User talk:86.145.122.139

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ashley Dupre

She has stated her height as 5'6" on a Web site she runs. Your personal opinion that "most women exaggerate their height" is of no consequence or importance. Unless you have a reliable source which specifically provides evidence to refute her, you are to cease reverting the page immediately or be blocked. FCYTravis (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis, for a start, you're incorrect in saying that she runs that website. It's just the site of a modelling agency. In my opinion, there is no reason to believe that the 5'6" figure stated on the agency's site is more reliable than the 5'5" figure which has been very widely quoted in the press (if you think otherwise, you should check). In my view, the 5'5" figure is more likely to be accurate, as many people (particularly those in modelling and showbusiness) exaggerate their heights. This point is of importance, as it helps a critical person to decide which figure is more believable. You appear to be suggesting that it's better to take her own word for her height, even when there are sources to the contrary. You need to be more critical. 86.145.122.139 (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 12 hours. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page, replacing your reason here with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.  FCYTravis (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I warned you that if you reinserted that information without providing sources other than "in my opinion, people exaggerate their heights," you would be blocked. You did, and you have. That modeling site is maintained by her, and is as close to a reliable source for her height as we have. A quick Google search turned up zero reliable sources to the contrary - "whosdatedwho.com" is definitely not a reliable source.

On Wikipedia, "your view" is of no relevance whatsoever, and your opinion of her veracity is similarly irrelevant and meaningless. It is verifiable that she has stated her height to be 5'6", and you have repeatedly refused to provide reliable sources which assert otherwise. In the absence of such evidence, we assume that she is telling the truth. The role of Wikipedia is not to be "critical" or decide what is or is not "believable." FCYTravis (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also verifiable that O. J. Simpson was acquitted for murder. You guys need to look at material with a more critical eye. You're a colourful character, but you're also an outrageous pedant. 86.145.122.139 (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with Travis's conduct, you should know that making personal attacks on Wikipedia is unacceptable. See WP:NPA. Reswobslc (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Travis, don't you think using a block to enforce "your way" in an edit war over a rather insignificant detail is a little over the top? I think it's misuse of admin tools. Jeez. Reswobslc (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "An edit war with an admin is not an appropriate reason for a block... User:86.145.122.139's rationale for making the edit is clearly in good faith and not "vandalism"... Admin's rationale stating that Dupre "runs" the web site is clearly in error and makes his source just as unreliable... Blocking admin's conduct questionable."

Decline reason: "First, this unblock request should be made by the blocked user, not someone with a few months editing experience on his behalf (You coudl have opened a thread at WP:AN/I, although I doubt anybody else This is not a content dispute. Travis was right ... we stick to the facts given by reliable sources. Perhaps her modeling agency exaggerates ... if you can find a reliable source that says so, put it in the article. You cannot cite your gut feeling. Anon's sarcasm doesn't help his case any. "It's also verifiable that O.J. Simpson was acquitted for murder" ... yes, it is, and just because you felt the verdict was wrong does not mean it isn't so. The anon was repeatedly removing sourced information from an article to replace it with what "everybody" knows. That is not vandalism per se, but it is undeniably disruptive editing. This is a short block; if you really want to make an issue out of it go to AN/I after it expires. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Alright guys. Perhaps I owe you a small apology for the O. J. Simpson comment. But it's my belief that Travis is pursuing verifiability before truth, which seems an undesirable thing to do. There are many cases of celebrities and their agents spreading misinformation. Remember Sharon Stone and Mensa, anyone? We don't have to believe everything they say. 86.147.121.254 (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth is policy on Wikipedia, for precisely the reason that everyone has their own different version of "truth." We have to stick to what is verifiable through other published reliable sources. If you think that's wrong and needs to be changed, please feel free to start a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. FCYTravis (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see the logic behind the policy, I just think that it's going a bit far to apply it to issues like a person's height which aren't potentially libellous. If you always follow a policy like this strictly, it's going to result in some misinformation in the encyclopaedia. To take another example, no one in their right mind thinks that Kate Moss is 5'8" tall. There are many sources saying that she's shorter than this (including Biography Channel and IMDb), but you, Travis, won't accept it. It's your loss. 86.147.121.254 (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Travis truly cares or that common sense or logic is really the overriding factor here. The human factor is. Many humans are jerks. Many aren't jerks, but do jerky things when they're in a bad mood. Fortunately on Wikipedia, admin behavior like this is the exception rather than the norm. Most admins don't refer to good-faith editing (even if in error or contrary to policy) as vandalism or block you for it, and most admins don't block you for disagreeing with them. You just happen to have made an edit to an article Travis takes an interest in, and it is my observation that calling your contribution "vandalism" despite your willingness to discuss it, and then "punishing" you for it, is very consistent with his behavior in the past. Don't take it personally, the problem isn't yours. Even the policy is on your side: WP:VANDAL clearly states: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism.". Most admins don't make belittling comments like "your opinion is of no relevance whatsoever", even if in good faith you make an edit that goes against some policy. At the present, it is my observation that Wikipedia has a high tolerance for admin abuse - the bar of misconduct required to hold an admin responsible for any admin action is currently rather high.
As a side note, admins rarely like to undo the actions of other admins (no matter how ridiculous) as adminship is sort of a "club" (despite what anyone says) and among admins it is sort of a faux-pas (see WP:WHEEL). But so long as you edit articles that Travis doesn't appear to desire to "own", you can reasonably expect more civil treatment. Reswobslc (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, Reswobslc. Sorry I didn't see it until now. It's good to know that there are some reasonable people around here! 86.145.122.139 (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)