User talk:24.252.113.75

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Vladimir Putin. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Quintote 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.24.252.113.75 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see reply on my talk page. I'm reluctant to label any well-intentioned editor as a vandal, but I did so in this case because it's clear you were adding something that (1) doesn't belong on the page, and (2) is actively, repeatedly rejected by other page editors. My actions weren't meant as an attack on you; I simply want Wikipedia to be the best it can be. -Quintote 01:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It was "actively, repeatedly rejected" by ONE other page editor before you stepped in, and I didn't re-add it after you did so. Also it didn't help that the editor who reverted me three times didn't leave a rationale for any of his reverts. I actually thought the first revert was completely computerized because I hadn't left a reason in the comment field, so I made subsequent edits with increasing information. Each time I was reverted with no comment at all, until the final one, which came in the form of a "threat" to report me for vandalism. If it's necessary to treat anonymous contributions in such a high-handed way, Wikipedia would be better off prohibiting them completely. 24.252.113.75 06:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I suspect I'd be as upset as you if I too had gotten the "smack-down" repeatedly with no explanation. As I said earlier, if I had it to do over, I would've looked more carefully to see the multiple reverts and talked with you rather than jumping into the fray. -Quintote 14:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It's water under the bridge though. 24.252.113.75 14:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vladimir Putin's Political Enemies

I didnt say Putin had nothing to do with his political enemies getting poisonned. Offhand, I tend to believe he DID have something to do with it. But the charge has not been proven, therefore it is vandalism to insert the category poisoner into his bio as per WP:BLP. As I said, don't mistake me for a fan of Putin, but I will revert this as many times as is necessary, and 3RR does not apply to vandalism or reverting violations of WP:BLP. It might be more appropriate to wrote a section talking about the accusations against putin. Caper13 01:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis on accusation. This is by no means proven, and an entry saying he is behind it will almost certainly be reverted, if not by me, then by someone else. Caper13 01:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll write a section, most likely simple references to articles about his enemies who were mysteriously poisoned. Of course I understand now that we can't actually assert that he's reponsible, unless we catch him in the act, preferably on video tape. Until then, we must officially believe that it's coincidence that his enemies have been poisoned using exotic chemicals and radioactive substances available only to heads of state and their security apparatuses. BTW, despite your claims, adding the Poinsoner category is NOT vandalism according to the vandalism policy: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". But even if you think it is vandalism, the 3RR policy outlines what you should have done rather than revert me three times: "Repeated reversion against vandalism should be avoided. Blocking is the preferred solution to repeat vandalism originating from a single user or IP."24.252.113.75 01:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for finding a constructive solution to this. You know, if I had to do this over again, I'd have talked with you about this instead of fanning the edit war flames with my revert and warning. -Quintote 02:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I encourage you to write that section. Just be sure to make it WP:NPOV to ensure it survives. Don't take it personally that I reverted you. I didn't intend it to mean that you are a vandal with ill intent, but what you were putting in wasn't going to survive whether it was me who reverted you, or someone else. I don't doubt you have good motives and you don't need to try to convince me that Putin is probably a bad guy and probably had something to do with this, because it doesnt matter what you or I think, it is what can be proven. Adding that Category to the article is the same as adding a sentence saying that "He was responsible" for those murders. Until he is convicted or it is proven in some way, you just can't do it...especially when it comes to a biography of a living person. WP:BLP and these cases are held to a high standard. Writing a section addressing the accusations against him though, is fair game unless it is obviously biased and POV. Good luck with your section and like I said, don't take my reverts personally. Advice, open an account on wikipedia so that your edits are made under that 'name'. IP edits tend to be subjected to higher scrutiny and carry less weight than 'named' edits. Might not be right, but it happens. Like I said, nothing personal and best of luck. If I can be of any help with your section, feel free to ask. Caper13 02:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your "encouragement". Very kind of you, and not at all patronizing. I've written the section. If you disagree with it, please revert four times (with no explanation, just threats, as you did before). Definitely don't discuss first; that's not the Wikipedia way. 24.252.113.75 02:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If what I wrote above came across as patronizing, then I apologise. I already read your addition. It is good. Caper13 03:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I just added two additional poisoning victims. This brings to five that I know about offhand, three of them by polonium-210, all of them Putin critics, with polonium stated by a toxicology expert as "only found in government-controlled institutions." 24.252.113.75 03:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I too hope my comments weren't taking as condescending. Sadly, that's how a Wikipedia fanboy like me sounds when they're being genuine. :-) I'd second Caper13's recommendation that you consider getting a user account. I encountered your change doing RC patrol. My anecdotal experience with a few hundred reverts of Wikipedia Vandalism is that there's a significant chance an IP-based edit is a vandal who may do anything from adding the word "poop", to adding incorrect but plausible information, both of which I've seen repeatedly. -Quintote 04:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll create an account if I decide to contribute to Wikipedia again. From what I've heard, it's addictive, clanish, and political, so not sure I want to get sucked in... 24.252.113.75 06:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL - it's frighteningly addictive, no question. I have only been editing with an account since June, so I can't comment on every nook and crannie of Wikipedia, though I believe the conflict I've encountered has simply been a product of the distributed editing model. -Quintote 14:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)