User talk:Newguy34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to NewGuy34's talk page, where you can leave any messages for me. Please note that I reserve the right to delete any message after I have read it. If you have posted a message for me, and no longer find it on this page, it means I have read it. If I didn't respond here or on your talk page, it means I am ignoring the message, which I also reserve the right to do. With that, let's get started.

Contents

[edit] Re:King of Mann page

Hi Newguy, look here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources. Wikis, blogs and forums shouldn't really be used on this article, can you find another reference?--Celtus (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Noted, thanks. Newguy34 (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My undo of yours on David Howe page

Sorry about that. You are right. My mistake.--Lazydown (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Newguy34 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undo on my citation David Howe's pedigree

The cited source and the method used for the citation is standard for wikipedia soruces. You can't simply delete a verifiable third-party source. The most senior editor of the page is user Hu12. I addressed this with him first. You may want to do the same.--Lazydown (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Lazydown has been confirmed as one of the sockpuppets of Kingofmann

Responded at your talk page. Newguy34 (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to provide a link. The source and method used to cite the source and the date base for the record is all that is required.--Lazydown (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The information does not exist at the citation you provided. It appears to be fabricated. Newguy34 (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty easy to log on to Ancestry.com, sign up for the free trail and I'll be even you could follow the names on the pedigree.--Lazydown (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I have an Ancestry.com account and, therefore, know that ANYONE with an account can add ANYTHING they'd like. So, Howe added his purported links to the Stanley's. It does not make it true. But, it's a nice trick; Drew has been busy. Newguy34 (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The pedigree has been integrated into the OneWorldTree project which pulls source material from many places and is peer reviewed.--Lazydown (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That's largely bunk. You know as well as I that Ancestry.com is comprised of material added by users, which is then search to match records. I played around on the site and was able to link myself back to Charlemange (completely without merit, I might add). Newguy34 (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, particularly regarding the OneWorldTree peer reviewed project, but I have turned the matter over to administrators and more senior editors. Until then it stays.--Lazydown (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I am pleased to see that you will look to reach consensus rather than projecting your opinions so forcefully. Until we can reach consensus, I will ALLOW it to stay. Mind your tone. Newguy34 (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
As a point of reference the Anna Nicole Smith biography page has been rated a class B. Generally the highest rating of a Biography page. It has at least eight citations for Ancestry.com. No tone here.--Lazydown (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent added] An interesting fact, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Newguy34 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a point of reference and sets a precedence regarding this BLP. Perfectly relevant.--Lazydown (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I don’t think it sets a precedent. If we collectively determine that its inclusion in this article is inappropriate, then its inclusion is also inappropriate in the Anna Nicole article (even if not yet corrected), or any other article for that matter. Its inclusion as a source elsewhere bears no relevance to whether its use is appropriate. Newguy34 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggested to Lazydown to text dump the relevant part on the talk page so we all can look at it. No one should be required to pay or register to view relevant content. Anna Nicole Smith isn't being disputed, Remember the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. --Hu12 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope he does so, but to date, he has not. Newguy34 (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I would say that there is no comparison between the Anna Nicole Smith article and Howe's. Smith's data is from the 21st century and can be validated by official records. At best Ancestry, for the UK at least, is only valid back to the 1841 Census and the introduction of the register of Births, Marriages and Deaths in 1837. Anything before that would have to be sourced from parish registers or other contemporary records. Unless these are cited in the OneworldTree records the tree is of little real merit.--Heraldic 09:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs)

[edit] inclusion of history of claims section David Howe

Okay, what do you feel the unintended reader would take away from reading that section? This is a relevant question see WP:COATRACK--Lazydown (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not important what I think some "unintended reader"[?] (I assume if they are reading it, they are not doing so under duress) would take away from the section. The information is verifiable, comes from reliable sources, and informs the reader. This is a biographical article about Howe, not an advertisement. The Vikesland incident is part of his biography not because I say so, but because HE says so through his actions. Newguy34 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Disagree that this is any form of Coatrack article. "An article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability. "[1]--Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

As required by Wikipedia this is a notice that I have included you as a party in my request for arbitration [[2]]--Kingofmann (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

An editor has nominated David Howe (claimant to King of Mann), 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/David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) 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) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now requested a sockpuppet check on Kingofmann/ Lazydown. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extracted from Kingofmann's talk page and reproduced here by me

To preserve this information in response to a Request for Arbitration related to David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) .

