View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:36 pm




Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Clarice Phelps 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2579
Reply with quote
Ah, sweet Timmy and his faith in the system. You don't half talk some utter shite, you really do.

The impotence of the rules was evident in your own pathetic vote....
Quote:
Keep as meeting GNG, per Levivich. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Eh?

I invite you to explain what you meant, with reference either to the GNG and the sources available, or whatever it is you think Levivich said which serves the same purpose. If you can't, then the charge of you having shit for brains, and the Wikipedia rules governing Afd failing to do their job and not waste everyone's time debating the merits of arguments made by people with shit for brains, stands.

Wade wanted this article to be kept. But creating an air of undeserved intellectual legitimacy to the opposition, and off the back of it even a fake sexism/racism controversy to further her victim narrative, that was a clear second best outcome for her.

If she can't get Phelps included for her achievements, she will try to get her included because Wikipedia was not impressed with her achievements, and who really cares if the reporters she induced to do that were duped into writing utter garbage. It's sick. You're sick.

There are currently three sources in the draft backing up this idea Wikipedia somehow got it wrong, that people like yourself are correct, and you not succeeding is somehow a mistake.

Well, let's examine the credentials of these sources to be saying anything at all about what Wikipedia does or doesn't do......

https://www.fastcompany.com/90339700/a- ... st-problem
Quote:
Anyone can flag a Wikipedia page for any reason. They don’t need to ...... know anything about the content of the page they flag.
Fake news. Easy to fact check basic details like this, so why didn't they? Because it undermines their preconceived reason for writing the piece?
Quote:
So it came as a surprise when, on February 1, Wikipedia moderators bypassed the step of calling to improve Phelps’s page and instead went directly to recommending it for deletion.
Nonsense. Again, easy to verify for an unbiased writer.
Quote:
Although it’s commendable that Wikipedia acknowledges its own biases, the site’s criteria for notability continue to devalue the achievements of people like Clarice Phelps.
Fuck off. As this debate showed, Wikipedia is so desperate to recognise the achievements of "hidden" people like Phelps, it is allowing their employers to be the arbiters of what is considered a significant achievement. Try getting that approved for sports people, or artists, or heaven help us, politicians. Phelps was deemed not worthy even in an environment which has stacked the deck for reasons of supposed media indifference.
Quote:
As far as we know, Phelps was the first African American woman to play such a pivotal role in introducing a new chemical element to the world.
As far as you know? So, even after to spoke to the claimed expert, whose private Tweet to Wade kicked off all this controversy, you're still not prepared to say definitively that Phelps is a trail blazer? But Wikipedia should? Even though there is still no clarity on whether this claim covers all elements, or just superheavy ones.

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-clarice-phelps/
Quote:
a common problem lay in the fact that systematic discrimination against women and, specifically women of color, in the sciences meant her work hadn’t been celebrated in the mainstream press the way that of her white, male counterparts had.
As above, no. The fallout from the Phelps controversy merely reinforced the already widely held view that for assessing the importance of academics, mainstream media coverage is not required. They don't even require independent sources, her employer would be enough. Phelps couldn't clear the bar even in a environment where the bar has been lowered solely for the rather obvious reason that Wikipedia is desperate for campaigners like Wade to write as many women scientist biographies as she can, so Wikipedia can stop being accused of being sexist. It's an unfortunate side effect of this moronic approach has meant that all this has done, is mean more biographies for men can be written.
Quote:
Wikimedia did not immediately respond to the Daily Dot’s request for comment.
Perhaps because Wikimedia have nothing to do with whether Phelps gets a Wikipedia page or not?

https://cen.acs.org/physical-chemistry/ ... eps/97/i18
Quote:
The page had been created because Phelps is possibly the first black woman to help discover a chemical element.
A claim that was quickly deleted because it could not be verified, not even to attribute this idea she may have possibly been first, to a named person with the credentials to be making such a claim. A situation that still exists, because said expert has been deliberately evasive over exactly what he is saying, and has thus far only said it on Twitter.
Quote:
Much to our dismay, Wikipedia has not yet restored her page.
Boo fucking hoo. I still don't have my flying unicorn car.

Absent any new developments of changes in policy, there is nothing that can be added to this draft that will change the outcome of a third attempt to get it published. But Wade has asked anyway. And is ignoring the replies too. What do the rules say about that, Timmy? I seem to recall they say asking the same question repeatedly because you are either too stupid or too stubborn to accept the previous outcomes, is a Bad Thing.

The next battle will be fought when Chapman's book is published. The rules will be ignored then too.


Tue May 21, 2019 7:05 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm
Posts: 52
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
Ah, sweet Timmy and his faith in the system. You don't half talk some utter shite, you really do.

The impotence of the rules was evident in your own pathetic vote....
Quote:
Keep as meeting GNG, per Levivich. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Eh?

