User talk:4wajzkd02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, 4wajzkd02, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 
---- Black Harry (T|C) 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind welcome. I've been reading Wikipedia as an unregistered user for a couple of years. At first I was a bit of an 'Encyclopedia snob'; over time, I've come to appreciate Wikipedia as a useful and enjoyable resource. I've been lurking as a registered user for a little bit, and after trying my hand at some small edits, felt it was time to contribute a bit more.


I very much appreciate the references you provided. I'll read them as a first step in my education here. I'll also continue to look at existing pages for inspiration and example. Your user page is certainly impressive to me - I'll be sure to use it, and other such pages, as inspiration when I update mine in the future.

Kindest regards, --4wajzkd02 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Aardvark Brigade

Please be careful and look at articles slowly when marking them for speedy deletion. This appears to be A7 but not a biography. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and I defer to your expertise. I do have a question, however - the db-bio template does clearly specify CSD-A7 in its text. I suppose db-inc would have been more precise, in this case, but I thought the generic was acceptable. I also could not find reference, in the Speedy Deletion section, to the db-nn template you used. Thanks again for your helpful words. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that Template:Db-bio redirects to the general A7 template now (it used to just mention biographies). So using it for that purpose is ok. I'd just recommend not saying that in the edit summary because it might confuse people. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! I'll follow your advice with respect to edit summaries henceforth. Cheers! --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aberdeen, Maryland

You're right; Perryman is closer. I never even think of it as a city in this region, but it would be more apt than Belcamp as the closest SE to Aberdeen.Rurik (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] didn't attack

I didn't say he was guilty or that he was gay. It's big news locally. JerryVanF (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Local newsworthiness does not assign notability. Please see Wikipedia:Notability. P.S. Your comment should be on the talk page of the article in question, not just my talk page. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Barclay (Commissioner)

Please at least look at what you are tagging. That was clearly not CSD material. asenine say what? 06:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, I did read the article, in its entirety, at the time of my tagging it. I believe the subject of the article is non-notable, at best. At the time I tagged it, it did not have the section regarding "Vindication". I also believe your comment "Please at least look at what you are tagging." is inappropriate, and not per guidelines for editing, as it accuses me of bad faith. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I sincerely apologise if you believe I acted in bad faith, and if I have offended you in any way. It still, however, is not an attack page. asenine say what? 06:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You most assuredly DID offend me. I can't see how anyone acting in good faith to improve the Encyclopedia would not be offended.
  • As for a "false CSD", to me, "false, as a synonym for "untrue", suggest vandalism, which again, seems to be accusing me of bad faith. An apology followed by a similar accusation seems lacking in sincerity. Moreover, you're an admin - to whom can I get relief?
  • More importantly I thought CSD is a PROCESS, which can include:
    • Agreement by an administrator, in which case it is deleted
    • Disagreement by the author, along with documentation on the talk page of the article, which can either be agreed with or not
    • Disagreement by an admin., in which case it is not deleted
  • Having a CSD nomination not deleted does not seem, to me, to mean it is "false" (and, if you'll note, the one noted on my talk page resulted in an apology from the poster).
  • I saw no discussion on the talk page, only reference (on your talk page) by the author as to suggestions you made, and your curt comment to me (which I believe would be viewed by a neutral 3rd party as a inappropriate comment, and a form of attack).
  • The tone of both of your comments are discouraging to my continued contribution. This seems to be a bad result.
  • Finally, I apologize in advance for copying these comments to your user talk page. I was uncertain you'd reply if I did not. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is your second reply to me on this topic:
I apologise if you believe I acted in bad faith, but I noticed that this is not the first time that you have been notified of a false CSD. I apologise sincerely if I have offended you in any way.
Here is my reply to that reply:
You most assuredly DID offend me. I can't see how anyone acting in good faith to improve the Encyclopedia would not be offended.
  • As for a "false CSD", to me, "false, as a synonym for "untrue", suggest vandalism, which again, seems to be accusing me of bad faith. An apology followed by a similar accusation seems lacking in sincerity. Moreover, you're an admin - to whom can I get relief?
  • More importantly I thought CSD is a PROCESS, which can include:
    • Agreement by an administrator, in which case it is deleted
    • Disagreement by the author, along with documentation on the talk page of the article, which can either be agreed with or not
    • Disagreement by an admin., in which case it is not deleted
  • Having a CSD nomination not deleted does not seem, to me, to mean it is "false" (and, if you'll note, the one noted on my talk page resulted in an apology from the poster).
  • I saw no discussion on the talk page, only reference (on your talk page) by the author as to suggestions you made, and your curt comment to me (which I believe would be viewed by a neutral 3rd party as a inappropriate comment, and a form of attack).
  • The tone of both of your comments are discouraging to my continued contribution. This seems to be a bad result.
  • Finally, I apologize in advance for copying these comments to your user talk page. I was uncertain you'd reply if I did not. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I note that you have twice edited your second reply, on MY talk page, to remove "but I noticed that this is not the first time that you have been notified of a false CSD." and to add "It still, however, is not an attack page." Here is my reply to your edited reply.
I have four comments:
  • I note Template:Uw-tpv1, which states "talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well". My response was to your comments, which you did save to my talk page, and I read. Revising history seems unfair, although I do assume you acted in good faith in this case, and reconsidered your comments with respect to "false CSDs" as being unfair and inappropriate
  • As to your comment "It still, however, is not an attack page.", I refer you to my original response, in which I stated "At the time I tagged it, it did not have the section regarding "Vindication".". I also refer you to my second response, above, in which I referred to the process. I believe it would have followed the Wiki guidelines better, and been a lot more pleasant for me, at least, if "good faith" discussions and suggestions had occurred on the article talk page, vice what has occurred.
  • Finally, I am unhappy to be at the receiving end of your "Apology" followed by "Attack" (in your unedited response") and then followed by "Justification" (in your edited response). Apologies, when sincere, should stand by themselves, without caveat.

