User talk:Myheartinchile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Your recent edits 2 Welcome 3 Applicability of WP:CORP to a mall 4 NPOV 5 June 2008 6 Stupid" 7 Crocker 7.1 warning 8 Infoboxes 9 March 19, 2008 anti-war protest 10 AfD nomination of Student lounge 11 Stan Neeleman

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

[edit] Applicability of WP:CORP to a mall

Good evening. In a recent deletion discussion, you questioned the applicability of WP:CORP to a mall since that guideline "is for an individual company". The thing to remember is that the mall is an individual company - it's the landlord that the other tenants rent space from. Certain malls may qualify for extra consideration based on the building (for example, if they have exceptional architecture) but other than that, a mall is the same as any other landlord. We deliberately wrote WP:CORP broadly to encompass as many kinds of organizations as possible. Hope that clarifies things a bit. If you'd like to discuss it more, you might want to drop a comment on WP:CORP's Talk page. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Hi there, I was reading through wp:Ani, and found that a complaint has been made about you, regarding adding NPOV tags to articles, please remember to discuss on the relevent talkpage when you place a tag on an article, it stops confusion like this and means we know what is NPOV in your opinion, if you need anymore information about this, feel free to drop me a line on my talkpage. Best regards, Chafford (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Chris Crocker, adding a tag saying it needs additional citations borders on the disruptive given how many references there already are. If you think there are uncited statements, tag or remove them and then discuss on the talk page. If you feel the article is POV, you also need to give your reasoning on the talk page. Continuing to readd the tags without engaging in discussion will be seen as disruptive editing and you could end up getting blocked. Trebor (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What correlation is there between x amount of citations and uncited content? If i have 90 references for 15 out of 20 statements but none for the rest, the rest still need citations. There is an error in your logic. I have mentioned it on the talk page. I could give additional information if necessary, however I believe it it pretty obvious what needs to be done. Here's my line. In general the article's tone is very unencyclopedic, it is full of useless trivia, a lot of content is inserted repetitiously. its not a good read at all. basically. its a bad article. lets improve it. if it must exist.

Replied on my talk page. Trebor (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Regarding your comments on Chris Crocker: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. You've now accused me twice of being Crocker - please stop. You have some valid concerns and if you would dial down the accusations we can have some constructive dialog and it could help the article improve. Banjeboi 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity). Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, in this diff your entire message on my talk page is "are you chris crocker?" A day later on the talk page of the Crocker article you wrote in this diff - "Also you have very serious POV issues since you are Chris Crocker." Crocker, if you hadn't seen it in the article, gets near-daily death threats so I encourage you to cease from accusing anyone' of being Crocker as death threats are not to be taken lightly. Banjeboi 20:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The first is not an accusation, it is a question that you have yet to answer. I personally feel you are very likely the individual in question. Death threats which may or may not be real are not my problem and thinking someone is the individual question has nothing to do with the alleged death threats as I am not threatening anyone. The only person liable is the person making the threats. I doubt Crocker has ever received any serious death threats. I think people just find him annoying and like to say off the wall shit on youtube etc.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem determined to push the point, no I'm not the subject of the article. And yes, wikipedia takes death threats and violating policies seriously so please stop. Banjeboi 23:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there are no death threats on wikipedia so you have nothing to worry about. What policy am I violating exactly?Myheartinchile (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid"

Can you please give me a break, I didnt refer to you as stupid I said I think the idea is stupid, That is my opinion and I have every right to express it--Yankees10 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I proably shouldn't have used that word, sorry--Yankees10 00:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks--Yankees10 00:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crocker

Note: warning removed per[1]

