User talk:Tennispompom

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Tennispompom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tennispompom and welcome again. Just a point for consideration. Wikipedia is full of nice and helpful editors who are happy to collaborate.

Sadly there are also many aggressive editors, who will do everything that is allowed to have their point of view reflected. Some articles are highly contended and currently MH17 is one of those. Much of the effort on that page goes to bickering, and finding ways of blockong input (objecting, voting against, reverting) from others instead of the much needed improvements. Regarding MH17, I was heavily involved at first, but with the evermore aggressive tone I have now largely pulled out of that article.

If you consider to become a regular editor it may be more gratifying to start with a less sensitive topic; to avoid being confronted with the sometimes harsh mores that go on at the more sensitive ones. Up to you of course, but at least know that not all articles are as complicated to improve as that one. In any case, have fun. Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arnoutf and thanks for your warm welcome! I haven't yet worked out how to send a message or reply to one, so I that hope that you get to read this "Edit"!

Thanks also for the "break" tip, which appears to generate a new paragraph, all very useful.

Please don't be so defeatist re attitudes of some editors, I hope they are in the minority! Wikipedia is a brilliant idea and my first point of call on many topics, so I was aghast at the low level of editing on this article. However, I've not had that much exposure to items with a political dimension, so I was gobsmacked to see the lack of neutrality and - dare I say - civility on the Talk pages. At first I was amused, then I got hooked (you must admit that drama makes for good reading), and finally I thought it had gone too far and it was time to say something!

I hope that you think Wikipedia is worth fighting for. If good editors give up, Wikipedia will become no more than a propaganda tool and irrelevant, and I will go back to commenting on tennis. Nice meeting you.

Tennispompom (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the nasty editors are a small minority. But they tend to flock to the politically sensitive articles, so they are overrepresented there. Right now there are just too many editors who have a specific point to make, who spend too much time on MH17 to achieve much.

You can post on other users talk pages - a wikilink to talk pages is visible in the signature; and from the history listing of articles. If you use the new section tab you will create a new section at the bottom automatically.

Thanks Arnoutf. Looks like I found the right battleground. I'm off sick at the moment, due to go back to work mid week, so let's see what I can do in the next couple of days. Not much, I suspect.

How do I find out who is currently allowed to edit the article? Is there a list somewhere? The talk page is confusing, apparently anyone can edit but not really because it is protected.

Also, is there a process to deal with disputes, e.g. intransigence, rudeness, etc.?

Tennispompom (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A warm welcome from me, too! That was an extremely well written intervention.

Several editors have tried to do something about the absurdly biased nature of the article but finally given up and left, two of them after having administrative actions being launched against them (which failed, but had an intimidating effect nevertheless).

The MH17 article is currently semi-protected. That means only registered users (but not "IPs") can edit it. So you can edit it.

As for dispute resolution processes, see WP:mediation and WP:arbitration. – Herzen (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Herzen! I'll spend tomorrow on reading the guidelines and learning the accronyms, feels like a whole different world. I hate to admit it, but it's true I have a tendency to try and fix things, e.g. straighten pictures on walls. It all comes from my background in science, auditing and programming - too cautious, detailed and pedantic by far. I'll try not to bore everyone to tears in the next couple of days. I've been thinking, perhaps my contribition could be to restructuring the article headings, a framework on which to hang the pieces of information - what do you think? Too much of a bite for a beginner? Of course I would propose it first - I have no intention of editing a single word of the article until I know what I'm doing. Alternatively, I could pick on small items to try and improve. Do pls let me know what you would suggest. Tennispompom (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your intervention shows that you write well, which indicates that you would make a good editor, so your being only newly active at Wikipedia is irrelevant. You have put more thought into how to go about fixing the article than I have. I have only tried making piecemeal changes. I don't know if I have ever read the article all the way through. If you really intend to revise the article significantly, I will look at it more closely in order to be able to give you feedback.