--Joe Sperrazza (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, I mean well. I do not wish to harm any relationship with other editors by seeming not to WP:AGF. The reason why I edited my comment was because I have Asperger's Syndrome, which does indeed sometimes cause me to phrase things badly. I did not wish to offend you any further, and as thus edited my comment. I am indeed deeply sorry for any 'bad blood', and I mean that sincerely. asenine say what? 06:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, I am not an administrator. Have a nice day. :) asenine say what? 06:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you said in my editor review that I violated [[1]]. Which one? asenine say what? 17:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
1. The following Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable:
"Do not misrepresent other people: ..."
a. "...The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context (emphasis addded)... "When describing other people's contributions or edits, use Help:Diffs." In your first post to my talk page, you said "Please at least look at what you are tagging.. Yet, if you had looked at the diff of the edit I made to the page in question, the entirety of the article was:
"Bruce Barclay was a Cumberland County Commissioner (Pennsylvania, USA) that was invested for male rape.[1] He was later found to have "built a hidden video system in his home and recorded as many as 500 sexual episodes with unknowing men." [2] Barclay has resigned. Later, one of the alleged rape victim was charged with filing a false police report when the tapes were reviewed".
The version you referred to (see the diff, as indicated in the history by the comment you made when you changed the page in question by deleting the db-attack tag, is significantly different. So, by either ignoring or failing to reference the history and diffs of that page, your first post failed to show the right context. In context of what I tagged, the page is only negative. In the updated page, following my tag, the page began to add balance. All of this is good, as our goal as editors should be good articles. However, your comments on my talk page, being in the wrong context, misrepresent my actions.
b. No personal attacks "A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. ... No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks...". Accusing me of not looking' at a page prior to tagging is unambiguously an insult, as I have previously described in a prior reply to you. To quote, "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.". In this case, you ignored evidence (the diffs), instead 'attacking' me by asserting that I had the characteristic of not reading articles prior to tagging them.
Given I have explained these facts in some detail in my prior replies, I question why you are reopening this issue. As I noted in a prior comment to an entry, I find this whole affair both tiring and disheartening. I suspect the only reason you have done so is because I documented my concenrn in your Editor Review, in which I believe it indicates several areas of improvement for you.
2. I will also add that you also failed to follow Talk page guidelines by editing your own comments. Moreover, and unfortunate for us both, you did so after I had already read them, as I was online, editing, and you did save them. I do appreciate your explantion for your doing so due to your Asperbergers, but I note that a fundamental element of editing here is to preview your edits prior to posting - I strongly suggest you carefully do so in te future before posting to peoples talk pages, at least. You edited your second reply twice. You could have more easily previewed your comments, and never posted your second comment "I apologise if you believe I acted in bad faith, but I noticed that this is not the first time that you have been notified of a false CSD"(which I consider to also be a [[personal attack and to be Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable by again failing to give evidence or note context - I also, as previously noted in a reply to you, feel it is demonstrably untrue).
3. I also note that you personally deleted my db-attack tage from the page in question. As you are not an Admin, is this correct behavior? By CSD process, which I already have outlined, should you have not instead posted to the pages talk page on this topic? I am not taking the time to research this now, but I did not understand that, as an editor, you had the right to delete such tags on your own say-so. If any editor has such right, I will stand corrected. If not, I admonish you to follow the rules henceforth.
I had hoped that this regrettable incident was behind us. I look forward to the day when I can return to devoting energies I reserve for Wikipedia to improving and authoring articles, and not discussing Wiki eitiquette. Regardless, if you are still disatisfied with my comments to what, in my belief, are issue you casued by your less than well chosen actions, I will continue discouse. Best regards --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you have already archived this discussion from your talk page, yet, by your continued dialogue, it seems to still be active. Also, your own talk pages notes your preference that replies to your posts to others' talk pages be added to your talk page. I also feel uncomfortable editing your archive pages. So, to maintain the context, and for the record, I am pasting the entire discusion back to your talk page, and adding this terminal comment here.
Editors do indeed have the right to remove CSDs from articles which blatantly do not meet the criteria. Perhaps it was not blatant, but if so my mistake and I apologise.
I already have enough going on in my life without trying to sustain an argument with another editor where I have already attempted to reconcile our differences. I admit my phrasing of the original comment was terrible, and that was not what I intended to convey. I do so hope that we can put aside this problem and leave the problem with good feelings on both sides. I notice that you say that I have reopened the argument, and if so that was also not intentional. If we can end it here, I believe it would be better for all. I never intended to offend you, and would not intend to offend you, and as such I am sorry. asenine say what? 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Done (offers virtual handshake)

--Joe Sperrazza (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad this is over and dealt with. Have a very pleasant day and happy editing! :) asenine say what? 21:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)