[edit] References to [Howe's] your business

Citing [David Howe's] your valid privacy concerns, I have added relevant information about [his] your occupation to [his] your BLP that comes from a verifiable, referenced source, but have removed a link to [his] your business' website. Will this suffice? Newguy34 (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point I'm referring the matter to my solicitor and Wikipedia authorities and will be deleting any references that violate my privacy. I do not consider this a game and I would hope that you do not either. If you have any further questions you may e-mail my lord advocate's office and they will be happy to put you in touch with my solicitor.
Important note before this escelates into legal threats. Do not make threats or claims of legal action on Wikipedia. If you have a dispute with the Community or its members, use dispute resolution. A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation, ect., is not threatening and will be acted on quickly. If you do choose to take legal action, please refrain from editing until it is resolved and note that your user account or IP address may be blocked.--Hu12 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe I asked Hu12 for some help with this yesterday. I'm making no legal threats against Wikipedia instead I have referred to them for help. I'd still appreciate that help. Referencing a business I own has no place in the article and is the same as giving trouble makers a phone number where they can attempt to reach me or just harass my employees which is exactly what has happened here.--Kingofmann (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Understood. Should attempt dispute resolution in respect with those concerns. --Hu12 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
David, I asked if the solution I posed was acceptable. I assume from your response, which involves the serious matter of reference to your lawyer, that it is not. Please note that I removed the link to your business website. The fact that you own a Glass Doctor franchise in Frederick is a matter of public record and comes from press releases penned by (or authorized by) you. I can not see how it now should be excluded (in its present form) from a biographical article [emphasis added] on grounds of privacy. Newguy34 (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hu12, I am taking it to dispute resolution if I have to delete it once again. My telephone numbers are a matter of public record too that doesn't mean that someone isn't violating my privacy by posting them in my BLP inviting people to give me a call asking people who work for me if I fear loosing my citizenship and being deported and where they will work in the near future..five times in the last 3 days. It is baseless, juvenile and extremely disruptive.--Kingofmann (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
But, no one has posted your phone numbers, and there is no evidence that the calls came from people reading your biography. There is ample press coverage of your business venture, and it therefore qualifies for inclusion in your BLP, which remember, is not an auto-BLP. The rest is red-herring. Newguy34 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article protection