The main thing one needs to learn as a WP editor is how the rules work. The pro-Kiev junta editors are very expert at gaming the rules in order to establish extreme pro-junta bias in all the articles. The bias is present in all the Ukraine related articles, not just MH17. The problem is that, as has been noted in a non-MH17 talk page, there is an information war going on between the West and Russia. (I say "the West", as opposed to "the US", because since. about 2000, European media have lost their earlier tendency to be somewhat left-of-center and critical of Western governments, so that the line they now take on various issues is virtually indistinguishable from that of the US press.) This means that "reliable sources" will be biased towards the fascist Kiev regime. Virtually the only place you can find criticism of the Kiev regime is in alternative Western sources ("newsblogs" in wikispeak, "unreliable" by definition) and in the Russian media. This is why editors constantly ridicule Russian media as unreliable. This central WP rule that articles must be based on "reliable sources" is gamed to produce anti-Russian bias. An example of how this works. At one point, I noted that the February 2014 overthrow of the government in Kiev was a coup, not a democratic revolution, as WP presents it, and I offered an article by the eminent John Mearsheimer in the top American foreign policy journal in support of that. But that got me nowhere, because although Mearsheimer is an undisputed expert, he is a primary source, whereas WP is based on secondary sources, and Western secondary sources studiously avoid calling the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Kiev by an armed mob a coup.

A little piece of advice: if you are going to seriously start editing, I suggest that you put something into our user page. Otherwise, your user name shows up in red in edit hitories, and editors whose names show up in red are considered to be dilettantes by hard core wikipedians. You can look at various users' user pages to get ideas for what to put in your user page. (Just click on "edit" on their page without ever committing an edit to see the page's code.) Also, you might have a look at WP:userboxes.

I have never left such a long comment on a user's Talk page before, btw. – Herzen (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for really good tips Herzen, I'll look into the User page update, but first I'll think about the effort. I happen to have some free time at the moment (chest infection alas) but this could be far more time-consuming especially if every point turns into an unpleasant battle. The Maidan episode does have the hallmarks of a coup, but on the other hand my reading - perhaps completely wrong - is that there are a great many more parties in Ukraine than the simple "facist" vs "pro-Russian" divide. Even the labels are discriminatory. If I do anything, it will be to try to weed out bias, irrespective of whether it is anti-Russian or anti-Ukranian, or anti-anything else. That of course is subjective in itself - and it depends on my own perceptions of what bias / impartiality actually are. However, that's the best that any person can do, the alternative is to abandon self-belief and just accept what others say. But a good constructive review always helps, so your offer of review and feedback is most gratefully received.

You raise a crucial point on "reliable sources", and I'd just like to explore it. Is there a list of "unreliable sources", does it become established by precedent? Is Wikipedia inherently biased by being rigged to exclude all sources from a particular country? Taking the obvious example, is Russia Today identified as an "unreliable source" on all topics, or only on those where there is an information dispute arising from conflicting interests? A Chinese mainsteam paper might be a better example - is a Chinese mainstream newspaper by definition considered "unreliable", or only on certain topics, e.g. the recent Hong Kong protests? If the exclusion is total, then Wikipedia must be inherently racist and the different language versions must be irreconcilably contradictory. It would be useful to know before I invest too much effort - I do enjoy a good challenge, but not an impossible one.

I appreciate the point you made about primary and secondary sources. I've just been reading up the Wikipedia guidelines, and it doesn't seem to ban Opinions as long as properly referenced. In fact, there seem to be two very good rules: "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Avoid stating facts as opinions" which open up a world of interesting avenues. Specifications, regulations and laws are part of my daily life, so I'll hopefully avoid being cowed by bullies who cite rules without appreciating their meaning.

Tennispompom (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I of course appreciate that there are more than two parties in the Ukraine besides fascists and "pro-Russians". From what I know however, even if they weren't fascist, most of the people on the Maidan were extremely nationalistic, and hate eastern Ukrainians. I get this impression from a guest post at a pro-Novorossiyan Russian language blog. The Ukrainian articles desperately need editors like you who are not predisposed to either side. I am predisposed to the Russian side because (1) I am ethnically and culturally Russian, although I was born in and live in the US, so I am bicultural; (2) I believe that a multipolar world is better for most people than a monopolar world, and the main nation that is currently working for a multipolar world is Russia. In fact, the US State Department launched the coup in Kiev for that reason. In other words, I believe that all people with progressive politics should support Russia, but unfortunately, Russophobia is endemic in the Anglosphere.

I believe that Wikipedia's rules are actually quiet sensible, given that anyone can edit articles, so that there is no way of judging an editor's edits based on their expertise.

