User talk:Hyperionsteel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Hyperionsteel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Lukobe 23:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have inadvertenly violated the 3RR rule with regard to the article entitled "Canadian Arab Federation." I have been engaged in a protracted battle with user "Tiamut" in trying to set the record straight with regard to an award handed out by the CAF.

While the mistake was unintentional, the responsibility is mine and mine alone. I will endeavour to be more careful in the future.(Hyperionsteel 03:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

1 WP:3RR
2 Greg Felton
3 BLP
4 AfD nomination of Greg Felton
5 Your hostility
6 Dear Hyperionsteel
7 Jean Ziegler
8 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Max, Miriya, and Dana Sterling (3).JPG)
9 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dana, Max and Miriya Sterling.jpg)
10 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Miriya in her Veritech figher.jpg)

[edit] WP:3RR

Please read this policy very carefully, and revert your recent edits on the Bangash page. If you do not do this, you will be at risk of being blocked. CJCurrie (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're familiar with Wikipedia's rules, you should be aware that your speculation re: the meaning of Bangash's statements is in violation of WP:NOR. Just thought I'd let you know -- I don't have any desire to defend Bangash, but I object in principle to borderline misattribution. CJCurrie (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you that one. I've removed the speculation on Bangash's statement. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Greg Felton

I cannot find the link to him being awarded by the Canadian Islamic Congress (if he was at all) but I found on their web site he was the guest speak and he appears many times on their website. One of his articles is called "HONORABLE JEWS REMAIN UNSEEN AND UNHEARD IN THE MEDIA[1]

Anyhow, good luck and I would appreciate if you find any wikipedia worthy sources that you indeed post them.

best regards --Eternalsleeper (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

Please read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It looks like you are trying to use a number of biographies on Wikipedia as "attack articles" ie as platforms from which to attack individuals you dislike or disagree with. That sort of behaviour is discouraged on Wikipedia. In particular, you should try to be balanced in your contributions and include positive information as well as critical mentions. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Also can you please leave only one blank line between paragraphs (and none after the end of a section)? That is the accepted style here and your habit of putting in two blank lines between paragraphs makes your contributions look bad. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? I thought having an extra space made it more readible. Anyway, Thanks for letting me know.

I disagree with your interpretation of my edits as attacks. I am careful not to editorialize or use inappropriate language and I also cite specific sources to support my work. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

Fair enough (though I thought I noticed some editorialization or at least some negative speculation in earlier drafts of these articles - I haven't gone back to check who it was who made the comments in question). But you do only seem to dig for negative information. If you want to create balanced NPOV biographies you really should try to find the good as well as the bad. Also, just throwing out a group of quotations is not biography writing and is better suited to Wikiquote than for this project. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Greg Felton

An editor has nominated Greg Felton, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Felton and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your hostility

These comments on my talk page:

I see you tried to whitewash Felton's views by removing his comments on the Holocaust, Israel's existence, Irwin Cotler and 9/11. I've reinserted them and I will advise you not to remove other people's contributions in order to hide his true views. You quote Felton numerous times throughout your additions, why can't I? Or is it simply because you want to hide his true views on Israel and Jews because he supports Hamas and the Palestinian cause? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

I realize you are a support of the Palestinian cause, but you should not try to hide the views of those who, in addition to supporting the Palestinians, also hold controversial views on Israel, Jews, and the Holocaust. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

are wholly unacceptable. You don't seem to be reading the policy pages I keep referring you to. I removed the information you added because it is from a primary source, Greg Felton's own writing. If you notice, the material I added was from secondary sources (i.e. people writing about Greg Felton's writing). This distinction is very important because using primary sources leads to original research, something that is deeply frowned upon here at Wikipedia. You need to find a source that discusses Felton's writing, rather than selectively quote-mining from his writing and adding your own interpretation.

Also, please read WP:NPA. I am quite tired of your spurious speculations about my intentions here. I edited Felton's article because it was in piss poor shape before I got to it. That's what we do here at Wikipedia, improve articles or add new ones that need to be added. No one else seems to have a problem with my edits. Indeed on the deletion discussion page, people are bemoaning the reinsertion of your original research once again. Try to learn from those around you and stop attacking me just because I ask you to read policies and adhere by them. Tiamut 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tiamut"

I'll say it again: I believe that you are trying to whitewash Felton's views. I do not believe this is acceptable. It is important to note his opinions on Irwin Cotler, the Holocaust, 9/11 and Jews. Why are you so afraid to have this on his webpage. Are you concerned it might damage his image as a champion of Palestinian rights. In the past, you attempted to whitewash the views and statements of Khaled Mouammar of the Canadian Arab Federation regarding his emailing of an Anti-Semitic flyer to Liberal delegates.

