User talk:Tjtrower

Allison family

I've opened a discussion of your "private papers" section added to Allison family at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please feel free to join the conversation there. Bad Gopher Gear (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, be still, my beating heart. Tjtrower (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Original research

You should probably read our policy regarding original research and the use of primary sources; it may help clarify our stance and why we don't allow original research or heavy reliance on primary sources.

It would also help if you would stop being overly-aggressive and mocking of other editors who are trying to help you and understand how we operate here. You may not like their advice or the practices upon which their advice is based but it's absolutely unacceptable to personally attack or ridicule other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is your example what is being taught in academia these days? That a online source SHOULD be wrong and unreliable? At the very least, I applaud you for identifying who you are, but I fear for your future students if you tout a policy of secondary sources. You of all people should be ashamed. Tjtrower (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia written largely by unidentified people who are largely amateurs, not a journal or book written by experts. We simply cannot rely on our editors to responsibly and accurately conduct original research and we must rely on the published work that is available that others can verify. Original research is invaluable and it's what I do for a living; this simply isn't the appropriate venue for it. ElKevbo (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, how very priceless. Quotes from the lot of you are going to be used in an op-ed piece that is currently under development and being written. I know that this doesn't phase you, and I don't really care. But right is right, and wrong is wrong, and the emperor has no clothes. You state that you cannot rely on the editors, so you rely on any published work -- good or bad. Tell me -- if I use the book "A Treasury of Titanic Tales" by Garrison, will this book suffice as a source under the rules of Wikipedia? Serious question. Give it some thought. Let me know. Tjtrower (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Garrison's book is reputed to contain a number of "rookie mistakes". Nonetheless, it meets Wikipedia's qualifications for a reliable secondary source. Of course, it would be better to cite a secondary source that is actually, you know, correct. But you'll forgive us if we don't take your word for the existence of primary sources no one else is able to examine. Such examination (and then publishing) is what the secondary sources are for, and when you have some, we will welcome your information into Wikipedia. Bad Gopher Gear (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, that sums up Wikipedia, doesn't it. "Rookie mistakes"? You are out of your mind to call them "rookie mistakes" when the book contains some of the most egregious errors known in the Titanic world. And yet you would accept it as a secondary source? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Tjtrower (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What you have summed up and demonstrated rather pointedly is why Wikipedia has such a myriad of rules and policies, some of them on the surface quite boneheaded. It is because of editors like you, who come here with a grudge, a strongly held point of view, secret evidence that no one else has seen, or a willful intent to distort or propagandize. These are the origins of all those rules and policies, because, after all, this is the Internet, and you could be anyone at all. You may be one and the same as Ms. Debrina, who claims descent from the Allisons, or you may be some unrelated fabulist. Without contravening Wikipedia's rules, I can say that you appear to be a Titanic history buff, but not one who has published anything on the subject through a reputable publisher. You are active on Titanic websites, and while that may make you better informed than many here on the topic, it does not constitute sufficient standing to violate Wikipedia's rules, despite your rudeness and protests. Bad Gopher Gear (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you, or are you not, related to the Allison family. Mind you, you'll have to come out from behind the cloak of Internet mystery that envelopes your cryptic name, other wise I'll have no way of confirming or denying what you claim. As you say, this is the Internet, and although I am known, and proud of it, you apparently are not. By your own admission, although the book "Titanic Tales" is badly flawed, it would still stand as a resource for your own submissions. I, on the other hand, have to have and do have verifiable source material to work with. That makes me the professional, and you the hack. Not an insult, but the truth. Sorry that it hurts. Tjtrower (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am completely unrelated to anyone involved in any way with the Titanic, and completely uninvolved with Titanic history-buffing. You have my word, and that is all you're going to get. Bad Gopher Gear (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Your word isn't enough. You could be a convicted felon, a child rapist, a blind muslim cleric -- you are hiding your identity, and so nothing you claim can be proven. I AM who I say I am, and that is not in dispute. Meanwhile, the click of editors who play a god on this site have blocked me from editing content -- apparently, they (and you) cannot stand to be challenged with fact and instead prefer to hide behind rules and guidelines that have, justifiably, made Wikipedia a laughingstock in the world of academia and serious research. This was proven to me in a way that I will never forget, and will never let the world forget. Tjtrower (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Are you, by your silence, admitting that you are one or more of the heinous creatures that I've listed? Based on the actions of Bad Gopher Gear, I can only make the assumption that this user cannot answer my question as to whether or not he or she is descended from a branch of the Allison family because he or she is, and is attempting to stifle discussion. Tjtrower (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Final warning