I have no idea of what the view at WP is of Chinese sources. As for RT, it was discussed in WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and I participated in that discussion. I believe that the conclusion was that RT can be taken to be reliable on strictly factual matters, but not on much else. That doesn't keep editors from still badmouthing it at every opportunity, however. So basically, there is a constant tug of war over the reliability of Russian sources. The ultimate means of determining the reliability of sources is that noticeboard, but things seldom get taken that far. The main mechanism by means of which Russian sources get marginalized at English Wikipedia is by editors repeating ad nauseum that they are unreliable and nothing but propaganda, without ever giving any evidence for these claims. There is a lot of falling behind the conventional wisdom going on an WP. And even though WP has a clear doctrine according to which systemic bias is a significant problem, whenever I bring up the problem of systemic bias in Ukraine-related articles in WP (the MH17 article being the worst example), my observations fall on totally deaf ears.

I hope you get over your chest infection quickly. – Herzen (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tennispompom, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Tennispompom! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly intrusion on your page[edit]

Great introduction! We need editors like you: good writers with a sense of humor. Pardon me for going boring in the next section, but as a "newbie" (that's what you are now) there are a few things you may find good to know. All the best, w.carter-Talk 19:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage[edit]

For making your user page look nice, see: Wikipedia:User page design center. You can also "clone/borrow/steal" the code from someone else's user page. Just ensure that you change it enough that it does not look like you are trying to impersonate the other user. Wikipedia:User pages is a good guide as to what kind of things are appropriate in user space. And when you use the work someone else has created, in the edit summary please attribute the work to them by naming the user you copied the content from. If you want to add userboxes you can start here: Wikipedia:Userboxes. There are also many, many customized userboxes floating around on user pages in the Wikipedia, if you find one you fancy just copy the code from the page. If you are further interested in defining yourself and your style there is also the Wikipedia fauna.

How to alert other editors[edit]

When someone is posting on your talk page you get an automatic notification. That notification is a red square followed by a long yellow box (for most browsers and settings). In all other cases you have to alert the other editor in some way, either by "ping" or by mentioning them in a link. This will result in a just the red box notification on that users pages. So even if you respond on your talk page you still have to alert the editor you are addressing. If you want to get hold of me you write {{ping|W.carter}} resulting in @W.carter: or [[User:W.carter|W.carter]] resulting in W.carter. There are some more, but these are the basics. And when you ask something on someone's talk page, you also create a new section so your question don't get entangled in some other conversation. If you are having a conversation with another user on some page, it is also customary to add that page to your Watchlist in case someone in the discussion forgets to alert.

The policy is to leave an answer on the same page as the question, keep the conversation intact unless there is some reason for moving it elsewhere. Like complicated questions at the Teahouse can be continued on the appropriate talk page.

Thanks for the cookies and great advice W.carter! Let's see if it works - W.carter. Did it work? Probably not, the formatting has gone to pot, and my ID no longer expands. Please help. Have I embedded this in the wrong section? Virtual Tea House, virtual Cookies! What more could a gal want! Perhaps slightly less of the "virtual". Oh crumbs, crumbs and crumbs again! here I go - off to raid the kitchen cupboard. (tennispompom)

This is what it should look like. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it soon. We've all been there...

w.carter-Talk 22:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You copy pasted the "nowiki" macro, which evidently disables expansion. I've closed that tag to make this comment. It seems that they've changed their policy, btw. As I recall, before they said that if someone posts on your talk page, you should reply to them on their talk page. But that made it very hard to follow a discussion. – Herzen (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Herzen. I must have accidentally copied/pasted/messed up. Clearly I have a long way to go. For now I'll stick to editing on my User Talk page, until I know my way around a little better. Tennispompom (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a new editor, I would advise you to avoid contentious political subjects and editors with strong opinions. This place is not something you possibly think it is. My very best wishes (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi My very best wishes, thanks for your message which is clearly kindly meant. I can't claim to be the new editor, not having made a single edit yet. I'm a prospective editor, attempting to establish whether I can make a positive contribution or be on a hiding to nothing. Won't take long, I hope. Tennispompom (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this environment talking is waste of time. You can contribute most efficiently by simply fixing content on non-controversial pages where there are no editorial disputes. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again My very best wishes. Time is something I have plenty of at the moment,alas. I've got a raging chest infection. If I lie down, I get gut-wrenching coughing fits, and I'm not in pain only when I'm sitting down. The TV is abysmal, my family are on holiday until Friday, talking on the phone also hurts and the doctor has just signed me off work for the second week. I'm telling you this not because I want you to feel sorry for me, but to reassure you that time is not an issue for me at the moment. Next week, when I go back to work, it will be a different story, and by that time, it is just possible that my contribution can bring about some consensus and mutual respect, which is what the highly politicized article lacks. That's a worth while goal in my opinion. It might all come to nothing, but nothing ventured - nothing gained. It could be that all the disputants are so entrenched in their positions that the core Wikipedia principles are secondary to them, but as you see, I'm trying very hard to remain on good terms with all by giving them the benefit of the doubt. If it turns out to be impossible to persuade, and compulsion is not an option of course, then I'll see if I can find another interesting article, or maybe something else entirely.

