User talk:Andrewjens/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] link to bonfire

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Undermining our standards: another disappointing promotion Tony 12:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

See the edit box for the way of writing in a "piped link, like this. Tony 12:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Featured Article page short-cut link is WP:FAC Tony 12:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus WP:FAR

My tutorial article on writing is here.Tony 12:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STHS

Hi Andrew,

When I said: "The people arguing in favour of the link have a vested interest in its inclusion, therefore they are not objective when considering what a random reader wants and expects ...". I didn't mean that people who are involved in the subject of an article shouldn't edit wikipedia and the articles they know about, if that were the case it would be a pretty crappy encyclopedia. People edit what they know and they usually have an interest in that. Particuarly with schools articles, because the only people who are going to edit them properly are old boys/girls. I have a vested interest in half of the articles I have created.

What I think is that anyone is free to edit anything, but when it comes to a dispute of content, whoever has an vested interest in an article shouldn't participate in the debate about whatever it is. This leads to problems such as the only people who are likely to be arguing for a particular point are those people and it may be really hard to find some neutral people and ask them to argue your point. That is probably one of the reasons why it isn't wikipedia policy, the other being that it is impossible to tell sometimes. So it is purely my opinion and not policy or anything. Grumpyyoungman01 00:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But the whole point that you have missed in this (Talk:Sydney_Technical_High_School) is that there was no discussion or debate. Enochlau just unilaterally and without Wikipedia-supported justification revised an edit and is now unwilling to listen to the debate supported by more than a dozen people.

I utterly reject your notion that "whoever has an (sic) vested interest in an article shouldn't participate in the debate...". Input into a debate must be taken on its merits - not its source.--Andrew Jens

"Input into a debate must be taken on its merits - not its source." Yeah you are probably right about this, I am just an authoritarian Nazi, or something. I withdraw that argument. I agree that there was little in the way of discussion, but Enochlau had heaps of support from admins and such for his position and action like that is about as Wikipedia sanctioned as you get, even if it is more of majoritarian rule than consensus. I think that you could still get the link included somehow in the body of the text if you used it as a reference for something which couldn't be found on the school or old boys website. If you are up against the odds you need to think creatively and subversively. -- Grumpyyoungman01 08:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Grumpy. I do take issue with your assumption that admins have more weight than other registered users. Admins just do the hum-drum duties that keep the project going. I'm sorry if I'm offending people, but editorial skills are not a prerequisite for adminship. Tony 09:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

You should take heed of this: [1]. You should also take heed of WP:3RR - you have already made the change three times. enochlau (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I held off replacing the external link for a long time. I was hoping that you'd demonstrate some common sense and decency - but no. The only way to bring the issue to a head is to force the pace a little. That is why I have now replace the link multiple times. Perhaps by exposing you to some outside scrutiny, you might get a little more life experience and become more flexible in your thinking. You certainly need to, as you are well on your way to being a card-carrying electronic book-burner. --AndrewJens 00:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Go to the mediation page. There is a solution there. Implement it, and everyone will be happy. enochlau (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal request regarding STHS

Yes, I know, you're probably sick of hearing about this, by now. But. I'm here to let you know that someone has requested that the Mediation Cabal attempt to calm down the situation. If you're not interested, feel free to disregard this message. If you are interested, I'll ask that you try to put any harsh feelings behind you, and remember that you and all of the editors around you are all trying to build the best Wikipedia possible; disagreements in how to do so shouldn't get in the way of our good faith towards each other. We do encourage new users to be bold, and I'm a firm believer of that philosophy. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, not particularly accessible to newcomers, and as beneficial new users are arguably our greatest resource, we would all do well to remember our "younger days" Likewise, I've known firsthand how tiresome it can get, reverting vandal after vandal -- over time, each new incident starts to develop this sense of urgency, and you get tired of having what seems to be the same discussion, over and over -- I also see that the admin in question has a bit of a history protecting this article in particular.