If you think I will allow you to whitewash the views of anti-Semities, holocaust deniers, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists, think again.

And, I repeat myself, I am citing Felton's works as a counterbalance to your depiction of him as a victim of "zionist" oppression. I am only citing specific comments that Felton made, which were posted on other websites (i.e. not his home page), that deal with very important issues. I am not editorializing or using inappropriate language. I'm using Felton's language.

You'll also note I have not deleted any of your work (which all seems to come from one article in a far-left journal).

As for your posting this crap on my talkpage, I would appreciate it if you didn't. I'm not interested in your excuses as to why Felton's views should be concealed.

As for your claim the article was in "piss poor" shape, I'll remind you that it adequetly and completely showed Felton's views on a number of important topics.

And by the way, It seems the only people who "bemoan" my contributions are people like you, who want to conceal his views on the Holocaust, Irwin Cotler, 9/11 and Jews simply because he is a master polemist who supports the abolition of Israel.

And again, if you think I'm going to let you conceal Felton's views on the aforementioned issues, your incorrect.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

Again, you don't seem to understand Wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:OR. I encourage you to read them once again. I also encourage you to re-read WP:NPA and a new one WP:AGF. Your comments to me are invariably littered with all kinds of inappropriate, speculatory comments regarding my intentions. It would be nice if you could stop doing that, as I have asked you before. I am giving you one final warning ... the next time you fail to heed this advice, I will report you for disruptive editing and incivility at WP:ANI. Please consider this not a threat, but a plea to focus on writing an encyclopedia, rather than carrying out imaginary battles of good and evil that have nothing to do with that task. Thanks. Tiamut 17:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me what rule I'm violating. The only quotes I make from Felton are from articles he wrote for other sources (i.e. the Media Monitors Network, Canadian Arab News etc.). I have take his words in context and presented them without editorializing or drawing conclusion. These are important topics which need to be addressed. Basing his entire character on one article from a far-left journal is, in my view, not sufficient. Looking at Wikipedia policies, you will note that I do not violate rules regarding accuracy, sources, editorializing, libelous accusations, etc. Simply quoting from articles Felton has written for other websites is not original research (unless of course I used them to draw conclusions, which I don't).

The problem is not few, if any, credible third parties (most comments seem to come from blogs) have commented on the articles I have referenced in my contributions. However, I believe very strongly that Felton's views on the aforementioned issues must be included. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

The rule that you have been breaking is this one: [2]. Specifically,

Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

it is not contentious;

it is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Media Monitors Network is not a reliable source and counts as a self-published source. Your additions in the past have meant that the article was dominated by self-published resources, which is not allowed (as above). I also do not agree that you have presented them without editorializing to suit your point of view. For example, you picked the quote "Al Qaeda doesn't exist," but the actual text makes clear that the Felton's claim was much modified in the explanation: "Felton, who writes columns for the local Arabic/English newspaper Al Shorouq and for the Alberta Arab News, had a surprise or two up his sleeve, telling me at one point, "Al Qaeda doesn't exist." But it turned out his explanation was similar to, although not as entertaining as, the theory that the true author of Shakespeare's plays was someone else who also happened to be named William Shakespeare." --Slp1 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The references I made to Felton's work were certainly not self-serving, did not involve claims about events to third parties, did not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, and, finally, there is no doubt that Felton wrote these articles. While there were few primary sources before, you and I have added several secondary sources.

It seems that you believe the quotes are contentious, but this could apply to practially anything, depending on your point of view. Even Felton himself, who apparently has contributed to the talk page of the wikipage, doesn't deny or protest that his views were posted. I believe that maybe you are interpreting these rules to strictly.