Incidentally, I did surf around today looking for another topic to keep me riveted to my chair. One link followed another and lead to medieval Sicilian literature! Zero Wikipedia coverage (good), zero drama (boring, no editors), and ultimately zero interest. Did you have a particular article in mind for me? Just checking, no need to look. Tennispompom (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that you got another week of sick leave is potentially good news for us.

But I wanted to respond to your remark "giving them the benefit of the doubt." That is called WP:AGF at WP; this is a central rule and you can actually get into trouble by suggesting that some editor is doing anything with his/her edits other than trying to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. This sometimes leads to a surreal effect. – Herzen (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of coming up with grandiose schemes, why don't you collaborate with other editors by participating in this discussion? – Herzen (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats... You asked an awesome question in the Teahouse![edit]

	Great Question Badge
	Awarded to those who have asked a great question on the Teahouse Question Forum. There are no stupid questions, but some are excellent! Good questions are those that reflect serious curiosity about editing and help others learn. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
I liked your question at the Teahouse Bfpage \|leave a message 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, Tennispompom. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Comment[edit]

Tennispompom, you will find that Wikipedia is full of contradictions and some people like it that way because they already learned how to game the system and to learn a new system would require some effort. Also, you and I made a huge mistake when we chose user names that sound female, because that only encourages people to tell us that our efforts have been noted, but now we should go sit in a corner and be quiet. Fortunately, neither one of us has been deterred. USchick (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi USchick, thanks for kind words. I can't deny it, I'm a tennis nutter - worse than female! Being female never bothered me, no one ever consulted me on the subject. As for tennis, now that's a different matter, friends expect me to provide H:H info, rivalries, rankings, schedules, Wimbledon tickets .... Ugh. Tennispompom (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a man, I just assume that everyone on the internet is male, unless there is glaring evidence to the contrary. Believe it or not, neither in yours nor in USchick's case did I conclude that you are female on the basis of your user name. "Chick" is not part of my working vocabulary, so I did not understand what "chick" in "USchick" meant until I looked at her user page. I am not going to explain why "pompom" did not lead me to conclude that you are female, because I have to watch myself, with all these battles going on. I do not like gender neutral user names. Very nice section on "gaming the system", btw. Hopefully it will get unhatted soon. – Herzen (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you're an extremely evolved celestial human being Herzen. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you! lol. EVERYONE on the internet is male? Even young kids? Even babushka on Skype? I hope you won't think any less of us now that you know. USchick (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@USchick: I would say that in the private (invitation only) forums I hang out in (you can guess what they deal with), the sex ratio is about 5:1, so assuming that a given user is male makes sense on Bayesian grounds. I'm not surprised that women are over-represented in the current neutrality dispute. It is a good old-fashioned stereotype that women tend to be more committed to justice than men. Antigone comes to mind. I sent you an email, btw. – Herzen (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, thank you for the compliment! I will go look for the email, I hardly ever check that account. If someone really wants something from me, they don't send me email, they just take me to ANI. lol USchick (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, Tennispompom. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your edits to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17[edit]

This is a continued response to your edit: You repeatedly point out that you are new to Wikipedia and suggest lenience on your part. I must point out that you have decided to contribute almost exclusively to an article with the warning 'Please edit carefully' and I will again point out that you are causing a waste of time with that, this time with your not-sufficiently-careful editing or is it not-sufficiently-careful understanding of who edited what? Either way, edits are made that distract from the actual task of improving the article. I once suggested that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. Now I will suggest that you gain some editing experience on less controversial articles. Lklundin (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lklundin for taking this up on my User Talk page, no need to distract the other users.