Now, the link in question does have some issues, for and against it; I find things to sympathize with and things to fault in all parties, here. For the time being, my interest is in calming things down. I would appreciate it if you (along with any other involved editors) would agree to set aside hard feelings in the pursuit of a better Wikipedia -- our reputation on an encyclopedia depends heavily on interactions between editors. All that much better if we can all agree to work side-by-side, and do so in a public, transparent forum for all to see. Let's try to make this a positive experience for everyone.

I have nothing but respect for your intelligence, and your contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for the time you've taken to read my message, and any subsequent time you might put into this case.

The particular case page can be found here. As you're probably aware, the cabal has no official authority, but in this case that may work to everyone's advantage. Luna Santin 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

WP really doesn't like edit wars. It's unstable and makes a mockery of the process. They'll penalise you severely if you continue. Tony 03:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to check up on you. I had the impression you were more than a bit upset over how things were handled, and actually being a relatively new user myself, I'm more than happy to lend an ear, if you'd like to talk. I may be able to give you some advice, but if you'd rather I just listen, that's perfectly alright. Is there anything I could do to help you feel better about this situation or the way in which things have been handled so far? Luna Santin 10:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll admit that my confidence in the effectiveness of Wikipedia has taken a blow. It's good to see that there are at least some users out there who are willing to discuss things. I'll see how all this goes, and get back to you. Thanks. --AndrewJens 04:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning re User talk:Sumple

An important message

---

Please be extremely careful when adding material to articles or talk pages that it does not involve defamation (if you don't know what defamation is, read this). Comments that defame an individual may leave you open to being sued by them. Your status here, whether as a signed-on user or as an anonymous IP, would not protect you. Someone you defame could get a court order instructing your server to supply your details to them. They could then sue you for damages. Remember, while Section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act protects Wikipedia from being sued for defamation, it may not protect the person who posted a defamatory claim on a Wikipedia page.

Furthermore, the Board of Wikipedia has ruled that: Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, [personal information] data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers. (Full information on Wikipedia privacy policy here)

This box has been placed on your talk page because another Wikipedian suspects that, perhaps innocently, you may have defamed someone in your contributions. Please recheck your edits. Do not make allegations against someone unless you have provided evidence from a reliable publication, and then make sure you describe the allegations in accordance with our content policies, particularly Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Don't rely on hearsay, rumours, or things you believe without evidence to be facts, and don't use sources to create a novel narrative. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for all claims.

If you have defamed someone, you may be blocked without warning from editing Wikipedia. If you find that you have inadvertently defamed someone in an article, do two things:
1. Remove the defamation from the article immediately.
2. Hit this link and leave a note on that page saying that you accidentally left defamatory claims in named article. (Don't repeat the claims. They will be able to see from your edit removing them what they were.) A developer will then delete the claim from the page history

Once that is done, and the defamation is gone completely from our records, the problem should be solved.

-- enochlau (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it defamation to quote a user's own writings? --AndrewJens 06:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Woooah, there. You're trying to start shit, and you know you're trying to start shit. Why? What's the point? Luna Santin 07:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I appreciate that you're angry, but why not just go with the results of the mediation? No good will come of this negativity. WP is all about the positive. It's a wonderful opportunity to promote knowledge in a democratic forum. You've just struck a difficult scenario at the start. Tony 08:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The point, Luna, is the repulsion I feel in reading the racial & religiously vilifying views of a bigot such as Sumple (views which are self-confessed and unretracted). Note that many of his views are much more recent than 10 years ago (that was a lie by Sumple, which you fell for). In fact, it doesn’t take a moment to figure out that as they are on Sumple's personal pages (linked from Wikipedia, can you believe it), that they are his current views. He could log in to geocities and remove those pages in about five minutes (if he wanted to). The fact that some of his views have been present for up to a decade should be all the indication you need as to just how proud he is of his writings.

I gave Sumple fair opportunity to renounce his odious writings – something he chose not to do. Obviously he doesn’t wish to retract his offensive opinions.

