User talk:83.67.217.135

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Stuart Campbell (video game journalist)

Hi. Regarding this edit. The {{fact}} tag on that sentence means that it requires a citation for "and historian". That is the reason I originally added it. Please don't call my edits "ridiculous childishness". If you have any questions, or wish to debate my changes, feel free to do so either on the article's talk page, or on my talk page. Thanks. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't edit other people's comments, even if it is something you disagree with, unless it violates WP:BLP. If those allegations were in the article itself, then you would be right to remove them (indeed, I probably would have done it myself). But otherwise, we are not ones to censor what other people want to say. --Dreaded Walrus t c 19:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Those comments are borderline libellous, by any known definition. The subject is being accused, with no supporting evidence, of actions contrary to Wikipedia's rules, and which if true would cause a reasonable person to lower their opinion of the subject. That is pretty much the definition of libel. However, if it is Wikipedia policy to leave such comments unedited, then I apologise for my error and shall not interfere with Wikipedia's ability to place itself at risk of such libel action.83.67.217.135 19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
See our policy on no legal threats, please. And besides, in this instance, it would be the user(s) who made the comments that would be held responsible, not Wikipedia itself. If you still feel that the comments violate WP:BLP, feel free to remove them, I aren't interested in an edit war over such a thing. --Dreaded Walrus t c 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly not making any threats, merely warning that the subject might, because the comments are certainly actionable, and by my understanding Wikipedia is legally the publisher. 83.67.217.135 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and another thing you may be interested in, is Wikipedia:Libel. Feel free to go through the channels there to get the information removed from the talk page's history, if you feel that the comments are libellous. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

If filling in a request yourself seems a bit daunting, I'm willing to do the hard work for you, provided you can give me the reasoning.

So, first of all, have a look at our Protection policy (specifically Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection). Once you have read that, all I want you to tell me is the exact reason you think the page should be protected, in a way that fits in with the protection policy linked. Just type that out here. I will then fill out the request on your behalf, and link you to the request. Let me know if you have any questions. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 19:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The entry has been repeatedly re-edited to remove material that seems to be entirely appropriate, such as factual information regarding the chart position of games. This is surely of obvious relevance to the subject's notability - few people edit national magazines about a subject and then produce No.1 games in the same field. According to the page you linked:

"Indefinite semi-protection may be used for:

   * Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism, such as George W. Bush.[1]
   * Biographies subject to vandalism and/or POV-pushing that are not widely watchlisted.
   * User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user."
and this entry certainly seems to meet the first and perhaps second of those criteria - I see from the "What Links To Here" page (or whatever it's called) that several people have already been warned for vandalism of this entry. I have, as you can see, devoted some time to researching the entry and providing citations and improvements to its quality, and it is dismaying to see them constantly and groundlessly interfered with by people whose motives are suspect at best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.217.135 (talk • contribs).
Okay. The rationale I am thinking of pasting into the request is: "The entry has been repeatedly re-edited to remove material that seems to be entirely appropriate, such as factual information regarding the chart position of games. This is surely of obvious relevance to the subject's notability". I will add on my own note mentioning that the article is currently up for AfD, hence the mention of notability. Does that sound good to you? The reason I don't go on to include the mention of indefinite semi-protection is because protection requests should simply state semi/full-protection, and then the admins will decide how long, if at all, it should be protected for. It should also be noted that only very few articles (such as George W. Bush) are indefinitely semi-protected. Most others are temporarily semi-protected until a particular edit war would die down. In this case, that would probably be until the AfD is settled one way or the other. --Dreaded Walrus t c 20:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
That seems entirely reasonable, including the term of any semi-protection. I apologise for my earlier comment about "childishness", but as I've said, as a fan of the subject I've made considerable effort to improve this entry, and have never before seen "Citation needed" appended to someone's place of residence, and was angered to see it again, this time in respect of an issue which is unchallenged in the entry itself. I'm cranky at repeated, what I'm certain is malicious, interference with my efforts at improvement which are being perpetrated by other users, so sorry for the over-reaction against you.83.67.217.135 20:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I've filled in the request, see here for the request. And don't worry about your earlier comments, just try to keep a cool head in future, alright? :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I should also mention I shall be away from the computer for the next 30-60 minutes, so feel free to look over what I'm proposing above, and when I return I will see what your response is, and then fill in the request on your behalf. --Dreaded Walrus t c 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection continued

