Phineas Gage

[CrowsNest]

Phineas Gage (T-H-L)

According to Iridescent.....

any formal assessment process on this article is likely to be extremely contentious, draw in a number of Wikipedia's noisier personalities, and there's a non-negligible chance it will result in either multiple blocks or an Arbcom case.

Unsurprisingly, this seems to be because it was 90% written by EEng (T-C-L), one of Wikipedia's less friendly and more volatile users, and he has declared it should not be put up for GA review without his express permission, unless or until he has sufficient time to dedicate to it. Which he does not. He does graciously admit though, after a long list of reasons why not......

of course, the article's not my property and it's not my decision to make

There appears to be more context, but I can't be bothered to navigate his 347 section talk page to figure it all out. Maintaining such an unreadable/unlinkable talk page is one of his many primadonna privileges.

With no sense at all of the sheer irony given who he is talking about (an incurably rude and disruptive personality whose idea of good manners is most definitely not within the mainstream), Iridescent helpfully informs....

it's the height of bad manners bordering on outright disruption to make a drive-by nomination of someone else's work against their wishes for a review process which you know is going to generate large amounts of work for them

So I guess all we need now is an experienced Wikipedia editor who is totally disillusioned with the site and just wants to cause some mayhem and piss off one of their worst users......for science, of course.

Anyone know where we can find such a person?

[BrillLyle]

Phineas Gage (T-H-L)

According to Iridescent.....

any formal assessment process on this article is likely to be extremely contentious, draw in a number of Wikipedia's noisier personalities, and there's a non-negligible chance it will result in either multiple blocks or an Arbcom case.

Unsurprisingly, this seems to be because it was 90% written by EEng (T-C-L), one of Wikipedia's less friendly and more volatile users, and he has declared it should not be put up for GA review without his express permission, unless or until he has sufficient time to dedicate to it. Which he does not. He does graciously admit though, after a long list of reasons why not......

of course, the article's not my property and it's not my decision to make

There appears to be more context, but I can't be bothered to navigate his 347 section talk page to figure it all out. Maintaining such an unreadable/unlinkable talk page is one of his many primadonna privileges.

Anyone know where we can find such a person?

Holy crap.

That's original research full stop, isn't it? Those citations and notes are bananas. Ugh.

Also their user page gave me an insta-headache.

I would love it if this editor had a taste of their own medicine somehow. Did they use the oldie but goodie that they are autistic so no one can object to their communication issues? I ran into someone who said that on their talk page.

Glad I don't edit in this area. Yikes!

- Erika
User:BrillLyle

[CrowsNest]

His excuses have never seemed any more nuanced than he can get away with it, and it amuses many Wikipedians, a proper daily freak show among what must be a pretty bland existence of the endless watchlist. Other people, the vast majority even among Wikipedians, have an inner control mechanism that says, hey, maybe don't do that, you're being a dick, that he seems to lack. Definitely a boundary pusher, a nonconformist, an exhibitionist, a ring master, finding some gratification from his Wikipedia experience that he lacks IRL. So yes, maybe a genuine but as yet undiagnosed disorder. Or maybe just a douche. Given the subject matter of the article, it is ironic. Or maybe relevant.......we need us a brain expert.

[BrillLyle]

His excuses have never seemed any more nuanced than he can get away with it, and it amuses many Wikipedians, a proper daily freak show among what must be a pretty bland existence of the endless watchlist. Other people, the vast majority even among Wikipedians, have an inner control mechanism that says, hey, maybe don't do that, you're being a dick, that he seems to lack. Definitely a boundary pusher, a nonconformist, an exhibitionist, a ring master, finding some gratification from his Wikipedia experience that he lacks IRL. So yes, maybe a genuine but as yet undiagnosed disorder. Or maybe just a douche. Given the subject matter of the article, it is ironic. Or maybe relevant.......we need us a brain expert.

Ha! Brain expert. Funny! Gads the pictures of him with the one eye. Stuff of nightmares.

I've been yelled at as a newish editor for having a few quotes in my Wikipedia entries. This guy has a veritable QuoteFarm -- so I tagged it. I should've also tagged OriginalResearch.

I'm flabbergasted by the whole thing. It is insane, makes me want to run screaming.

I guess if it's for entertainment value that's one thing, but it seems mean to encourage and watch this kind of true sickness. The guy needs help or something.

I hope I never cross paths with him as an editor. The toxicity is extreme.

[Poetlister]

For those unable to use the link on the OP, try Phineas Gage (T-H-L). I think it's fair to say that this person is not vastly notable and scarcely deserves this huge article with over 100 references.

[Kingsindian]

I have a question: what does it matter if someone writes a huge essay on Phineas Gage, or Eevee, or some Doctor Who episode? This seems to be pet peeve of many about Wikipedia. My general view on this matter is: let people pursue their hobbies.

I found the WP article on Phineas Gage to be quirky and interesting. I don't know much about the topic, so I don't know if it's accurate. But if people might look at this article in the Smithsonian magazine and see if there are any inconsistencies.

[CrowsNest]

I have a question: what does it matter if someone writes a huge essay on Phineas Gage, or Eevee, or some Doctor Who episode? This seems to be pet peeve of many about Wikipedia. My general view on this matter is: let people pursue their hobbies.

I found the WP article on Phineas Gage to be quirky and interesting. I don't know much about the topic, so I don't know if it's accurate. But if people might look at this article in the Smithsonian magazine and see if there are any inconsistencies.

