User talk:Earlofscooby
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Earlofscooby, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. --Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Duke of Cleveland
Some more bad news involving Wikipedia, huh! Here it is, apparently a registered sex offender calling himself the "Duke of Cleveland" edited the article with the same title under the name "Earl of Scooby." This, was his masterpeice. Wow. As if the Seigenthaler controversy wasn't bad enough. I just hope this doesn't create another problem. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'd interpet this in a positive light. Wikipedia has become a snare to the wicked. A convicted sex offender was brought to justice through edits to Wikipedia that were quickly reverted and/or deleted by other editors. NatusRoma 05:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- You may interpret that as something positive, but I am sure several outsiders who were pessimistic about the idea of creating a "free encyclopedia that everyone can edit" would say "Hey, if this offended sex offender was here, what about several others like him that could be editting here." I am glad he was apprehended, and I am not saying it was making Wikipedia bad, I said it was "bad news" - and yes, anything involving a sex offender is, to me, bad news. I also sait that [it] was involving Wikipedia" - which, it does. Did I say, "Wikipedia is bad because it is allowing sex offenders on board?" No, I did not...I am saying that people may see this in a bad light...I was just hoping another controversy wouldn't start. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 15:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think that each and every one of us can do a little bit to avoid needless controversy by not making a bigger deal of this than is necessary, and by not suggesting undue comparisons between the Seigenthaler controversy, in which attempts to place false information in Wikipedia a) were successful and b) led to a lot of ill-feeling and negative press for Wikipedia, and this case, in which attempts to place false information in Wikipedia a) were unsuccessful and b) led to the just apprehension of a registered sex offender. NatusRoma 17:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- It is still a brings a threat and a question to the liability of Wikipedia...say that I am making a "bigger deal than is necessary" is false...we caught a criminal which is great! What I am saying is that people will look at Wikipedia and not think about this in a positive light "i.e. Oh thank you for catching that horrible man." People, at least the ones I have been talking to, say, "Look at the people who edit here!." Not to say I agree, I think that is a problem we may have to confront. If I ever implied that Wikipedia was some evil monster I am sorry. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 18:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think that each and every one of us can do a little bit to avoid needless controversy by not making a bigger deal of this than is necessary, and by not suggesting undue comparisons between the Seigenthaler controversy, in which attempts to place false information in Wikipedia a) were successful and b) led to a lot of ill-feeling and negative press for Wikipedia, and this case, in which attempts to place false information in Wikipedia a) were unsuccessful and b) led to the just apprehension of a registered sex offender. NatusRoma 17:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- You may interpret that as something positive, but I am sure several outsiders who were pessimistic about the idea of creating a "free encyclopedia that everyone can edit" would say "Hey, if this offended sex offender was here, what about several others like him that could be editting here." I am glad he was apprehended, and I am not saying it was making Wikipedia bad, I said it was "bad news" - and yes, anything involving a sex offender is, to me, bad news. I also sait that [it] was involving Wikipedia" - which, it does. Did I say, "Wikipedia is bad because it is allowing sex offenders on board?" No, I did not...I am saying that people may see this in a bad light...I was just hoping another controversy wouldn't start. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 15:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
