Talk:Taran Rampersad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

The subject of this article, Taran Rampersad, has edited Wikipedia as
TaranRampersad (talk • contribs).

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

Taran Rampersad seems to have been in the news at least once, (The Gazette (montreal) Sept 27 2004), although the article was about Wikipedia, interestingly enough. I don't think it was contributed by the Rampersad himself, since he is User:TaranRampersad. I am inclined to keep, thus we should probably have an AfD process (unless the the nomination is withdrawn). --Hansnesse 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Taran's work has been featured by the BBC; he was involved in the tsunamihelp blog; and as the former editor to linux gazette and a contributor to worldchanging.com, he is well known in global development/ICT activism circles. I see him discussed and posting regularly on many forums which is why I thought to add him to the site. I apologize if I have broken rules as I am fairly new to creating wikipedia entries rather than just editing them. --Nodivide 22:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the deletion notice, since I think the BBC report indicates some level of media visibilty. If the deletion process continues, it should be through AfD. I'll make a note on the talk page of Dripps, the nominator. --Hansnesse 01:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Err... it's me... and finding this through Google was just a little strange. I didn't post the original, and I feel very awkward about this... do with it what you will. It's a very scarey thing, looking at one's self through the eyes of others. I'm flattered that this is here... and I don't know what else to say. I suppose 'Thank You' is in order. Please leave out the bit about the pillow case and the crotchless underwear. Oops. :-)--TaranRampersad 00:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

1 Taran's Notes
2 Myers-Briggs test
3 3rd Opinion

[edit] Taran's Notes

I'd suggest adding external links to MobileActive.org, DigitalDivide.net - groups where I am publicly active. I think that I may add such groups myself in the future, but this is really weird for me and I don't want to interfere with this entry in the Wikipedia.

I should and will write something about the Alert Retrieval Cache. Will shoot for the end of the week.

Perhaps the Associated Press article on Wikipedia should be mentioned.

I think the AP article isn't really needed, as it makes such a small mention about you, and act mainly as a Wikipedia self-reference. For the two other sites you mentioned, do you have any links that specifically show your contributions there? I'd also like to put in a request for a picture, do you have any of those around? =) — TheKMan^talk 05:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. MobileActive.org has me hidden behind the scenes, but I am one of the initial group and helped write the Toronto Declaration last year in... Toronto. My work with MobileActive is directly related to the ARC. Come to think of it, if I'm in here Dan Lane should probably be in here as well... you can contact them to verify this. The group is doing interesting work as individuals around the world, and they deserve mention.

A picture? Hmm. Well, those are somewhat rare - take your pick from the Flickr set of me. I wander the world a lot, so as I get more there could be updates... all my pictures on Flickr are covered under a Creative Commons license, and since the image is of me and the article is about me, it seems like there should be no copyright issue that could be made of it. This is an authorization to use the images. I lean toward using this picture, since it's a nice neutral picture.

Hi Taran... Just saw your blog entry about your Wikipedia entry. I've gone ahead and added your digital divide network profile to your external links section, as well as putting you under the Nonprofit Technology category. Perhaps not the best category; maybe we need to create a category for digital divide/ ICT4D activists. I'll try to do more later but I've got a rather hellish week ahead of me... Acarvin 15:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. It's weird because I could have done that myself, but I don't want my name showing up in the history of the article much, if at all... and I do want the article to be objective, and when it comes to one's self, we're never objective. You have a rather nice entry. :-)--TaranRampersad 20:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... And I know what you mean. There are a few minor changes I'm hoping can be made to the entry a bit me, but I'm leary of editing it myself. I made some notes about it on the Talk:Andy_Carvin page. I'm wondering if I should even add the new digital divide activist category tag to the page or if I should wait for someone else to do it. Acarvin 17:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I fixed what you thought should have been fixed on the Digital Divide Network page - right at the top. Not sure whether you were involved or not in Helping.org, etc... I'll make your talk page for your entry a place I stop by.--TaranRampersad 20:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Photo added. Acarvin 17:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for using that one. LOL. --TaranRampersad 20:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, here's one of me for my page. :-) Photographed in Stockholm, Sweden by Susanne Carvin, May 2004.

World Summit on Information Society Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Nominee (2005). --TaranRampersad 06:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

CARDICIS: Member and stakeholder in CARDICIS.

[edit] Date of Birth

September 28th, 1971.

[edit] Citations for Linux Gazette

Since Linux Gazette is an online publication, and the article Linux Gazette has my name in it, define what a citation should be. Plenty of answers in Google.