I invite you to explain what you meant, with reference either to the GNG and the sources available, or whatever it is you think Levivich said which serves the same purpose. If you can't, then the charge of you having shit for brains, and the Wikipedia rules governing Afd failing to do their job and not waste everyone's time debating the merits of arguments made by people with shit for brains, stands.

Wade wanted this article to be kept. But creating an air of undeserved intellectual legitimacy to the opposition, and off the back of it even a fake sexism/racism controversy to further her victim narrative, that was a clear second best outcome for her.

If she can't get Phelps included for her achievements, she will try to get her included because Wikipedia was not impressed with her achievements, and who really cares if the reporters she induced to do that were duped into writing utter garbage. It's sick. You're sick.

There are currently three sources in the draft backing up this idea Wikipedia somehow got it wrong, that people like yourself are correct, and you not succeeding is somehow a mistake.

Well, let's examine the credentials of these sources to be saying anything at all about what Wikipedia does or doesn't do......

https://www.fastcompany.com/90339700/a- ... st-problem
Quote:
Anyone can flag a Wikipedia page for any reason. They don’t need to ...... know anything about the content of the page they flag.
Fake news. Easy to fact check basic details like this, so why didn't they? Because it undermines their preconceived reason for writing the piece?
Quote:
So it came as a surprise when, on February 1, Wikipedia moderators bypassed the step of calling to improve Phelps’s page and instead went directly to recommending it for deletion.
Nonsense. Again, easy to verify for an unbiased writer.
Quote:
Although it’s commendable that Wikipedia acknowledges its own biases, the site’s criteria for notability continue to devalue the achievements of people like Clarice Phelps.
Fuck off. As this debate showed, Wikipedia is so desperate to recognise the achievements of "hidden" people like Phelps, it is allowing their employers to be the arbiters of what is considered a significant achievement. Try getting that approved for sports people, or artists, or heaven help us, politicians. Phelps was deemed not worthy even in an environment which has stacked the deck for reasons of supposed media indifference.
Quote:
As far as we know, Phelps was the first African American woman to play such a pivotal role in introducing a new chemical element to the world.
As far as you know? So, even after to spoke to the claimed expert, whose private Tweet to Wade kicked off all this controversy, you're still not prepared to say definitively that Phelps is a trail blazer? But Wikipedia should? Even though there is still no clarity on whether this claim covers all elements, or just superheavy ones.

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/wikipedia-clarice-phelps/
Quote:
a common problem lay in the fact that systematic discrimination against women and, specifically women of color, in the sciences meant her work hadn’t been celebrated in the mainstream press the way that of her white, male counterparts had.
As above, no. The fallout from the Phelps controversy merely reinforced the already widely held view that for assessing the importance of academics, mainstream media coverage is not required. They don't even require independent sources, her employer would be enough. Phelps couldn't clear the bar even in a environment where the bar has been lowered solely for the rather obvious reason that Wikipedia is desperate for campaigners like Wade to write as many women scientist biographies as she can, so Wikipedia can stop being accused of being sexist. It's an unfortunate side effect of this moronic approach has meant that all this has done, is mean more biographies for men can be written.
Quote:
Wikimedia did not immediately respond to the Daily Dot’s request for comment.
Perhaps because Wikimedia have nothing to do with whether Phelps gets a Wikipedia page or not?

https://cen.acs.org/physical-chemistry/ ... eps/97/i18
Quote:
The page had been created because Phelps is possibly the first black woman to help discover a chemical element.
A claim that was quickly deleted because it could not be verified, not even to attribute this idea she may have possibly been first, to a named person with the credentials to be making such a claim. A situation that still exists, because said expert has been deliberately evasive over exactly what he is saying, and has thus far only said it on Twitter.
Quote:
Much to our dismay, Wikipedia has not yet restored her page.
Boo fucking hoo. I still don't have my flying unicorn car.

Absent any new developments of changes in policy, there is nothing that can be added to this draft that will change the outcome of a third attempt to get it published. But Wade has asked anyway. And is ignoring the replies too. What do the rules say about that, Timmy? I seem to recall they say asking the same question repeatedly because you are either too stupid or too stubborn to accept the previous outcomes, is a Bad Thing.

The next battle will be fought when Chapman's book is published. The rules will be ignored then too.


I voted Keep in the original (borderline) case, fully accept the deletion and confirmation of deletion under appeal and salting after repeated recreation. And I think any administrator using tools to overturn this outcome rather than writing a new article with new sourcing should lose those tools.

All rules-based. What was the question again?

RfB


Fri May 24, 2019 6:01 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2579
Reply with quote
Carrite wrote:
What was the question again?
"I invite you to explain what you meant, with reference either to the GNG and the sources available, or whatever it is you think Levivich said which serves the same purpose."

You really do need to present a medical certificate if you're going to sit there and pretend you really didn't know......

