User talk:SpyMagician/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
		<< 1		Archive 1	Archive 2 >	1 >>

1 Reply from my talk page
2 Are you Jack Szwergold?
3 Mommy's sweater
4 Sweaters
5 Civility + personal attacks
6 Talk page blanking

Reply from my talk page

I'm not sure what tags I am obsessively adding. I believe that I was actually asking Future Fun Jumper (TIC) to ease up on the tags needing references for almost every sentence. IrishGuy ^talk 04:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Future Fun Jumper (TIC) is an idiot. He's been busted and now he's taken to "moving" his "talk" page to an "artchive" undoubtedly to make sure others don't see what he's done in the past. Pathetic and very much not in the spirit of the Wiki. SpyMagician 09:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(reposted here from my talk page) Wow. OK. SpyMagician, calling someone and idiot is a violation of WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK. If you are Jack Szwergold, FFJ is correct, you really shouldn't be editing that article per WP:COI. FFJ isn't hiding his talk page by archiving it as long as he has a link to the archived page. Now, all that being said, FFJ, you probably could ease up a little on being so black and white about some of the notability guidelines. At bare minimum, a little discussion on the article's talk pages before adding numerous tags might be helpful to other editors. But seriously, guys this fighting isn't helping anything. IrishGuy ^talk 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you Jack Szwergold?

If you are Jack Szwergold, please do not remove the {{Notable Wikipedian}} template from your article's talk page; you should be open and honest about any conflicts of interest you have, and removing this template does not give that impression. In fact, please try not to edit articles involving you or the Onion. I don't know what your relationship with Maria Schneider is, but I am not sure how NPOV this edit is. If you have any questions or comments about this, I am available to help you with this. Incidentally, I really liked the work you did on the Onion site, and I agree with your opinion that the Onion got caught up a little in being relevant after 9/11. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mommy's sweater

[Repinted from User talk:ChrisGriswold]

"The red sweater, knitted by his late mother, was donated to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History by Fred Rogers on Nov. 20, 1984."[1] This fact was discovered within a 2 second Google search for 'Fred Rogers Sweater'. Rather than simply smack down users—and discouraging contributions—can you set a good example by at least attempting to be constructive? --SpyMagician 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, man. Is this how you respond every time someone criticizes you? You seriously looked for some way to turn the tables on me?

Look, I have seen the way you follow Future Whatever around from article to article, and it doesn't look good. Drop it and move on. You shouldn't have been editing articles related to you. You might not agree with what the user is doing, but it looks to me like he's found agreement on a large number of deletions, so it seems to me that what he's doing has been getting approval. So don't lecture me on discouraging contributions because I'm not stalking another user. Instead, I've actively made more than 20,000 constructive edits, and I watch articles like Mister Rogers for recurring vandalism and misinformed contributions. While I try to look into some, I don't have time to research every uncited claim editors add.

Plus, the only one I see "smacking someone down" is you, with your excessive criticisms of other editors' work, such as this one. I just make corrections civilly. And if you want to brag about how easy it is to find a citation for something, you should at least find something that supports the uncited claim. Take another look: The sweater in the Smithsonian was made by Rogers' mother, but it says nothing about the majority of them being made by her. Thanks for trying, even if it seems like you were just trying to make me look bad.

Please try to be more civil in dealing with other editors who are actually working on the encyclopedia and don't stalk other editors. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sweaters

According to imdb.com, many of the sweaters Fred wore on the show were made by his mother.

When writing on someone's talk page, please create a new section at the page's bottom and sign your name. As for your comment, the IMDb is not a credible source; it is a wiki, just like Wikipedia, which means that there is not a decent editorial process. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"The red sweater, knitted by his late mother, was donated to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History by Fred Rogers on Nov. 20, 1984."[2] This fact was discovered within a 2 second Google search for 'Fred Rogers Sweater'. Rather than simply smack down users—and discouraging contributions—can you set a good example by at least attempting to be constructive? --SpyMagician 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, man. Is this how you respond every time someone criticizes you? You seriously looked for some way to turn the tables on me?

