User talk:82.143.162.72

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Wikipedia's policy on what may be said when a source is available is nothing but a double standard.

When a verifiable source says something that balances the political bias of an article it may not be submitted.

A registered user may use terms like 'hatemongerer' without any adverse consequences. They may also make accusations of something a poster has not said (in one case accusing a poster of denying the holocaust, a criminal offence in many countries, when the poster has done nothing of the kind).

A television documentary in which the views of a large number of Roma people are presented may not be used as a source. However, a close-up picture of three people is supposed to present relevant information about the same people.

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia but a message board. If it were the former, the editorial policy would not be determined by mob rule but by applying the same principle consistently across all content.

Remove the first picture and then, before you put the picture back, try answering these questions: 1) Which of the three Roma best illustrates the Roma? The one looking to camera right, the one looking towards the camera or the one looking to camera left? What aspect of their appearance illustrates characteristics of the Roma that would not illustrate a non-Roma person? 2) What proportion of the Roma do they illustrate? 3) How is this picture more representative than an illustration of a wheel, a spoon or a pocket calculator that belongs to the Roma?

How is the picture of the Roma woman in the shawl representative? The type of shawl is worn by a lot of older women in Poland and not just by the Roma. There are a lot of old women in Poland who are not Roma, many of whom would look just like the woman from Andrychów.

If a statement made about some Roma based on film of more than three is not representative, then by all means delete the 'racism' text, on condition that the pictures are removed and all the links which are based on anecdotal accounts of the Roma. Otherwise allow all three.

Wikipedia's goalpost-moving editorial policy on the article is a farce.


Interesting to note also that some considerable POV pushing exists by calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia, rather than an 'encyclopedia'. The words 'above' and 'station' spring to mind.

Contents

[edit] 3RR block

You have been blocked for 24 hours for a violation of the three revert rule. WikiFanatic 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 18:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)The reverts are consistent with the reasons given by other contributors. Rather a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

No, it's a case of you making more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. That's a rule, whether you like it or not. WikiFanatic 18:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 18:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Some of the other reverts have ben made by the same user more than 3 times in 24 hours. Check the history page.

I just looked at the history page. Can you be kind and tell me who the other 3RR violator was? WikiFanatic 19:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Viriditas, yesterday. Presumably if I sign up for multiple accounts, can I make four revisions in 24 hours by using 2 for each user? And can I make two from each terminal elsewhere? Check also Codex Sinaiticus 30th to 31st January (3 in 24 hours) on the New age travellers page. If he had waited just over 40 minutes it would indeed have been just 2 but you will find it is the same edit in under 24 hrs.

  • If you sign up for multiple accounts, you will be discovered to have done so and likely will have all your accounts blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets. The same goes for if you do multiple IP-based edits. Please don't attempt to cheat rules to get your way on Wikipedia. --Improv 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 11:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)So how would you tell the difference between several people making the same sort of edit from several computers and one person making several edits also from several computers?

  • One is allowed. The other is not only disallowed, but would be rather unethical, don't you think? Quite apart from likely getting you banned again. Guinnog 00:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And what have you said to the other 3R posters I mentioned?

  • And I can't answer for Improv, but I would remind you that violation of the 3RR is allowed in cases of vandalism, which is what your contributions have largely consisted of. If you have a coherent point, why not raise it on the article's talk page? But Wikipedia is not the place to vent if you have strong feelings against (or indeed, for) the Roma. You're obviously fighting against the consensus here, which must be frustrating. Please help us (the many people working on this article) to actually improve it, with NPOV, verifiable information. Guinnog 00:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 11:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)This information is verifiable: There are no countries where nomadic life is compulsory by law for the Roma people. There is no way the Roma can be represented by a photograph, let alone one cropped off just below the shoulders. There has been filmed documentary evidence of racist practices in Roma sites in the UK which if not allowed would exclude a large number of links you still have. Some of the links on the page are of a largely political or anecdotal nature, rather than being neutral information sources. When I delete these links on the same grounds you delete the references to racism they are promptly returned.

You may also like to look at the sort of material which others have 'reverted'. For example, look at Codex Sinaiticus's 'reverts': One was to remove the FACT that there are no countries in Europe where 12 is the legal age at which someone can marry. Another was to keep inserting the word ‘brief’ into a sentence without providing a source (it was only removed because no such source had been provided, something I believe Wikipedia has some sort of policy on, does it not?). Look at some of the others: the links are, as mentioned above, largely not of an objective source, in fact one of them is nothing more than a blog. If that were a blog from, say, a group of white supremacists, an anti-Jewish campaigner, ‘Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells’ or anyone else, it would be deleted simply for being biased. However, if the bias is particularly pro-Roma it only needs majority consent to be allowed to stay. One person even reverted my correcting the spelling of 'English' from the previous 'Eglish'. What exactly did you say to this person? Their actions strike me as vandalism. I think you are being a bit more fluid with your interpretation of this term than that which appears on the Wikipedia page devoted to it.