Please revert your latest inclusion of this information in the article [1] before you are blocked for edit warring. You have been repeatedly advised that the material is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Who, and what, are you? The Warring, as you call it, was begun by others and intensified by Bad Gopher Gear. If the inconvient truth is that no one has ever said that the king is naked, then I, as an editor of long-standing, am to be singled out for saying just that? I'll put it to you like this: the Thomas Andrews diary was destroyed in a fire in 1942, meaning that the basis for the claim of Helen Kramer is based on, get this, what can only now be considered a secondary source. And as such, by your own rules, it must stand. I invite further comment. Tjtrower (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the practice is Bold, Revert, Discuss, not keep on reverting all removals. You appear to have no support either from WP:RS/N or from other editors generally for this inclusion at the moment, it has been removed from the article several times by different people, and you are edit warring. I am asking you to revert your last edit at this time, as a courtesy while discussion concludes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I am now at work. Tjtrower (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That being the case, I have removed the material for you. Please do not restore until such time as there is consensus to include it in the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

whether you are who you say you are (and what you do) cannot be verified. You could be a fifteen year old girl out of school or a thirty-five year old man, sitting inm his mom's basement -- I don't know. However, don't play God with material that I have touched. You say it must be a secondary source? It is. You say it must be verified by a second party? I have done so. I HAVE SPOKEN. Tjtrower (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, insulting other editors is seldom wise, and nearly always a sign of someone having lost the argument on policy. Wikipedia is not a place to publish research. It is a place to summarise published research. Now BruceGrubb has been yelling and screaming (he does that unfortunately)that the Smithsonian channel did a documentary on this subject. Did they? If they did, there will be a record. It would be quite acceptable to link to the Smithsonian channel website to source the information. However, the way the piece is written is entirely unsuitable for an encyclopaedia, and I am a little surprised that you are reinserting something that sounds like the script from the documentary. A summary paragraph or two, sourced to a published source, would completely fulfil the various Wikipedia requirements and be an excellent addition to the article. Can you do it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Insulting editors? Question for you. Have you actually looked at the citation in the 2012 section that you pulled down, and followed it to its source? Please do so, and then maybe you'll understand my scorn for the Pharisees and Sadducees on this board. Tjtrower (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Personal attacks? Oh, I get it -- pointing out your flaws, and the flaws of Wikipedia, makes me an enemy. You have no idea. Tjtrower (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You're not an enemy, you just don't understand Wikipedia's rules--which I will freely admit, are pretty weird, especially if you come from an academic background. If you think Wikipedia has flaws, that's fine, in fact. You can even work to change them. WP:OR is pretty long standing policy (first written in 2003, started to take shape in 2004), but you can always try to find a consensus for a new policy, or even to outright remove this one; the place to start is WT:OR. Mind you, I don't think it's a flaw, it's just something "different". For example, it's not a "flaw" that academic research is generally only considered legitimate if it's peer reviewed. It's just the way academic literature works. The way Wikipedia works is that we only report on what other, reliable sources have already said. You seem like an expert, like someone very good at historical research, with experience in the field. You may want to consider putting your novel findings into a research paper, or a book. If those findings are published in a reliable source, and that source is itself further cited in the field, then it will be appropriate to put the info into WP. But Wikipedia just isn't a first level publisher.

So, after your block, please, keep contributing. Just make sure that you only contribute things that are based on reliable, secondary sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between a Primary Source Document and a Secondary Source? How that the one is fact, and the second is interpretation? The curiousness of the attack on Debrina Woods claim to be descended from one who the Titanic community is certain died on the Titanic should put me firmly on the side that keeps trashing her contribution to Wikipedia -- but I, as a responsible and knowledgeable historian also know that personal prejudice cannot get in the way of the truth. And so, the Wikipedia community has ganged up on a 2012 update to the Allison story in a way that makes me question the motives of those hell-bent to ensure that this part of the story isn't heard by the general public.

And blocking me is only ensuring that the sworn enemies of the Debrina Woods entry have been able to censor the historical record. Accusing me of vandalism and attacking me personally over rules and guidelines that are farcical at best and a joke at worst make the lot of you look like petty idiots. It is no wonder that Wikipedia is roundly condemned, but the current crop of editors in charge are so close to the forest that they cannot see the trees. Tjtrower (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Golly. Your silence speaks volumes. Tjtrower (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Allison family. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Do not engage in long-term edit warring over the same content in the same article. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, Binksternet, would you mind pointing out to me even ONE edit that I have made on the Allison page, let alone any other page save for talk, since my banning was lifted? Maybe I missed something; perhaps I was sleep-editing; or perhaps you are posting canned boilerplate because you, too, can't deal with a logical argument. Tjtrower (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That is correct, you have not made a warring-type edit since your block expired. I placed the above warning on your talk page to prevent another block, in case you were considering making the same disputed change to Allison family. It's clear that you are intelligent and can contribute value here. Before you can progress on Wikipedia, however, you must disabuse yourself of the notion that this is a publishing platform for previously unpublished facts. By deep-seated policy, it is not. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Before Wikipedia can amount to anything, it must first disabuse itself of the notion that second-rate sources equal a first-rate resource. In any class I've ever participated in during my continuing education, the use of Wikipedia constitutes grounds for an immediate failing grade. And this is a policy that I agree with, support, and should I become the teacher, will perpetrate into infinity. Tjtrower (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Explain, then, your sustained effort to edit Wikipedia articles. Basically, I don't believe you think so little of Wikipedia, else you would be gone.