Please be reassured, when I feel ready to edit an article, I will be ultra careful. Much as I would like to dive in, I have not edited a single line in an Article yet. My input so far has been on my own User page and on the Talk pages, as I get to know my way around the Wikipedia environment.

It has been tough (and not only for me), but I'm getting there, and I have explained and apologized for the formatting and positioning error in one of the Talk sections already. We all make mistakes occasionally, for example on 12 October, my first day, an experienced user commented about me "I smell yet another propagandist sockpuppet", which was contrary to WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Remember? When other users pointed out these policies, you quickly acknowledged, and I had been hoping that you would follow it up with a WP:SORRY to clear the air. No matter. I learned what a sock-puppet meant and looked up several policies as a result, it all contributes to experience.

I have followed advice to familiarize with Wikipedia's policies, and I think I'm getting there. The controversial article Talk page has been the perfect place to hone up on the WP:5P. Tennispompom (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you're still here. In case you haven't noticed, I will mention what I view to be major progress in the article. I created a "Criminal investigation" section, and it has contained the following passage for a few days:

According to Westerbeke, investigators initially considered four scenarios: "An accident, a terrorist act, downing by a surface-to-air missile, or an attack from another airplane. After the release of the DSB preliminary report the accident and terror scenarios were eliminated. The two others remain."

This conveys the idea that there is more than one theory. Getting across the idea that there are two theories under consideration was my main interest. The idea that there is a second theory was attacked as a conspiracy theory and FRINGE, but after that Spiegel interview with the Dutch chief prosecutor, it appears that this idea is going to stay in the article.
From the Talk discussion, I see that you are interested in presenting what the Chinese think about this. I personally don't think that's worth the effort. There is no reason for the Chinese to have a different position on this than the Russians do: the Chinese are just inclined to be less blunt. I think that what we should now concentrate on in the article are the lead and the "Cause" section. Both come across as having been written by someone in a delirium, either because of high fever or being high on opium. (I found a way of using the concept of delirium, which Russians use all the time to dismiss viewpoints they despise, in English! In Russian, you can just say, "This is a delirium", but that doesn't work in English.)
Since you are English – the very sentence "You are English" reminds me of a Danger Man episode – do you think that the word "Russophobia" is a well established term in English? Because the article on Russophobia has been renamed to Anti-Russian sentiment. I see that as another manifestation of the Russophobia that is rampant on English Wikipedia. (And my spell checker doesn't like the word "Russophobia", which means that it is Russophobic, too.) – Herzen (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Herzen, lack of neutrality really does grate on me. If I based my reports at work on wishful thinking or on what people wanted to hear, I wouldn't have a job for long! Instead I tell it how it is, my bosses don't always like it, but they know I have no axe to grind and that they need to pay attention. Alas, not so on Wikipedia. There is a group of editors who seem to be hell bent on defending a very narrow point of view. And DEFENDING is the right word, because that particular theory isn't quite as certain as they would like to think. The editors' reputation and that of Wikipedia is damaged by it, which leads me to wonder why is it worth such a price? Why are they doing it? Is Wikipedia then referenced elsewhere to provovide credibility for the theory elsewhere? Where? I've no idea, but the positions seem to be pretty entrenched.

Chinese position is different and interesting - 1) they blame Malaysia Airlines - why were they taking the risk with their passengers over a war zone when no other asian airline did. That harps on back to the loss of MH370. Was it Oscar Wilde who said "to lose one parent is a misfortune, to lose both is sheer carelessness". 2) They've been taking a swipe at EU and US, accusing them of hypocricy - crying crocodile tears over loss of 300 lives on MH17, while neglecting the loss of 4x as many in the eastern Ukraine, which is what prompted the rebels to shoot at the bombers in the first place. No one here mentions these views, and it is probably the closest to a rational response. I would add Ukraine to that list - why didn't they close the airspace!? Any responsible country would have done so. Anyway, I'd like to balance the views by including all major views, and the Chinese one is pretty major. My problem is I'm struggling with formatting the citation and references, I have so little time now.

Anyway, well done for making the article slightly less biased, I have to go to work now, but will try and do a couple of hours next weekend. Tennispompom (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]