Feel free to block me as often as you like. While it is impossible to represent the Roma with a single picture I will continue to alter the caption underneath the main picture to explain what it really shows (i.e. it shows nothing informative), replace it with any other picture of the Roma at random, or remove it completely, at least until Wikipedia stops calling itself an encyclopedia or stops pretending that an open-source 'information source' can be relied upon to contain information of a controversial nature. While no country makes it obligatory for the Roma to live nomadic lives, and while organisations like the Gypsy Council CONFIRM that some Roma do not live such lives, I will continue to put the necessary contextual balance in the section on 'Rejection'.

You still have not explained how you would tell the difference between several people in the same place making similar edits on different computers and one person editing on several computers.

  • There are tools that can be used to find sockpuppets, and given your fixation on certain article topics, we would notice your edit style and treat your alternative accounts as more sockpuppeting. The issue here is not how we would catch you, it is why you are uninterested in dialogue. The goal of wikipedia is not to create an overwhelmingly glowing review of all the topics it covers (as some people would like it to be), nor is it to spit upon them. Presentation of facts should not be done so as to suggest a conclusion -- the "reminder" of legal marrying age in Europe is not about the Roma, it is instead meant to point to a conclusion that their cultural practice is indecent. I will review the links carefully -- perhaps they are not appropriate (I have not looked at that section of the article, because external links are generally not of interest to me). As for the reverts, I imagine (hope) that someone simply made a mistake with reverting your typo fix. I have no personal interest in Roma, nor do I have an impression of them that's positive or negative. I ask that you stop trying to point to conclusions with your insertion of facts into articles. There are better ways to strive towards a good article than what process we've managed so far. --Improv 14:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image changes, low relevancy articles

Please do not damage content of Roma people article. Also links to very local and very temporary political affairs have no use here. If you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia with quality information do not do it. Pavel Vozenilek 13:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 82.143.162.72 11:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)The links to the blogs or the excessively anecdotal material is less balanced and less relevant. Until they are removed I'll add anything that is more relevant than them whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, just block me.

[edit] 48h block

I have blocked you for 48 hours for disruptive edits to prove a point. You *must* be willing to discuss your edits, and not be doing them to prove a point. --Improv 12:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)82.143.162.72 22:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If your editing policy on one item is not the same as the one you have applied elsewhere on the very same article then I am not going to discuss it at all. I'll just edit between blocks until you block me permanently. P.S. Apply your personal editing policy (the one used for deleting the news item I added) to the links on 'New age travellers'. See how long your edit lasts before one of the article's more politically-motivated editors 'reverts' it.82.143.162.72 00:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way,Improv, don't forget to block ILike2BeAnonymous for name calling (another registered poster on the Roma Talk page said it was a blocking offence), or is this yet another case of one rule for one and another rule for others?

On wikipedia, we try to give people a lot of warning before we block them. Could you point me at the name-calling? I'll take a look and talk to him. Why are you not willing to talk about your edits? What's the point in wanting to be permablocked? I don't like blocking people, and presumably you like to contribute to the encyclopedia because you're still here. Why don't we talk about policy, what improvements you want to make, and why other people find them contentious, and maybe we can work out the issues. --Improv 03:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 10:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)You'll find the name calling in the 'Talk Roma' section. As for not discussing policy, read the talk section yourself and you will see why. For example: 1) The pictures are there 'because they look good'. Is this the reason for putting something in an encyclopedia? In which case, just put a picture of some kittens or flowers. 2) There are pictures on the 'English people' and 'German people' entries. True and false. These are pictures of people who can already be identified by another entry (e.g. Shakespeare) and not just headshots of people in the street (who do not have any other 'claim to fame' so to speak). If I illustrated 'hydrogen' with a photograph of the Hindenburg airship I would be adding something informative about the topic. If I just showed a glass tube with a colourless gas in it, it would be adding nothing to the article, except for its being colourless (which is why the relevant illustration is captioned 'appearance' rather than simply 'Hydrogen'). This is what the current picture does. When pictures more consistent with those in the 'English' and 'German' entries are added instead (i.e. bringing the article more into line with existing policy) they are deleted. 3) Material that is not relevant 'should not be added'. Then drop the existing picture because the fact that SOME Roma look like those in it says nothing. Quite a number of people in Brazil look just the same. A lot of Roma do not look anything like the picture either. The photo from Andrychów is even less relevant. The clothes are not representative any more than the appearance of the person.

The point is, your own editors on the same page do not edit for the same consistent reason.

Having said that, if any description of anything done by a person of Roma extraction can be added then there is no problem. It's just that more representative (but not one hundred per cent representative) portrayals are deleted because they do not agree with the political stance of the majority of editors.

It doesn't make any real difference whether I'm permanently blocked or not, but when something on the internet refers to itself as an information source when in reality it is a consensus of the contributions of people on a message board, I'll carry on implementing the alleged editorial policy until I am either blocked or the description changes (or until the same editorial policy is introduced but I think that is expecting too much. At the end of the day Wikipedia's articles on anything other than the purely factual is, as I have said before, a farce).