I've heard a respected high school journalism teacher speak to a crowd of educators about how to use Wikipedia as a tool for students to learn the difference between various versions of events, to encourage healthy skepticism and a thirst for more research. I know of college classes that require a certain amount of Wikipedia editing. Here are some published papers on the topic: "Wikipedia in Psychology Classroom", "From Wikipedia to the classroom: exploring online publication and learning", "Wiki as a teaching tool", "Wikis and Wikipedia as a teaching tool", "Uses and Potentials of Wikis in the Classroom", "High school research and critical literacy: Social studies with and despite Wikipedia", "Constructing text: Wiki as a toolkit for (collaborative?) learning", "Writing, citing, and participatory media: wikis as learning environments in the high school classroom", "Sleeping with the enemy: Wikipedia in the college classroom", "A wiki for classroom writing", "Surviving Wikipedia: Improving student search habits through information literacy and teacher collaboration", "From Wikipedia to the humble classroom Wiki: why we should pay attention to Wikis", "Writing wikipedia pages in the constructivist classroom" and "Beyond Wikipedia". Your personal experience is not universal. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for reference, my "silence", only 2 days worth, speaks volumes only about my real, off-wiki life (i.e., an illness keeping me from editing). I don't know anything about Debrina Woods, or, really, anything about the Titanic at all. What I do know about is academic research, the slippery nature of "fact", and Wikipedia policies. So-called "facts" are always interpretation--built into Wikipedia's policies is the realization that, except for some very very basic things, understanding what a primary source means is always a matter of interpretation. That's why we rely on secondary sources. That's also what makes us different from academic journals and scholarly presses. As I said, if you are certain of your analysis, then you should seek a proper outlet for your work such as an academic journal article. One thing that WP:OR points out is that Wikipedia is not a place for first publishing of any given result. It's a place for re-reporting what someone else (reliable) has already said. Really, this is no different than any other encyclopedia; traditional encyclopedia authors don't do front-line research, they just summarize the best historical thinking available at the moment. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

And I could, if I so chose, to find any number of articles dealing with why those authors find adult/child sex proper, good, and even healthy. Just because, however, those articles are out there doesn't make their reprehensible and morally repugnant positions correct. That you chose to cherry-pick pro-Wikipedia articles impresses me not at all -- just because you have adopted the position that facts are not important does not mean that the rest of the reputable world will follow suit.

As to the second writer who admits to knowing nothing about the Titanic, then you have no standing in this discussion. Tjtrower (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you just equate the propositions "considering Wikipedia to be a valuable resource and teaching tool" to "considering adult/child sexual relationships acceptable"? Really? No, no, I mean, really? Because now we've passed beyond a blatant refusal to understand WP's most basic principles into sheer comedy. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You are the one drawing the comparison; if the lot of you wish to justify the so-called rules of Wikipedia by citing one-sided articles defending its use in an academic setting, I merely point out that the child/sex advocates do the same with articles supporting their perversion. They are wrong, dead wrong, as are the Wikipedia advocates who support the use of second-rate secondary sources even as they dismiss original source documents. Tjtrower (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on WP:RS/N. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

By George, I think I've nailed the problem. Someone comes along and interrupts the parade by pointing out that the king has no clothes, and that someone is attacked, threatened, and subjected to ridicule. Could it be -- might it be possible -- that I am right, and that you are part of a cabal that is dead wrong when it comes to the use of primary source material? The fact that you all feel so threatened as to spend an inordinate amount of time defending the indefensible tells me that you know you are wrong, but d----d if you would ever admit it.

The lot of you have made it clear that my contributions are not welcome, and yet you continue to try and to rehabilitate me; you, who state that the United States Constitution, as a primary source, cannot be used in a section dealing with that document? You, who state that flawed works by Webb Garrison fit the bill as a secondary source and as such can be used?

Pardon me while I vomit.Tjtrower (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely, but...

I thought I would drop by and try and help you understand why you seem to be on the wrong side of the discussion, namely that you don't seem to grasp the difference between Wikipedia and a university, or scholarly work, and there is a huge difference. However, it seems from reading your page, that you aren't really interested in learning why you seem to be having a hard time here, you seem much more interested in telling everyone else why WP is wrong, or why they're wrong, or just insulting them. If I've misread your intent, and you would actually like to discuss policy (without rants and tirades towards the perceived Pharisees and Sadducees [or towards me]), please leave a note here. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 19:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I really do pity you. Tjtrower (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks

I have recently noticed that you are inserting original research. Wikipedia users have no access to anything about these papers. Therefore, what you claim that comes from the papers is unverifiable. Wikipedia is not the academia.

As a result, you inappropriately inserted personal attacks right on this page! Please be civil. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom). (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)