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 9641#p9641


Fri May 24, 2019 7:44 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2579
Reply with quote
:lol:
Quote:
.......For those who don't follow women-in-STEM circles: the debate surrounding this article and the community's treatment of it did bring the project into disrepute, and the way we handle systemic-bias issues in general will continue to do so.) ........Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
And if anyone in those circles wants to know how hilarious it is for this particular women to be claiming to standing up for what they think matters (read:civility), they can come here and read the truth about her role in the continuing erosion of that Pillar.


Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:58 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1367
Reply with quote
Carrite wrote:
All rules-based. What was the question again?

Um, how about "Tim, why do you still suck"?

"RULES". Ha ha ha ha. Rules are for the "little people", not for Thine Glory Who Kisses Ass On Talkpages.

Plus let me point out the Jess Wade thread. Now a sticky, because hell why not. We have to put up with Tim and Vigilant and so on, might as well make "Jess Wade" a "household name" lol.

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =19&t=1198


Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:02 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2059
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
You really do need to present a medical certificate if you're going to sit there and pretend you really didn't know......

A medical certificate is anyway useful to have, because otherwise you should think yourself you are in the middle of a bad trip. As a anchor for yourself I mean in this digital mental hospital.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:31 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2579
Reply with quote
Hey, look who got to review Kit Chapman's upcoming book!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1472953894
http://archive.is/Ma48W
Quote:
With meticulous attention to detail and careful research, Chapman masterfully captures the excitement, politics and competition of the transuranic elements. Chapman's energy and enthusiasm is evident in every interaction, whether he is uncovering elaborate experimental details or unearthing scientific rivalries. (Jess Wade, Physics Research Associate, Imperial College London)
I have just one question. Is there anything about the way Wade has conducted herself during this entire affair that gives anyone the confidence that she has even read the damn book? Which you would assume was a pre-requisite to writing a review.

As others have debated what the as yet unpublished book says about this claimed but entirely unreferenced and thus unclear first, and how much text does the book devote to Phelps' role/life directly, first or no first, both hugely pertinent questions to the issue of Wikipedia notability, Jess Wade has kept her trap shut. Even though she seems to be one of the few who have even read it.

Indeed, when she tried to use this as yet unpublished book as the reference for the claim of a first, she neglects to even provide a page number. Kind of odd, no? That someone could be so desperate, and yet so careless. Although as you study Wade, you come to realize how slap-dash she really is.

Even odder how she was previously using the book merely to support "part of the team that purified berkelium", and suddenly when she recreated it after it was first deleted, it had also then become the supposed source of this claimed first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =882439564

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =882439564

Was it during this time that Chapman slid into her DMs? Who knows. She certainly doesn't seem to want to tell anyone.

Anyway, just a few more days until we can all know what the book says. Still important to document these strange little loose ends though, should anyone want to write the definitive history of the mooted Wikipedia topic, the Clarice Phelps Wikipedia controversy.


Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:48 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 2579
Reply with quote
Oh man.......
Quote:
After the display of opinionated statements, loaded questioning and oriented procedural anomalies that this process has been, I cannot say that the decision comes as a surprise. It is nevertheless disappointing that the Arbcom, as a body, would not only prove incapable of detecting clear patterns of recent harassment, but would deliberately turn a blind eye to their continuation during the very proceedings. I fear it will discredit the Arbcom in the eyes of actual victims, and further embolden bullies who have nothing to fear from it and can even instrumentalise it as their weapon.

I want to thank User:CyrilleDunant, User:Levivich and User:Fæ, with whom I share the opinions that human beings are people, and that applying rules selectively is merely injustice; as well as User:Jesswade88, who exposed herself to further aggression for my sake. I also want to salute Arbitrator User:Opabinia regalis: it shows courage to clearly express dissenting opinions in such a threatening environment. These are the qualities that, against ignorance and bigotry, will in the end make Wikimedia projects more and more civilised, just and diverse. Rama (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
This guy could not have shown himself to be more clueless if he tried (and with his attempt to use his Admin powers to intervene in this issue, boy did he try).

This is the genius of deceitful political animals like Opabina. In reality, she is the bitch who has done her level best to reduce notions of civility on Wikipedia to the point that it is only really calling a woman a bitch that even moves anyone to push the block button anymore. This idiot sees her do something that costs her nothing, a futile attempt to save his skin for reasons she has never taken the slightest inclination of giving a shit about before now, and suddenly she's the only person on the entire Committee who stands against bigotry and ignorance.

Fucking moron. The guy was clueless from start to finish.


Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:54 pm
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1367
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
This is the genius of deceitful political animals like Opabina. In reality, she is the bitch who has done her level best to reduce notions of civility on Wikipedia to the point that it is only really calling a woman a bitch that even moves anyone to push the block button anymore. This idiot sees her do something that costs her nothing, a futile attempt to save his skin for reasons she has never taken the slightest inclination of giving a shit about before now, and suddenly she's the only person on the entire Committee who stands against bigotry and ignorance.

Fucking moron. The guy was clueless from start to finish.

All that matters now is butt-licking. Any "encyclopedia" is just window dressing for their broken little egos.


Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:56 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.