You answered your own question. The only hobby element that is supposed to exist for Wikipedia editors, is in the fact they think they're writing an encyclopedia first, and writing about what interests them second. It's meant to summarise and be a vector for further inquiry to sources with the sort of depth and length of an actual essay. This isn't even disputed by most inclusionists. When hobbyists are writing about their hobby in Wikipedia, they naturally hugely overestimate the appropriate level of detail, and are ironically killing those hobbies where virtually everything known appears in reliable sources, because it all just gets instantly hoovered up into Wikipedia, encouraging the use of paywalls and other ways to ensure their effort is rewarded.

[greyed.out.fields]

For those unable to use the link on the OP, try Phineas Gage (T-H-L). I think it's fair to say that this person is not vastly notable and scarcely deserves this huge article with over 100 references.

Srsly? My recollection of high school Science class is that when we started on the topic "how the brain works", the first thing that got written on the whiteboard was: Phineas Gage.
From memory, I think that was the day after I tried using the excuse "a dingo ate my homework".

[Kingsindian]

the appropriate level of detail.

What is the "appropriate level" of detail about Phineas Gage, and why does the page in question violate it? Why is it a problem if someone goes too much into detail, anyway? Anyone who is interested in less detail can stop at the lead: from a brief glance, it seems to have summarized the basic points in four paragraphs, as it's supposed to.

[BrillLyle]

I have a question: what does it matter if someone writes a huge essay on Phineas Gage, or Eevee, or some Doctor Who episode? This seems to be pet peeve of many about Wikipedia. My general view on this matter is: let people pursue their hobbies.

I found the WP article on Phineas Gage to be quirky and interesting. I don't know much about the topic, so I don't know if it's accurate. But if people might look at this article in the Smithsonian magazine and see if there are any inconsistencies.

While I see your point, I guess my first instinct is that while this is okay for a En Wiki page on a white male historical figure, the chances of the community allowing this type of obsessive detail to stand if the subject was a woman or person of color are pretty much nil.

My first instinct was also very definitely why is this up here, with this amount of over-citing? And this coming from someone who loves citations....

I am usually all for content generation, but the bigger issue to me is the fact this is original research. It seems to violate that rule, doesn't it -- especially given its format and the p-ownership occurring? Or maybe I don't understand original research well enough.

- Erika
User:BrillLyle

[Kingsindian]

The talk page history is very, um, interesting. Check this RfC out.

EEng has also published a paper on one aspect of the topic.

[Poetlister]

For those unable to use the link on the OP, try Phineas Gage (T-H-L). I think it's fair to say that this person is not vastly notable and scarcely deserves this huge article with over 100 references.

Srsly? My recollection of high school Science class is that when we started on the topic "how the brain works", the first thing that got written on the whiteboard was: Phineas Gage.

I also studied biology at school and do not recall any mention of him. Well, every teacher is different.

[greyed.out.fields]

For those unable to use the link on the OP, try Phineas Gage (T-H-L). I think it's fair to say that this person is not vastly notable and scarcely deserves this huge article with over 100 references.

Srsly? My recollection of high school Science class is that when we started on the topic "how the brain works", the first thing that got written on the whiteboard was: Phineas Gage.

I also studied biology at school and do not recall any mention of him. Well, every teacher is different.

And secondary school curriculums and textbooks. I doubt your Lower Sixth or Upper Fifth Biology textbooks were published by the Australian Academy of Science.

Also: "a dingo ate my homework". Mods, could we please have someone attach even just a cursory "LOL" about this?

[Zoloft]

For those unable to use the link on the OP, try Phineas Gage (T-H-L). I think it's fair to say that this person is not vastly notable and scarcely deserves this huge article with over 100 references.

Srsly? My recollection of high school Science class is that when we started on the topic "how the brain works", the first thing that got written on the whiteboard was: Phineas Gage.

I also studied biology at school and do not recall any mention of him. Well, every teacher is different.

And secondary school curriculums and textbooks. I doubt your Lower Sixth or Upper Fifth Biology textbooks were published by the Australian Academy of Science.

Also: "a dingo ate my homework". Mods, could we please have someone attach even just a cursory "LOL" about this?

You know I'm a big fan.

[Jim]

A dingo ate your homework...?



As an aside, and totally off-topic, did you see this?

[Graaf Statler]

I have a question: what does it matter if someone writes a huge essay on Phineas Gage, or Eevee, or some Doctor Who episode? This seems to be pet peeve of many about Wikipedia. My general view on this matter is: let people pursue their hobbies.

I found the WP article on Phineas Gage to be quirky and interesting. I don't know much about the topic, so I don't know if it's accurate. But if people might look at this article in the Smithsonian magazine and see if there are any inconsistencies.

While I see your point, I guess my first instinct is that while this is okay for a En Wiki page on a white male historical figure, the chances of the community allowing this type of obsessive detail to stand if the subject was a woman or person of color are pretty much nil.

My first instinct was also very definitely why is this up here, with this amount of over-citing? And this coming from someone who loves citations....

I am usually all for content generation, but the bigger issue to me is the fact this is original research. It seems to violate that rule, doesn't it -- especially given its format and the p-ownership occurring? Or maybe I don't understand original research well enough.
- Erika
User:BrillLyle

The Original Research rule is a disaster in the hands of a autistic mind. They mix Original Research up with someone who knows were he is talking about. One of the main reasons of Natuur12 to block me, and let me global lock, was because my work should be partly Original Research. What is true. Only strange enough they didn't remove or changed my work afterwards.....