. If he is content to move the page to an alternative title, then he can claim it the way I claimed my page under an alternative title. Salmon of Doubt 21:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could move all specific cases to their own learning resource pages, and the "main" cases studies page will contain only generic data and links to the specific cases studies. They can also be subpages rather than sub-subpages and can also be linked to at the main project page. WAS 4.250 19:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of text[edit]

Could you please communicate your thoughts before removing info, e.g. [1], [2]. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 21:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My explanation for my actions is located at [3]. Salmon of Doubt 21:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Hi, I'm finding your participation in the "Ethical management.." project a little confusing. You seem to want to retain control over the main page, as well as present your own version of events on a separate page. Perhaps if both of you could present differing representations, you could then discuss and argue over those representations? This might add value to this learning project, instead of functioning as an impasse... Cormaggio talk 13:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am contributing to two case studies pages. One case stuidies page I contribute to, the one I'll call the "anon" one, uses no personal names. I am the sole authorized contributor to that page and it is locked. The second one I contribute to, the one I will call the "main" page, is an offensive travisty - it goes out of it's way to insult people. I maintain one section on that page, which explains why Moulton, the main author of that page, is so angry at wikipedia (because it ejected him). There is a third page which I do not contribute to. I consider it to have Moulton as it's sole authorized contributor.
However, I am happy to represent the conflict. I can do so quickly. Moulton, a new editor to Wikipedia with substantial experience in creating conflict in online spaces, attempted to white-wash the biographies of his coworker who is a stealth-Creationist. After getting in numerous conflicts, he was eventually forcefully ejected from Wikipedia. Moulton has not stopped trying to white-wash the biography of his friend. Now Moulton is also attempting to disrupt Wikipedia through this ethics project.
Moulton also has problems communicating. His reliance on cute anecdotes and verbiage that is not clear to the baseline reader diminishes the value of his contributions. His case studies, for example, are very difficult to understand without a full background understanding of the situation.
There, a summary. Salmon of Doubt 12:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC) (edited per request Salmon of Doubt 13:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC))
You rang? Hang on a sec, and I'll craft my lines responding to your above summonses. —Moulton 13:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You are not welcome on this page untill such time as your cease your personal attacks, Moulton. Salmon of Doubt 13:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean to tell me (and this committee) that I am not entitled to respond to your many remarkable summonses on this page? —Moulton 13:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Until such time as you can do so without engaging (and repeatedly readding) in personal attacks, in editing my comments and in impersonating another editor, no, you are not. Salmon of Doubt 13:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
What is your evidence and reasoning to support the above allegations? I would like to cross examine the prosecutorial witness, if I may, and examine and rebut the evidence presented to support the charges against me. Do you object to affording me Due Process? —Moulton 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Until such time as you cease reinserting personal attacks on this page, you are no longer welcome to comment here. Any further coments on this talk page that return the removed personal attacks, edit my above comment or do anything else untoward will be reverted. Salmon of Doubt 14:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Salmon - would you enter into dialogue with Moulton if he apologised for certain comments? Could you at least indicate what comments you take offence to, and explain why? Moulton - maybe you could take a breather from here, and do some work on representing the cases? Cormaggio talk 15:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the cases, Cormaggio, since it presents allegations and recriminations unsupported by evidence, analysis, or reasoning, in a venue where the allegator has declined to offer the alleged miscreant (that would be moi) a fair opportunity to review the charges, examine the proffered evidence, and cross-examine the witness for the persecution prosecution. I'd be curious to see his evidence and reasoning to support his above allegations and recriminations. Wouldn't you? I would like to cross examine the prosecutorial witness, if I may, and examine and rebut any evidence he cares to present in support of the remarkable charges against me. Do you understand his apparent objection to affording me Due Process in the venue where he has published his as-yet-unexamined recriminations? —Moulton 15:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to engage in your cross, counselor, as long as you can do so without personal attacks. Do you have specific questions about your conduct that you would like me to answer? Salmon of Doubt 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out - for the record - that no one has "sole authoris[ation]" to edit any page. Even the Page protection templates are simply a request that people respect your authorship, rather than granting the author any inalienable right over its content. Cormaggio talk 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not require apologies. I require that he stop readding comments I remove from my talk page that due to their pattently offensive nature. Furthermore, I assume that you or other Sysops will block Moulton if he inserts personally identifing information on my carefully maintained page. Salmon of Doubt 15:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You haven't disclosed what specifically offends you. Perhaps you could exhibit a proposed rewrite of the discarded comments to demonstrate the difference between a version that offends you and one that does not. —Moulton 15:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
No. I will delete in toto any comment that contains a personal attack on my page. If you insert personal attacks on my page, your comments will be reverted. I will not help you learn to be civil - you will have to get someone else. Salmon of Doubt 15:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Wikiversity was an Online Learning Community, where everyone helps everyone else learn. Am I mistaken? —Moulton 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Salmon of Doubt 17:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Moulton, while you seek to help others learn by use of "Action Research" (which I find, in your practice of it, indistinguishable from tit-for-tat); Salmon of Doubt seeks to help others to learn through use of acts of punishment. Attacks on him will be met with the punishment of having that edit entirely removed, rather than rewarding you by him taking the effort to rewrite it. I swear, for a Ph.D., you sure are slow. WAS 4.250 21:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
We're not using Action Research in this case, WAS, because that requires cooperation at the level of research. Salmon of Doubt and I are not engaged in research; we are engaged in lunatic drama, which demonstrates a finding from earlier research. We are engaged in this dramatic re-enactment because most observers here are not familiar with the theory. —Moulton 21:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep it within the project, please[edit]

Please use Talk:Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia, rather than the Colloquium to discuss the project. Starting multiple threads here, there, and everywhere might be fun, but we really don't need multiple threads here, there, and everywhere. Anyone interested in that project will naturally be watching the main talk page in any case. --SB_Johnny talk 21:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Both Moulton and Moulton's opponents wish management to stop the other's behavior. WAS 4.250 21:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? Where have I asked anyone to stop my antagonists from behaving in the manner they have elected? Salmon of Doubt is operating at or below Kohlberg Level 4 (having expressly declined to advance to Kohlberg Level 5). The theoretical results presented at AAAI predicts that Kohlberg Level 4 yields lunatic social drama. I'd rather Salmon of Doubt (and his cohorts at Wikipedia) advance to Kohlberg Level 5, but it's their God-given right to operate at whatever level of moral and ethical education they are best able to operate at. The natural and predictable consequences of their election to operate at or below Kohlberg Level 4 are well-established in the peer-reviewed literature. I am indebted to Salmon of Doubt for demonstrating that so ably in the past day or two. —Moulton 22:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)