[edit] Citation as U.S. Navy Corpsman

Odd that a citation was requested for this, but not my dual citizenship. Both have paper documentation, but because of the personal nature of the documentation (DD214, US Passport) I ain't gonna post it.

If you actually want to add to the article, contacting me directly works wonders. --TaranRampersad 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myers-Briggs test

Some time ago, I reverted an edit which had the information

His MyersBriggs tests have always shown him as an INTJ.

I based the revert on the general principle that the results of any psychological assessment should be kept confidential (and noted such in the edit summary). Mr. Rampersad himself, however, has indicated he does not object to the information being included in the article (see this). I am still not convinced the information is encyclopedic or the most notable thing about him, considering the article is only a few paragraphs, particularly since the Myers Briggs Type Indicator assessment is somewhat controversial. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 01:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in general - I can see what you mean, and I don't have a problem either way. In general, I don't know that everyone would want their personality type up on a site. So... in general, I would have to say that you're right. In this case, I'm not bothered either way, as I mentioned, but whatever decision here shouldn't be used as a precedent - which I think is a proper concern! So, I'll go with my Wikipedia edit thought: 'When in doubt, leave it out'. :-) --TaranRampersad 03:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Opinion

I have reinserted the citation request for the line about his citizenship and service in the Navy. I feel that this is a valid concern and this information should be cited in the proper format. I don't think the not verified template is necessary at this time as the citation request already notifies the reader that citations are pending and information should be subject to some scrutiny. --Hetar 07:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should that be questioned? Would you like to see copies of his his citizenship papers and his DD-214? I'm removing the tag, unless you can answer specifically why it needs to be there -- I don't recall seeing anywhere that questioning a person's citizenship or military service is a Wiki policy. •Jim62sch• 13:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be questioned? And no, I don't need to see copies of his citizenship papers or DD0-214, any reliable source would do. I'm interested in verifiability, not truth. So if you can find a newspaper article somewhere that says this, that would suffice. Questioning everything is Wiki policy. WP:V clearly states, "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." --Hetar 21:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of his citizenship or military service. It's because that the article claims something which is not cited in its sources as per WP:V. --Strothra 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Explain how to cite these things, or quit mucking about. 'Assume Good' is getting stretched really thin. If you want to actually add to the article and get the bio started properly (I *know* the bio is not good, trust me), feel free to contact me. Remember, I cannot edit the article myself, though I removed your original requests for citations BECAUSE they were borderline vandalism in that true citations for such things are paper documentation which I care to withhold. If it bugs you so much, dig through public records - you can find these things, I'm sure, but you probably won't be able to link them. There is plenty above which *is* verifiable which you have ignored or added to the article. The amount of effort you put into the AfD might have been better used in making the article better. The WGIG nomination is definitely verifiable; the work with CARDICIS is verifiable, and MobileActive.org is certainly verifiable if someone *tries*. The article as it is definitely is not up to standard, but not for the reasons you are suggesting. --TaranRampersad 15:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the official WGIG nomination that included Taran. It was submitted on behalf of the WSIS telecentres caucus, for which I was chairperson. The entire nomination process took place electronically, and you can review the entire dialogue here. Acarvin 17:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

First, you are the only one claiming this to be "borderline vandalism." Already, two admins have stepped in to support my actions in this matter. I did not know that you are unaware of how to add citations. If you feel that you should not edit the article then please give your citations to myself or another editor to add them to the article. If you wish to add the citations yourself you can do so very simply by clicking "edit this page," and adding your citation to the end of the line to be cited by clicking the small globe icon at the top of the edit box and replacing all the text in between the two brackets with the hyperlink. You may also add a "References" section at the bottom of the article. Please keep in mind that you may not add blogs as citations. They are allowed to be included in external links but otherwise they are a violation of WP:Cite. Also, it doesn't really make sense for the line about your military service to even be in there since it says nothing to the encyclopedic nature or notability of the subject. --Strothra 15:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Who were the two Admins? Besides, I agree with Taran, although I'd remove the word borderline. Additionally, I've what's on seen WP:AN/I, and I'd call what you've done wikistalking.

As for the cite, I see nothing in the George Washington article, American Revolution section that indicates any cites. Why not go litter that page with your specious cite requests. •Jim62sch• 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Here [1] and here [2]. I requested the intervention of neutral third parties and those were the responses. Also, I placed a verify tag on the history of Germany article already which was in a similar situation. --Strothra 16:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not completely sure if Hetar is an admin so you may wish to check the list for that one. Hetar's contrib was the result of a WP:3O request for intervention. --Strothra 16:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hetar is not an Admin, and even were he one, he'd be incorrect in this matter. Jaheigel does not support your view, if I apprehend his meaning correctly (and I know I do). To paraphrase his opinion: Each little item does not need to be referenced/sourced/cited.

