User talk:John sargis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, John sargis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --SarekOfVulcan 20:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The journal deletion review debate

Mr Sargis, if you read your talk page, I'd like to bring the following section I added to the debate to your attention:

(content pasted from Wikipedia:Deletion review)

Mr Sargis, I would like to point you to the fact that this is not the proper process to discuss the notability of your journal. The purpose of Deletion Review is merely to review whether the original act of deletion was done according to Wikipedia policy. The AfD debate had a clear consensus for deleting the article, as anonymous and new users' votes were discounted, in perfect accordance with policy. If you want to question the policy, I suggest you take your case somewhere else, for example to the Village Pump, which has a section for discussing existing policy.
I have refactored the discussion to show all votes in one place, to ease the job of the closing admin. Please place all future votes there, and please restrict any future discussion on this page to whether or not the article was deleted according to policy. I suggest you actually take a look at the relevant policies, instead of discrediting them as somehow 'wrong'. And please do not assume that everyone is against you because of some political motives, since that is called argumentum ad hominem and is not a very convincing debating technique.
Xoloz (talk · contribs) did indeed vote twice in the debate, but that is a very understandable mistake, given the confusing and huge nature of this debate. I have struck out his second vote in the 'Votes' section above. I've done the same with your second vote. - ulayiti (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(end of pasted content)

If you wish to make comments on anything else than the legitimate subject matter of Deletion Review outlined above, you may contact me on my talk page. Please remember to sign and date your entry by typing in four tildes (~~~~). - ulayiti (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. - ulayiti (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

2nd Warning.
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Jbamb 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusive democracy

Actually, only 5 users have access to checkuser, which is what you are asking for. I already asked Jayjg to run a checkuser on those 2 accounts. Once the results are back, I'll see what I can do. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature (2nd nomination)

Hi, you might like to get the editorial board to edit their announcements before you put them on Wikipedia pages. Iinternational Institute of Social History, Amsterdam ;) - FrancisTyers 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, before you make accusations or assumptions I would ask you to take a look at how both myself and User:ulayiti voted.

  • Speedy keep notable. [1] [2] - FrancisTyers 14:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is notable. - ulayiti (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the article will probably be kept anyway, but you might improve the chances of it being kept by being more careful, reading peoples comments etc. You seem to misunderstand Wikipedia, judging from your proposed wager. Neither I nor any of the other editors have the ability to permenantly protect a page. - FrancisTyers 04:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pornographic perpetrator

"the pornographic perpetrator, have you found out who it is?" <-- I have been unable to find any evidence of a "pornographic perpetrator" at Inclusive Democracy. According to the deleted history, there were three edits of the page on 27 December 2005.

  1. 15:59, 27 December 2005 Ulayiti deleted "Inclusive Democracy"
  2. 09:02, 27 December 2005 . . Kappa (copyvio)
  3. 08:59, 27 December 2005 . . Narap43

I guess it is possible that someone removed something from the history, but I see nothing pornographic in the page history now. --JWSchmidt 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the reasons for blocking Wikipedia accounts

"banning would have given a moral lesson" <-- I doubt if the actions of Wikipedia administrators can do much towards the goal of moral education. Wikipedia administrators can act based on their past experience of what works best to facilitate the goal of online collaboration in creating an encyclopedia. In my view, the fundamental problem that exists with respect to the inclusive democracy-related articles is that some Wikipedia editors with personal interests in this topic have been editing these pages. I think it is best that people who are personally involved in a topic restrict their editing to the addition of comments to the discussion/talk pages of Wikipedia articles related to any topic that they are personally involved with. If there is factually incorrect or biased information in an article, document the problems on the talk page. If discussion on the talk page does not solve the problem, you can submit a request for comment and/or go directly to administrators for help. If that fails, you can request mediation or arbitration. --JWSchmidt 02:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Does this mean that the main, if not exclusive, criterion of editing in Wikipedia is that somebody ‘does not dominate’ an entry, even if this is clearly at the expense of reliability of the information provided?" It is possible for someone to dominate the editing of a Wikipedia article. This can be done when an editor provides a balanced account of a notable topic. It is important that all of the content of a Wikipedia article be verifiable. One editor can dominate a Wikipedia article if they are open to the addition of verifiable information that come from other editors. If a dispute arises over content, the dispute should be resolved by discussion that is centered on verification of facts. Sometimes there are two or more points of view with respect to how the facts should be presented. The Wikipedia Neutral point of view policy mandates that when it is possible to support multiple points of view with citations to published sources then multiple points of view must be included in a Wikipedia article. In this way, it is possible for Wikipedia articles to express contradictory points of view. If you feel that this is "at the expense of reliability" then you are free to not participate in the process. However, if advocates of one point of view withdraw from Wikipedia, then it is possible that their point of view will not be fairly represented within Wikipedia. It is also Wikipedia policy that there be no personal attacks by one editor against another. --JWSchmidt 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Found the penis vandal

The image you referred me to was not put into the article Inclusive Democracy, but it was put into {{copyvio}}, the template that said the article was a copyright violation. Thus, it was in all articles that had been marked as copyvios at that point. The vandalism was done by the anonymous IP 219.95.32.194 (talk · contribs) at 12:56 on 27 December, and it stayed there for 14 minutes until Hirudo (talk · contribs) reverted it. Here's a link to the article history and the vandal's edit. The vandal was warned by Hirudo, and the vandalism stopped, so there won't be any sanctions for that user. - ulayiti (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

According to APNIC whois, the IP is located in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. I don't know what you need that information for though. I'm quite certain this has nothing to do with your organisation, as the user vandalised lots of different copyright templates the same day. - ulayiti (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and Image:Circpn reduced.jpg is not pornography, it's just a picture of a penis. - ulayiti (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I already told you the vandal has nothing to do with your group, so they can't possibly be calling you a 'prick'. The purpose of that image is not sexual arousal, it's there to illustrate a penis (and is used in the penis article for that purpose). Therefore, not porn. - ulayiti (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough with the personal attacks

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. - ulayiti (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. - ulayiti (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your AfD comments

I thought you might be interested in this. - FrancisTyers 14:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Take your time to read the relevant policies on the case. You were warned and continued to rant against everybody and everything that you didn't like, and setting yourself as a "primary editor" of an article. Read the policies, and then come back. I'm going to re-nominate the Democracy & Nature. The AfD will be open when your block expires, so you'll have time to vote, but maybe you'll have to chance to read and reflect on other people's comments before you start ranting against Wikipedia. Please refrain from doing that. Let's have a clean process. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Blocked for 24 hours

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for vandalism, for a period of 24 hours.
If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.