Since you insist: [2]. There is absolutely no justification for this sort of accusation. Please read WP:BLP. Wikipedia talk pages are not fan forums for discussing rumors about people, and it particularly is not a place for you defame people. Gwernol 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, YouTube is not a reliable source and even if it was, its an obvious fake/hoax. We do no defame people based on an unreliable hoax. Gwernol 23:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI Crocker posted the original video then removed it for his own reasons, it showed him and his "brother" who he revealed to be his boyfriend at the time in a reliable source. it was indeed a hoax likely to shock people. The video itself isn't notable enough for inclusion but could be if it becomes so. Banjeboi 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Two further points. First, read WP:BLP. You may not defame living people on Wikipedia. If you continue to put yourself and Wikipedia in legal jeopardy by doing this you will be blocked from editing. Second, it would be (at the least) courteous for you to notify me if you are going to question my actions at ANI or any other forum. Thanks, Gwernol 01:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Myheartinchile, please be more careful with the way you phrase comments on Wikipedia as the comment you posted to the Crocker talk page was a clear violation of the Biographies of Living People policy. I believe that you didn't intend to do anything wrong but the fact is that it was a violation of policy and the warning was therefore correct and you were lucky you weren't blocked. If you want to post a controversial topic like this in future, please provide a link to an article in a newspaper or other reliable source discussing the issue and remember that the WP:BLP policy applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not just the article itself. YouTube isn't a reliable source on Wikipedia; please read the guideline on reliable sources to see what kinds of sites are acceptable to use as sources. On Wikipedia, we are very strict with biographies of living people so please be more careful. Sarah 01:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Myheartinchile, the administrator at WP:ANI did not tell you my warning was unjustified. He said you were permitted to remove the warning, which you are. Your addition to Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) clearly breached our policy of WP:BLP. If you continue this kind of disruptive editing you will be blocked. Please stop be much more careful in your editing, and please read what editors are actually saying. You should also read the clarification left at WP:ANI. Gwernol 02:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] warning

respectfully, thats patent bull. the article in question uses youtube as a source dozens of times and the claims in question are represented in a video from the article's subject that he made and posted on youtube. it was the only source i had and its the only source for all the other videos besides "Leave Brittany Alone". I asked on the administrators reporting page and they said the warning was unwarranted. i don't think anything i claimed was controversial with regarads the to behavior and "art" that this individual is reported on in the context of this article or his life. see the video for yourself [3] if a video is not a reliable source for the subject at hand i don't know what is.Myheartinchile (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the administrator's noticeboard Wikipedia:ANI#warning_removal - I was one of the admins who responded to you and none of us have said the warning was unwarranted. We have only said that you may remove the messages if you want to, which is something that all users on Wikipedia are allowed to do on their own talk page so long as they don't do it in a disruptive manner. No one on ANI has told you the warning was unwarranted. YouTube is not a reliable source, again, please read - reliable sources, verifiability and Biographies of Living People. Links to YouTube are used to link to the videos in question but they are not suitable to use as reliable sources for a blp and most certainly not for controversial claims like asserting that someone is in an incestuous relationship with their brother. If you want to make controversial claims, you need to find reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia and if you don't you are going to end up being the blocked. That's the bottom line, really. You can think it's "patent bull" if you wish but you've been warned by multiple admins now and if you continue to make such comments about living people without reliable sources (again, as defined by Wikipedia, not by your own opinion) then you will be blocked. Sarah 02:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

well how can i talk about it then, how can i ask about it, if i'm not allowed to.?Myheartinchile (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Myheartinchile, as I've stated a few times now, it was the semantics and tone that got you into trouble. Your statement was that Crocker was is a incestuous relationship, instead you can simple link to the source (video in this case) and ask something like, this seems likes it's worth mentioning, anyone else agree or have seen it before? You could even state he seems to be in an incestuous relationship - is that true? It allows other editors to check the source and likely someone will respond with the correct info, in this case that it was a hoax. Banjeboi 03:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As explained by others, you need to be careful with how you phrase comments on biographies. That question you asked was phrased as though it were a statement of fact and that is a large part of the problem. The other thing is that if it is something likely to be considered controversial or something that might be considered libelous, then you need to have a link to a source. Also, remember that article talk pages are for discussing the article only, not for discussing gossip so it's really not the place to go to to ask if something is true or not. Sarah 04:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

Hi. Please do not engage in edit warring. It's unhelpful, if you feel layout issues should be address you could ask for help or assistance rather than simply reverting something because you don't like how it looks. Per the Wikipedia manual of style infoboxes for articles do indeed go on top on justified to the right side just as it was. Banjeboi 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

It is inappropriate to prod an article after it has undergone a deletion debate. If you wish to contest the result of the discussion the proper place to do so is at deletion review. Shereth 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify your question posed on my talk page. Also note that I will respond to questions placed on my talk page there, rather than here. Shereth 18:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for alerting me to the deletion review.--ragesoss (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No. It would be canvassing if you were only notifying editors who shared your view on the matter, but there's nothing wrong with alerting participants in an earlier discussion about a related one.--ragesoss (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• From your comments on User:Shereth's talk page, it's getting to the point where you are ceasing to make reasoned arguments and starting to harrassing him/her. I feel that it is likely to become counter-productive in the DRV, and suggest that you laid off. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Student lounge

I have nominated Student lounge, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student lounge (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stan Neeleman

I added some references to Stan Neeleman. --Eastmain (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)