The issue with the History of Germany article is different -- this is just a stub, meaning it is under construction, the Germany article is a full-blown article. Besides, rather than run around slapping tags on things, maybe you and Hetar might want to actually work on articles, improve them, be productive. •Jim62sch• 21:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at George Washington. I'm not completely sure what you're talking about, but that article complete with references, notes, further reading, and external links sections. Each of those has a separate purpose. The References and notes sections seem to be quite complete in citing the material above. I don't argue that you need inline citations for every claim. I fully agree that having a references section at the bottom will suffice in citing the claims above. --Strothra 16:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Taran calls it "borderline vandalism" - I call it simply trolling and harrassment. He's making a pile of false claims.

"If you wish to add the citations yourself you can do so very simply by clicking "edit this page," and adding your citation to the end of the line to be cited by clicking the small globe icon at the top of the edit box and replacing all the text in between the two brackets with the hyperlink". False; see WP:CITE. It's hilarious when someone is insultingly patronising while being wrong.
"Please keep in mind that you may not add blogs as citations.". Again, this is false. There is nothing wrong with using blogs as sources. While they fail as reliable sources, in a lot of cases, there are many cases where they are useful sources (again, he should read WP:RS before he tries lecturing people).
Strothra claims the support of two admins. Jaheigel does not support his use of tags (so that claim is false) while Hetar is a new user who has been here since February.
Strothra claims that this is unrelated to his campaign of harrassment against Taran. However, a quick glance at his contributions shows nothing of the sort. He doesn't appear to be asking for supporting citations for other claims of nationality. Instead, he is not only happy with the uncited claim of nationality (Jesse Dirkhising (May 24, 1986–September 26, 1999) was a 13-year-old American boy), he doesn't even see the need to cite the statement "Controversy ensued over the coverage of Dirkhising's murder which, according to some, was stifled due to political correctness towards homosexuals" which uses the classic weasal words "some say".

This is nothing but harrassment and trolling Guettarda 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to correct your false statements especially since you are and admin but please see WP:RS and WP:V which both contain direct references to why blogs should not be used as sources. Concerning the Dirkhising article, the exact phrase you are mentioning is a phrase I objectected to but finally gave into inserting due to the desire to establish consensus over the article. See the article's talk. There was clear and unquestioned controversy, however, which is elaborated later in the article and is referenced. In fact, the entire article is about nothing more than the media controversy. The phrase "some say" was used by a previous editor to replace the fact that the majority of people stirring controversy were conservative and the origional statement classified them all as conservative. If you have a better suggestion, then please make it, as there are only two editors actively editing the article.

It seems that you are the one using weasel words by stating that there are many situations in which blogs make good sources when the policy specifically states, "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." The only exceptions which should be made are when "a well-known, professional researcher in his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material."

As far as the whole citation process goes, I was attempting to help another user in the best way I knew at the time. I appreciate you directing me the proper way to do that. At least I was making the attempt.

Oh, and I had absolutely nothing to do with Hetar's readdition of the citeneeded tag, I wasn't going to touch that one again with a 50ft pole. --Strothra 17:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, you didn't read what you quoted, did you? You wrongly accuse Guettarda of using weasel words "many", while not noting that this quote contains a word that, using your logic, is also a wesel word (italicised for emphasis): "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. There are a number of exceptions where they are perfectly valid -- it's a matter of what is being cited, and what the cite purports to support. As for you telling Guettarda to read wiki policies, that is just too funny. •Jim62sch• 21:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Strothra said: "you may not add blogs as citations". I pointed out that, like most of his other statements, that statement wasn't true - it was just another example of Strothra's selective interpretation. You can't use blogs are reliable secondary sources (with the exceptions that Strothra noted). However, you can use them as primary sources.
Reason I mentioned the Dirkhising article was to show that Strothra isn't being honest when he claims that this is just "normal" editing on his part and not harrassment. In the case of the Dirkhising article he has no problem with including uncited information. In fact, he went so far as to insert uncited information, and to use weasel words in that insertion. Why is it that he feels compelled to "fix" a problem in this article which isn't a problem is thousands of other articles? It's obvious that this isn't his normal standard - he doesn't seem to be obsessed with other articles. He doesn't even have a problem with adding uncited articles to biographies. Why? Because he is wikistalking and harrassing Taran, obviously.
Strothra accuses me of using weasel words. I have no idea on what basis he is making this accusation. What is that supposed to be "I know you are but what am I?" Huh? Please show me where I have used weasel words anywhere in the Main namespace recently. Guettarda 22:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)