  • Having several pictures that resemble some people of an ethnicity is useful information for users. There is always some amount of difference between people within the same ethnic group, but that doesn't mean that, say, having a number of pictures of Italians would not prepare someone to, say, distinguish them from ethnic Mongolians (or vice versa). Wikipedia is a mix of consensus and set policy. If you want to talk about policy, in the specific or the abstract, let's do it. As for right now though, your edits are disruptive and make the article worse, and they go against consensus. I am asking you to, given the particular types of edits you're making, discuss them before continuing the revert war. --Improv 13:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 19:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)But the differences of appearance between people of Roma descent are so wide you would need to fill the page with illustrations before you had anything resembling an information source. And the point still stands that the reason given for their inclusion (by referring to the 'English people' and 'German people' pages) is not the same as that implemented on the 'Roma people' page. The original pictures were only put there for aesthetic purposes. As for 'a mix of consensus and set policy', you can edit according to consensus and I'll edit according to 'set policy', such as it is (although it is logically impossible to do this without contradicting another 'set policy', so you'll have plenty to block me for again if you like).

  • Personally, I think that the original pictures were and are useful to paint rough outlines of the appearance the ethnicity tends to give. Any information along those lines is useful -- one can immediately tell that, for example, Roma do not look like Japanese or Mongolians. I edit by a mix of consensus and set policy -- I don't see arguments based on either from you. Could you illustrate the actual policies that you're following that lead you to what you've been doing? I really don't want to block you -- I want to work this out. --Improv 07:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy versus consensus

82.143.162.72 11:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Policy says that something should be verifiable. The pictures I put on the Roma People page were of people whose Roma identities can be confirmed by external sources. Consensus says that the current pictures should stay and more verifiable pictures should be removed. The current pictures only have the word of the uploaders to confirm that they are in fact Roma people.

[edit] Warning

I am warning you that if you continue to editwar on Roma people, I will block you. Please cut it out. --Improv 06:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

    • And if you do not declare the source of the picture I have removed, I will carry on deleting it until it has been proved that the people in the picture are Roma. --82.143.162.72 13:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As made perfectly clear above, you are trying to game the system. You understand that they are roma, you merely object to, as stated near the top of this page, "attractive" girls being used as a leading illustration for this article. Again, I am asking you to stop this edit warring, especially when the arguments you're using bear little resemblance to why you don't want the images there. --Improv 16:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • 82.143.162.72 12:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)And as I have said before, the pictures could be of many other groups. Look again at the talk section. The contributors cannot even agree on why that picture is there. It is not informative as the characteristics you claim it displays are not characteristic of the Roma in general. More verifiable pictures are available, all of which have been deleted.
      • The picture is there for a number of reasons -- not everyone agrees because people have different reasons. In any case, if you continue to remove the picture against consensus, you will be blocked. Please cut it out. --Improv 15:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The picture is not verifiable. Contributions are, according to Wikipedia, supposed to be verifiable. I'll remove it until it is confirmed that the people in the picture are Roma.

[edit] +1m block

I have blocked you for a month for your continued edits on Roma. When you come back, I suggest you stick to other topics. --Improv 15:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)82.143.162.72 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Have you found a verifiable source for the picture yet? Double standards.

Have you ever read Assume good faith? It means, if the person who took the picture and uploaded it says they are Roma girls, we don't assume he is lying without some good reason, and I haven't seen any real reason yet. ie, why would he take someone else's picture and try to pass it off as Roma if they are someone else? The do look enough like the few genuine Roma I have ever met, so what is really the problem bothering you exactly? And what do you seriously hope to accomplish by obsessing over this one issue? Wikipedia is huge, one million articles now, and this is really tiny in the big picture, why not stop the semi-trolling and really help to improve it? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to John F. Kennedy, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Dakota ~ ° 19:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Umbrella, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. -- SCZenz 19:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

82.143.162.72 19:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Have a look at the track record of the moderators elsewhere while you're at it. Start off with Improv. Ask him/her/them what edits I am supposed to have made to 'Orissa'.

You're adding random text in articles, so I blocked you. Whatever other disputes you have, that's vandalism and you know it. -- SCZenz 19:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Hiya, Regarding Orissa, I was blocking another person for continued linkfarming on Orissa, and I was blocking you for your long campaign of edits to Roma people. I got the texts mixed up. Oops. In either case, I stand by both blocks, the reasons listed were just switched accidentally. If you want to accuse my history of edits to Roma people, please review them first. I think you'll find that I have done no whitewashing or anything similar to it. I have no particular like or dislike of Roma people, i just want to keep the article's quality up. I suggest you review your edits, and reconsider your plans to be disruptive on Wikipedia. It won't get you anything, and given that a number of people are watching, it will probably have no long-lasting effect. It would be better for you to try contributing more productively, or not to try to contribute at all. Why don't you try editing on some other topics for awhile? --Improv 02:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../8/2/2E/User_talk%7E82.143.162.72.html"