Hey there! I saw [David Howe's] your request for protection of [his] your article at WP:RFPP, and have fully protected the article, since semi-protection would only restrict anonymous IPs and newly-registered users from editing. May I suggest that you try holding a diaogue with the user(s) on your talk page, one of theirs, or even on the article's page? I hope this helps, and that the issue is resolved quickly, as we don't want any of our editors unhappy, upset, or harassed around here. When the issue has been resolved, you can easily request unprotection of the article back at WP:RFPP, or just leave a message on my talk page. Best of luck, and happy editing! :) Jmlk17 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that I can discuss this issue with the editor Newguy34 because it is apparent that he wants to be a thorn and is not interested in much else. I have spent several hours looking at his edits and the edits of a few others on my biography and they aren't editing my biography with regard to Wikipedia policies. There has been an obvious intent to edit to the negative by selectively citing certain aspects of sources that support their point of view.
Editors Newguy34, Heraldic, Wjhonson and a one or two other editors have actively promoted inserting a libelous web site devoted to me that has been blacklisted by Wikipedia for being an obvious attack site and failing the reliable source standard. Fortunately, the service provider of that site has provided my solicitor with all the contact and log in data that we have requested. Coupled with the information that Wikipedia has provided us and tying it to outside forums there is no doubt that the frequent edits that are being made with no regard to my privacy concerns and designed to provide a negative slant to my biography page are being orchestrated by the same small group of people. See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal which illustrates the fact that the editor Wjhonson had conspired with the author of the blacklisted site to circumvent Wikipedia policies.
I don't believe it is possible to discuss anything with these editors as they have one agenda and it is not consistent with my concerns or Wikipedia standards and policies. Unless an administrator is able to resolve this issue I will seek arbitration through Wikipedia's offer of assistance.--Kingofmann (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
David, your assertion that I am somehow in cahoots with other editors in promoting the website in question is completely baseless and without merit. You know well that you have no data or other evidence of an orchestration involving me. I know you know this because I know there is no such data or evidence that implicates me. Be very careful of the accusations you make when you are frustrated that the attempts of some to highjack this BLP are failing. You have threatened me with legal action (a threat to which I take personal offense, but to which I don't give much credibility) and now you have stated untruths about me. If you have this data as it relates to me, let's see it. If not (and I know you do not because no internet service provider would dare voluntarily provide it to any lawyer), you would be wise to retract this libelous statement and cease further such assertions. This nonsense about "the service provider providing you with contact and log in data" and "cross referencing that with information Wikipedia has provided" is a flat out lie. You know it, and should be ashamed of your actions. Newguy34 (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
At Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)/Archive_2#Celebrity_Friends_and_Royal_Cousins you defended including the blacklisted site on my BLP. It is rather premature to suggest legal action against anyone in this case. I believe that this can be resolved with the help of the Wikipedia arbitration committee. A separate issue, the hosting company for the blacklisted site, 123-reg Pipex Communications in Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UK, made the registration information of the site's owner available to my representatives. The author/owner of the site is also a member of the Amersham Town Council in Amersham, Bucks, UK. He used the same address and phone number that is currently publicly listed for him on the Amersham Town Council website to register his blacklisted website about me.--Kingofmann (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is way premature to suggest legal action in this case, so I am wondering why you made the legal threat? As to the rest of your assertion, quite to the contrary. From the page you cite:
"Lazydown, why would you dismiss unrealroyal.com as opinion out of hand so quickly?... Please explain your position to all of us. Newguy34 (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)"
and, again,
"I agree. It's the sources and references of the site that may [emphasis added] be included here, if they support the text (sic) relevant text in the article and avoid the implication they are fact unless they are. Newguy34 (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)"
There are no more writings by me on this subject. Asking other editors to engage in a discussion about their point of view is not the same as defending or promotion, as you assert. As to the registration information being given to your representative, I find that hard to believe as it carries with it serious privacy violations. Additionally, MA-R (the author of the site) is easily "googled" to see that he ran unsuccessfully (at least once) for town council in Amersham, so if you do have this information, you may have the wrong guy. If he is on the town council, the information you cite is easily obtainable by anyone, so the implication that it is some smoking gun obtained by your lawyer simply does not hold together. But, all of that aside for a moment, how does that in any way implicate me in your conspiracy theory? Again, your assertion that I am somehow in cahoots with other editors in promoting the website in question is completely baseless and without merit. I think you owe me an apology. Newguy34 (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your harassment and attempts to besmirch my character and do not post anything more to me. You can visit the Amersham Town Council website and find all the contact name address and phone number for "MA-R" as you say. It is the same contact information of the owner/author of the blacklisted site as provided by the hosting company. There is no defense of that. Now please respect my privacy and do not post here again. I do not wish to have anymore public involvement. Take your concerns to the arbitration committee. Go away!--Kingofmann (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not harrassment, it is an attempt at dispute resolution, and to set the record clear about your assertions related to me. I can not force you to work with me to resolve this, but I can (and do) take great offense to the legal threats you have made against me, and the false, unsubstantiated assertions you have made about me. My question is about how I am implicated in your conspiracy theory? You have not addressed that point. But, if you refuse to attempt dispute resolution and refuse to exercise good faith, I will respect your wishes. It's a shame, though, as it doesn't look very good for the legitimacy of your claim to act this way, IMO. Newguy34 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kingofmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kingofmann

This arbitration case has been dismissed and the final decision is available at the link above. The community can take care of this entire issue itself -- the article has been deleted and User:Kingofmann has departed wikipedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USC Trojans football

Look, I agree that the cut off of wire titles (which starts in 1934) does skip early championships; but the place to argue this isn't on the USC page, it's on the College Football wikiproject. I took your position early on but it was just me arguing it along with one or two other people, and as a result policy was changed for only wire titles. I agree the infobox should have changes, but simply arguing with me on that page will not go anywhere because, as an admin, I have to follow policy. Please try to work with me here; as you can see I've kept the information in the first paragraph of the article to state. Incidentally, are you from WeAreSC? --Bobak (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've brought up changes to the infobox here if you're interested in participating. --Bobak (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing magical about "wire" titles as compared to non-wire titles, so the sanctity of them is meaningless. The University of Southern California claims 11 national championships in football, be they before 1936 or after. Who cares? The issue of national championships in D-IA college football and the lack of consensus is not a new issue. There is no label on the info box for USC that somehow qualifies the information to "wire" titles only, and if there were, that still would not solve the problem. Wikipedia is about taking a multitude of contributions and building consensus. There is no "policy" regarding only using "wire" titles that I recognize, unless it is a Wikipedia policy, If so, please point me to it. If not, I will continue to think that the USC infobox should list 11 national championships and will continue to edit to that end. Newguy34 (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed you to it, WikiProjects are permitted to set consensus rules for dealing with articles, and for college football its Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. --Bobak (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but therein lies the proverbial rub. You said it was a "policy" that you as an admin have no choice but to follow. You, of all people, should understand the impact and weight of words. It's not a policy, but rather a consensus decision that holds true only so long as there is, well, consensus to abide by it. Newguy34 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USC Student politics