By the way, I added more context to the quote that "Al-Qaida doesn't exist."(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

Yes, but your quote picks did overwhelm the article so that it is (or at least was) primarily sourced from these self-published material, which is not allowed, as I pointed out above. And there certainly were claims about third parties (e.g. Cotler). I have deleted the Al-qaeda reference. You appear to have misread the article... you attributed the comment about Shakespeare to Felton, but it was the article's author. I don't believe it is possible to divine what he meant by that statement, given the sentence following, and therefore it is best to leave it out. --Slp1 (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, actually you did decide his views of Israel were important, well before Tiamut got involved. Here's how the article looked after your edits of December 31st [3] just before Tiamut edited. Compare it to the policy list above: there are several third parties mentioned, and most of the article is made up of primary resources. And this was after DoubleBlue had added the sentence about that "Ahmadinejad is wrong to deny the Holocaust outright" (with an edit summary about a clean-up of NPOV) [4] that you had not included, though it was in the same article.

But in any case my point is not that his views of Israel should be removed, and I actually agree that something about them should be included if his article is kept. My point is that your strategy (on this and other articles) of Quote mining a subject's words is not the way to write an NPOV encyclopedia entry. It is too open to subjectivity, point of view pushing and original research in determining what views are notable. I said that "We don't want all of Felton's views", and of course I am sure you will agree that this is true in that, for example, we don't need to know his views of sports teams! We need his verifiable, notable views that can be reliably sourced using BLP guidelines and policies. These can only be determined by looking for reliable secondary sources that mention them. I myself disagree strongly with his views, but as editors we must write the article without passing judgment or leading readers to have a particular opinion of him and his views. That is what NPOV editing is all about. Slp1 (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not replying sooner: for some reason I only just saw your posts on my page. Yes, indeed, as you have figured out, the article got deleted, which was too bad after all the work that people had done, but the best thing, I believe. Based on your comments on my page, it seems to me that you are learning to ask the right questions, which is half way to finding out the answers! In a article about a living person we have to be especially careful to use reliable secondary sources in determining what views are notable, especially if they are controversial. We can probably use a few quotes from the subject, but have to be very careful that these are fair, representative and placed in an appropriate context. If we have strong opinions about a subject, we have to be very careful about what and how we edit, so that we don't let our biases show by putting something in a better or worse light. This is a great challenge, of course, but also a fantastic learning experience. This essay explains the idea quite well, I think. And if you are going to continue editing in these hot topic areas, it will be as well to learn NPOV editing skills as fast as possible! Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, but your comments to Tiamut about being civil and respectful even when you have strong disagreements are right on the money: they work well here and in real life too!. Good luck! --Slp1 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Hyperionsteel

I don't like "fighting" either and I'm sorry if I was brusque with you over your editing at the Greg Felton article and at the Canadian Arab Federation. You're new here and I should be more patient. For what's it worth, your last edits before the article was deleted were so much better than what you were writing before, and were completely in line with the relevant policies and guidelines. I suppose we can thank Slp1 for that, since he took the time to refer you to specific information in the WP:BLP policy (something I should have done, but didn't - again, my apologies). Anyway, I hope there are no hard feelings and that we understand each other better now. I am always willing to move on and assume good faith once I see that an editor is really making an effort. I hope that you can too. Tiamut 07:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasoned response. Tiamut 10:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Ziegler

When making controversial additions to articles where there have been concerns raised under our policy on living people, please consider suggesting them on the talk page and getting the views of other editors. Otherwise you are likely to be reverted. We strive for neutrality here, and quotes from critics are not neutral and need careful justification in the context. Thanks.--Doc^g 22:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed your addition again. Its quite a stretch to believe the official organization misspelled Jean Ziegler as John Ziter. Without some kind of reliable source to back up your claim of a misspelling, this speculation has no place in the article. Shell ^babelfish 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think its rather scary if the organization can't spell the name of people its recognized, however, there's still a couple of problems with your addition. First, its what Wikipedia calls original research since the misspellings and listing on that site haven't been reported by a reliable media source. Second, using a listing on the site to contradict a person's claim that they didn't accept the award is stretching the source a bit far - there's nothing to show that he wouldn't have been listed regardless of whether or not he accepted the award. It would be best if instead of using this primary source to support the statement, you found a reliable third-party source which would support it instead. Shell ^babelfish 02:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a point - there is no third party source to confirm this. While I still believe that Jean Ziegler and "John Ziter," it should be kept off wikipedia until a third party source is available.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Max, Miriya, and Dana Sterling (3).JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Max, Miriya, and Dana Sterling (3).JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dana, Max and Miriya Sterling.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dana, Max and Miriya Sterling.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Miriya in her Veritech figher.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Miriya in her Veritech figher.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).