The page protection request has been declined. See here. Besides, like he says there, there hasn't really been that much editing there since the request has been filed either. Only your edits this morning, and if the page was protected, you wouldn't have been able to make them. :P
Anyway, it looks like the AfD will go through with Keep, now that the forum !votes have died down, and the actual Wikipedia editors have got hold. Only two regular editors, it seemed, voted keep; one used not notable with no other rationale, and the other one is affiliated with the forum users who were all voting delete.
So yeah, it looks like it's a keep. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 10:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I should say, regarding the allegations against you/Campbell, the guideline accused of being violated is WP:AUTO. But I should mention, without any ambiguity, that it is not forbidden, just discouraged. We have many people who have edited the pages on themselves, including Richard Dawkins, and even our founder, Jimbo Wales. So frankly, I personally don't care whether you are or aren't Stuart Campbell. It's certainly not as big a thing as those people on the talk page were suggesting (and if anything, their edits lower the opinions of them more than editing an article on himself could lower the opinions of Stu). --Dreaded Walrus t c 11:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it's still felt that there hasn't been an excess of edit-warring...83.67.217.135 10:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Editing other user's comments, and leaving abuse/accusations on the talk pages of other editors you disagree with isn't the best way to improve an article. --81.179.78.4 04:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume good faith until shown otherwise. Matters relating to this subject have already been discussed with named editors, anon IPs re-editing things which have already been debated is pointless, and since edit history is easily available, is hard to interpret other than as malice.83.67.217.135 05:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You realise that registered editors are now reverting/rewording the exact same edits that I was, right? Inserting forum posts, peacock terms, irrelevant information designed to push a pro-Campbell POV, etc. into the article is not constructive. --81.179.78.4 08:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also be aware of our Three-revert rule. Marasmusine 21:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, just with regards the use of the word "historian" in the Stuart Campbell article, you ask "Please explain why Wikipedia's definition does not apply." I'm not sure what definition you mean. If you are referring to another WP page in article space, then it doesn't apply because Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source, and we should be using secondary sources (see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. But perhaps you mean some other definition. Thanks, Marasmusine 09:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Stuart Campbell (video game journalist). Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Dreaded Walrus t c 11:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You have violated the three-revert rule. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Dreaded Walrus t c 12:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits of the Stuart Campbell article

At this stage I suspect you're basically just a troll, but here are the explanations for why your edits are unacceptable:

Talk:Stuart Campbell (video game journalist)#"Historian" Label
Talk:Stuart Campbell (video game journalist)#Removal of fact tags

--81.179.78.4 12:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point on Stuart Campbell (video game journalist). Please use an article or project's talk page to illustrate your point. Thanks! From: Dreaded Walrus t c 13:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC) (the edit in question can be found here.)

[edit] Sources

Hello. I would like reliable sources for the whole Stuart Campbell (video game journalist) article. I've removed some negative material about his employment status until it can be sourced from reliable independent sources. If you think that you can say without sources that someone is banned from working for a major industry company, then you need to read WP:V and WP:BLP. Please do not restore these comments without reliable citations. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, 83.67.217.135, thanks for switching to inline citations. I appreciate that you want to try and improve the Stuart Campbell article, but WP:CIVIL is one of this encyclopedia's policies. This includes comments in edit summaries ([1] isn't acceptable.) Marasmusine (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with improving this article is that it is continually subject to petty and clearly malicious pedantry. Whoever edited those citation demands in must have been able to see that they were already covered in the links, and could simply have added the inline citations just as easily as they added the "fact" tags. But that would be constructive and wouldn't add to the obvious aim of making the entry less credible. See also the completely pointless vandalism with regard to "Weird England". Unfortunately the biggest barrier to improvement of this entry are the Wiki editors who have a palpable dislike of its subject and would very obviously like to see the entry steadily nibbled away to nothing, a goal they can be seen actively pursuing in the edit history and discussion page. It is difficult to achieve any improvement under these conditions. 83.67.217.135 (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)