Please try to be more civil in dealing with other editors who are actually working on the encyclopedia and don't stalk other editors. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris, the comments on this page responding to your edits speaks volumes towards how people feel about your work. It seems to me like you're taking this all too personally. And in the case of the Fred Rogers sweater, your reaction in response to overwhelming valid evidence—such as the Smithsonian Institution—is baffling. I wasn't looking for anything, but rather saw a reference to Fred Rogers, am a fan of his work, and was baffled by your response and the lack of a constructive citation on the story. Is there some particular reason you seem so happy to dish it out, but not take it? The big comfort I have in my favor is despite whatever petty issues you have with me on Wikipedia, I know for a solid fact I've contributed a lot more to the real world of comedy than you have done. Please continue to delete and harass other comedy and improv listings on Wiki to your heart's content and claim supposed COI on things you barely know about. Can anyone claim COI in your loving stewardship of the questionable Friday Nite Improvs page? Or will merely thinking that invoke your abusive wrath? I've been involved in comedy for quite a while, but have never heard of them before. Please continue to claim thousands of edits as a statement of validity to your judgement, because we all know that that quantity trumps quality every day, right? --SpyMagician 03:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know why you want to continue this. I have seen your harassment of other editors, and I would appreciate not receiving the same. The difference between some improv group articles and others is that some have been written about and others have not. Yes, the Friday Nite Improvs article was a conflict of interest. It was the first thing I edited on Wikipedia, much like the vanity articles many editors create when they first edit here. But I read WP:COI and then focused on making sure the article is NPOV and backing it up with claims. Additionally, I edit with my own name, so I am upfront about any such conflicts of interest. The article has been brought up for deletion before, and it has survived because it is emblematic of Pittsburgh improv.

Your statements about your contributions to the world of comedy vs. mine were unnecessary and inappropriate. Please take a look at your behavior on Wikipedia and question whether it is constructive or needlessly harsh.

As for the comment about quantity vs. quality, Nobody gets to 20,000 edits if they're making bad edits. Additionally, they don't become an administrator, which, admittedly, is not a big deal, but it means I get more whining on my talk page than a regular user because I have to make some decisions that will make people unhappy. So that's really not a good indicator of the quality of my edits.

I believe this whole conversation started with me asking you politely to be open about conflicts of interest and complimenting you on your work on the Onion. How does that come to this? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you reread my explanation as to why I didn't answer to begin with. And don't you mean, "Why don't I bow down to your 20,000 edits and realize your view is more valid than mine?" And after you do that, please look over the words you write to others—and the violent edits you make—and take a step back and realize that your behavior often-times warrants this response. And happily in the case of the Fred Rogers' sweater nonsense, your petty decision to smack down my edit was revereted by another editor less than 30 minutes later with even more proof of the claim. I would still like to know why you are so violent in your edits of practically any other comedy entry on Wikipedia but barely cast half the doubt you do on Friday Nite Improvs. Even with the level of citations that article has, it still doesn't explain why similar articles get the stink-eye from you while you allow the page you have a clear COI on to thrive. It's very clearly a COI. And as for your trite "I believe this whole conversation started with me asking you politely to be open about conflicts of interest and complimenting you on your work on the Onion.", again please realize your tone is very condescending and wreaks of smugness.

Please continue to edit Wikipedia and shape the articles in the way you see fit to do and violently lash out at anyone who dares to say anything against you. Also, I probably will never get 20,000 edits or admin status because I have this thing called a 'life'. Is that out of line to say that? Maybe. But perhaps Wiki editors like you who seem to be OCD in the level of edits you make should be a bit more accomodating towards others who contribute, but do not have any plans on going into the unpaid business of maintaining Wikipedia. It's a well known fact Wiki editors are frowned down upon nowadays because of their overzealousness over ridiculous topics and their constant air of suspicion. Welcome to the club Chris. --SpyMagician 04:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility + personal attacks

If you are going to edit at Wikipedia, at least try to mask your contempt and try to get along with other editors. I don't really need the grief yuou are giving me. I edit Wikipedia as a distraction, something to do while I am doing something else, and I think you are taking certain aspects of it way too seriously and personally while not fully understanding how the encyclopedia works. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If the 20,000 edits you're constantly bragging about are simply a "distraction" I'd seek some professional help now. Take care, chief. Your record stands for itself. --SpyMagician 06:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page blanking

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:SpyMagician. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Personal attacks may be removed. Do not remove conversations discussing your conflicts of interest, disputes with other editors, or incivility. This is Wikipedia's talk page, and it is here for the use of all editors. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)