User talk:65.28.9.8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, I fail to understand how using a given name basis for children is "NPOV" - I mean, yes, I understand that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a memorial (Hence, WP:NOT has a brief mention) - But, I don't see how using first name basis violates that in this case; Western children are almost never addressed on a family name basis.

Also, do you see anyone referring to young children by family names in any report of anything? WhisperToMe 18:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

One last thing - I do not trust new users nor do I trust anons to lecture me on Wikipedia policy. I've been here since 2003. WhisperToMe 18:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Then how am I supposed to know you are not a new user? You do not have an account, and your IP is not consistent (I saw an edit via a different IP) - Therefore, I have no proof of your tenure. If you do not want to me mistaken as a new user, get an account.

Anyway, I shall answer your question: I'm using a different rationale than the one you are assuming me to use. Have you heard of anyone referring to the girl as "Kanka" in a journalism report/anything? I understand your grievances, but when just about all of the reports out there call her "Megan," calling her "Kanka" is strange.

Now, Crime Library's report refers to him as "Jesse" in some points: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/kanka/1.html - But Timmendequas is a legal adult, and, should be referred to by his family name, UNLESS he was some pop star with a stage name (He is not). WhisperToMe 19:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you already have an account to upload pictures, then:

  • You should (I don't think this is a have to, in most cases, but still) mention which IP addresses you edit under in your account profile - that may, much of your edits may be properly attributed to you
  • Give a consistent name upon discussing issues with others so people do not automatically assume you are a new user

The issue ain't closed - What I meant was, I can understand how you can come to that conclusion, but, in the end, I still assert that using the naming standard I mentioned does not necessairly violate NPOV and infringe upon WP:Memorial.

I started Talk:Megan_Kanka#How_to_refer_to_Megan_Kanka_and_Jesse_Timmendequas (With a quote from you!) and I am awaiting responses. WhisperToMe 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, do we have a published article that specifically cites that the practice of using given names for kids and family names for adults (and this may happen with victims' families as well as the perpetrator) reflects any kind of bias? WhisperToMe 21:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I know, people on WP do not care so long as you do not use accounts to abuse Wikipedia. Please look at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.

"Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life or to avoid harassment), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions."

So, it is technically possible to use multiple accounts/IP names, but be VERY CAREFUL about how you do it. Do not anger other contributors or ruffle any feathers if you plan on continuing doing this.

The policy explains legit Segregation and security reasons:

"Other users employ multiple accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons:

   * A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area.
   * Since public computers can have password-stealing trojans or keyloggers installed, some users may use an alternate account when editing under these conditions to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts.
   * Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on his/her interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity. Users with a recognized expertise in one field, for example, might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects.
   * A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle may wish to use a sock puppet so that readers unfamiliar with NPOV policy will not assume his/her information edits are statements of personal belief.
   * A person editing an article as part of their work or professional life as an academic, for example or an expert in a field of advocacy who wants or needs to keep their personal interests which may be considered controversial separate.

"

WhisperToMe 22:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of ibid

Hi there. It looks like you've been doing some pretty major edits lately and making some major contributions like Alcohol laws of Kansas, loaded with citations. Nice work. However, please take a look at WP:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once. The use of ibid can lead to articles with really messed up (and hard to read) references if subsequent editors aren't paying 100% attention. Instead, using named ref tags (like <ref name="name"> ... </ref> makes things much easier. Keep up the great work! Toddstreat1 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feb 2008

I am sure it was out of good faith Staffwaterboy Talk♂ 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed it and i noticed it was not sorry for the misunderstanding Staffwaterboy Talk♂ 13:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I also changed the edit back to when you first posted it.

Thanks Staffwaterboy Talk♂ 13:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)