Having seen that, Luna, it should be clear to you as to why it is critical that other Wikipedians be given fair warning about the sort of influences that might be present whenever Sumple begins to edit articles (in a neutral and encyclopedic medium such as Wikipedia). Remember that I'm not just warning the Wikipedian community of something petty or minor (say Sumple's problems with grammar). Sumple’s views are subject to the Racial Vilification Act 1996 (NSW), and I would hate to see articles in Wikipedia brought into disrepute on that basis. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing".--AndrewJens 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, though, it really doesn't matter if you, I, or anybody else likes him or not -- so long as he contributes productively to Wikipedia, I don't see how his personal website is relevant. Are his edits helpful? Does he mind the NPOV policy, which should prevent his views from entering articles, whatever they might be? Is he able to work productively with other editors? Has anything on his website posed a problem for other editors before, in the course of creating and editing content for Wikipedia? Does he hunt down other editors' personal websites for the purpose of attacking them and starting flame wars? Would you have even looked at his personal page, if you hadn't been angry with him? Would you have ever known about his views, if you hadn't gone to his website? I'm not saying you have to like the guy, that's not my choice, or anyone else's but your own. But please, don't harass other users -- we should all do our best to work together, and build a better Wikipedia, and starting fights when we're frustrated doesn't seem like a step down the right path. Please reconsider, you seem very intelligent, and I'm sure you have valuable contributions to make, if that's what you want to do. Luna Santin 05:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You were warned. Your defiant comment ("Is it defamation to quote a user's own writings?") shows you did not get the message. You are blocked for 24 hours while we work out what to do from here. When you return, please show a more contrite attitude or stronger action may be taken against you. Metamagician3000 11:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Message? What message? I didn't realise I'd been tried, convicted and sentenced already - and purely because User:Enochlau has put up a big shiny warning. Obviously it's against Wikipedian rules to utter a sentence in defence of oneself. Wikipedia's pseudo-elitism is very nasty.

My experience with Wikipedia has led me to be sympathetic to the point of view (as expressed by others) of Wikipedia being "the concensus of the uninformed". Please 'block' me for much longer than 24 hours. I'm going back to the real world.

Your actions on Sumple's talk page amount to an elaborate and premeditated personal attack. I am dumbfounded why you would do this when your content dispute involving him and other users was in mediation - and seemed to be proceeding fairly well as far as I can see. Luna Santin, whom I don't know, seems to be a very competent mediator. I have no opinion about the content dispute itself, but personal attacks are strictly forbidden here, and this was not like the usual sort of exasperated insult in the heat of the moment: you went to some trouble to investigate and "expose" Sumple, mock him, and attempt to destroy his credibility. That is not how we do things.

The 24-hour block was to stop you from being able to continue, as you were actually defending your indefensible actions (indeed, you have continued to do so on this page since I blocked you). I have no particular intention of increasing it at the moment, but you need to calm down, reflect on how you have acted, and understand why your action was a serious breach of our policies that all users must treat each other in a civil way at all times and refrain from attacks of a personal nature (whether or not they would meet the legal test for defamation). If you can't understand and accept that, then, yes, Wikipedia is not for you. If, on further reflection, you do want to stay here and make a positive contribution, then the best thing you could do would be to apologise to Sumple when your block runs out in a few hours, and see if other parties are prepared to return to the mediation process. It's really up to you. Metamagician3000 02:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, I support Meta's statement here, as a friend of yours. Please come back; your expertise is badly needed on WP. Tony 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC) PS I think that we have to treat every WPian on face value here, for what he/she contributes; like a court of law, other information is ruled inadmissable, usually with good reason. There are just too many imponderables about the other texts that you've dug up for them to be relevant. I can say that without even having looked at them. I wouldn't bother. Now, you wouldn't rule out a journalist who's published harsh criticism of WP elsewhere from editing, would you? Tony 02:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)