User talk:Dominick Turner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Please make sure your talk post is germane to the article at hand 2 Please desist 3 Protest 4 Reverted 5 A response

[edit] Please make sure your talk post is germane to the article at hand

Noticed your posting on Talk:Protest, and couldn't figure out what it had to do with the article about protests. Just as a friendly reminder, in the future, please pick your talk pages carefully, especially since you cross-posted the same text in a few different articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please desist

Please desist from spamming user and article talk pages with copies of the same message. Thank you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protest

First of all, I don't know why I specifically received that message from you. If you're simply trying to get everyone's attention, this is not the right way to do it.

However, to address your points, all I will say is this. The Wikipedia is not a public resource per se, though it is offered to the public at large. You don't have a "right" to do anything - the computers and the management of what goes on within them is the domain of the Wikimedia Foundation. Just because a resource is open to everyone doesn't mean that you can do what you want. Same as any private property - you must follow the rules or get out. While I'm not a lawyer, I'm certain someone here can cite you some case law which will accord with this.

Regardless of all of that, I happen to agree with the official line that vandalism has no constructive value within the site, nor does it demonstrate anything except a willful abrogation of the rules. Which happen to be formed largely by group discussion and concensus. Which is where your message should be discussed, honestly! There is a process for discussing and questioning policies. However, if you don't agree with the site, there is no obligation to stay. There are many forks of the Wikipedia; you may also form one of your own if the existing ones are not to your liking. But what can vandalism possibly be a valid resort from? If you try to discuss and change policy and are rebuked, all it does is show that you have no respect for that which keeps the site running. If you vandalize without resort to discussion, all it shows is your ignorance and/or unwillingness to engage in discussion to begin with. I'm sorry, but vandalism runs completely counter to the values of this site, and I cannot support it under any circumstances. Girolamo Savonarola 17:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A response

I've also posted this on my own talk page. Anyway, here goes:

Dominick, keep in mind what Wikipedia is, an encyclopaedia. Just as a city is made up of buildings, wikipedia is made up of articles. Blanking an article is accordingly just like destroying one of those buildings. Property destruction isn't exactly non-violent. Similarly, adding unnecessary tags and the like is much like graffiti - perhaps not violent, but it is against the law. Both of them will be dealt with, and in accordance with their relative severity blanking will be dealt with more harshly then graffiti.

Also, Wikipedia is entirely about collaboration. It's not a democracy, but rather relies on achieving *consensus*. If you have concerns, voice them on the talk page of the articles in question. Explain why you find them disturbing and perhaps changes can be made. Lastly, one of the core values of wikipedia is that it is *NOT* censored for the benefit of minors. This is not merely a passive rule - it is interpreted not only as meaning not to shy away from certain topics, but also, if somebody creates a censored fork of an article, DELETE THAT FORK. For example we have dealt with a recent attempt to create an article on the Abu Ghraib pictures, which did not actually display those images, since for the main article it was decided that they should be displayed. We deleted that fork. If what disturbs you is that we are presenting a fact at all, then you aren't likely to get anywhere.

So to recap, if you get caught repeatedly writing graffiti on the side of a building, there's really nothing surprising about the police making you do community service... CAPS LOCK 05:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)