The quote reads: "Furthermore, student politics at USC--often between conservative factions--has been notoriously corrupt;[71] the corruption and problems were notable enough that they appeared in the screenplay for All the President's Men.[f]" Now looking at the sources, from the DT article we garner:

  • The two parties, Trojans for Responsible Government and Theta Nu Epsilon, used bitter tactics in their constant struggles to gain control of the Student Senate..." --this addresses multiple people and groups.
  • "Future Nixon aide Dwight Chapin served as chairman of TRG, the more conservative of the two groups in the early part of the decade. Chapin was known to have engaged in a variety of underhanded, illegal plots to gain control of the Senate for his conservative-leaning organization." --this addresses only one person, yet, but article doesn't imply he was the only; rather, take this into account with the following passages:
  • ""In order to win, the Trojans engaged in a wide variety of undergraduate pranks," reported a 1973 Chicago Sun-Times article profiling Chapin. "They infiltrated their rivals' campaigns. They tore down the posters of rival candidates. They stole their leaflets and produced others that were fake."" --we see the plural used throughout this description, in addition:
  • "TRG, however, was formed in response to TNE, which was shrouded in an equally mysterious cloud. This organization, which was comprised of many members of smaller fraternities, "was so secret that most members of the houses represented did not know which of their fraternity brothers were involved," reported a 1974 Daily Trojan article that detailed the USC days of several Watergate participants, including Chapin. "It was a nationwide society, that was so feared and hated that it was banned on most campuses and met secretly, supposedly in dark halls and presided over by a grand klaggon..."". --so again, we are talking about two groups and thus more than one person.

However, it gets better with the screenplay:

  • "At USC, you had a word the this--screwing up the opposition you all did it at college and called it ratfucking." --This line isn't about what one person said or did, its about the culture of the student government at the time; in fact, to land in the screenplay such an occurrence must have been a part of the general knowledge of the time.

In addition to involving more than a single individual, the tactics above fit the definition of corrupt. For those reasons I disagree with your assertion that my edits are not supported by the source you cite. First, the comment that serves as the source is about a single individual, not the student politics, in general, so a general comment is inappropriate. Secondly, the cited source does not make the assertion that the acts were corrupt, so applying that nomer to the statement represents opinion. As such I will revert back to them if they are changed; this is not about whitewashing what is otherwise an exceptional reputation of an era (now historic) student government. --Bobak (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobak, thanks for your response. My thoughts are that all of this is interesting background information, but largely constitutes original research, which as you know, is against Wikipedia’s policies. Nowhere in the article you cite does the quote "Furthermore, student politics at USC--often between conservative factions--has been notoriously corrupt" appear. Nowhere in the article you cite does the word "corrupt" appear. In fact, nowhere in the article you cite does a word commonly associated with "corrupt" appear, save the following sentence (which refers solely to the actions of one individual): "Chapin was known to have engaged in a variety of underhanded, illegal [emphasis added] plots to gain control of the Senate for his conservative-leaning organization." So, in order for one to draw the conclusion that the entire organization was (is) corrupt, one must form an opinion, which as you also know, is against the spirit of Wikipedia, if not also against Wikipedia's policies.
The options are, as I see them, to have the article solely reference the acts of the single individual involved (i.e., Chapin) in support of his [emphasis added] corruption, or find another source that supports the corruption of the whole. The words inside the four corners of the source you cite simply do not support that "student politics ... (have) been notoriously corrupt." Was one individual corrupt? I suppose so, if you associate the term "illegal" with "corruption"; safely so IMO. But, not to the whole. It fails a basic test of logic.
Also, the definition of corruption is interesting, but again, each reader of the article is left to determine whether they think the actions amount to corruption. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic journal, not a forum for opinion. Remember, no original research and no unverified claims. The claim that student politics at USC are corrupt is not verified. How could it be? It never appears in the article you cite. And, the bit about the movie is a red herring, plain and simple. Newguy34 (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)