User talk:Verne Andru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, we do not delete talk pages, because they contain valuable information about how we have interacted with this person in the past. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the rules say. But then for you there are no rules are there? I do not want my name associated in anyway with Wikipedia. I will not be associated with an organization that runs without rules and lets it's editors take "rewards" from outside sources to advance their individual causes. Wikipedia is not an independent "encyclopedia" that meets any academic standards. Remove all references to me and this name space as allowed in the rules. Verne Andru 02:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What rules? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point -> Ignore All the Rules [1] + Editor Reward Board [2] = Wikipedia Conflict of Interest/Corruption Verne Andru 15:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I am not going to discuss that with you. I asked which rules in response to your belief that your userpage should be deleted, that is the rule I want to know about. I have little interest in your interpretation of Wikipedia, which I am sure would be very different if we let you write an article about the comic you made. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules is about the main space, ie articles, SqueakBox 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, Squeak. Verne -- there are a couple of ways to go about leaving. See Wikipedia:Right to vanish, which explains a complicated procedure you can go through if you want to disassociate your real name with the edits you've made here: it involves requesting a change of username, and then changing all the signatures you have ever left anywhere to point to the new name. It's imperfect, but there you have it. As to merely deleting your user talk page, I would be willing to do it if you're saying that you're leaving and won't be editing anymore. (I will block your account to enforce that, but if you change your mind later, you can always request unblocking.) Keeping your talk page around is not a big deal unless you're actually editing. Mangojuicetalk 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, if you want the "Right to vanish", then you will need to follow the instructions there, as an admin cannot do it properly. If you are willing to close the account(in other words I block it indefinitely) then I will gladly delete your user talk page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry HighInBC, you are wrong again. Had the process followed a due-process that even closely resembled an unbiased tribunal and the Article failed on its merits, I would have no issues. But, as I stated at the top, this process has shown that Wikipedia is not an independent "encyclopedia" that meets any academic or ethical standards. It has an inherent systemic conflict of interest that renders it highly corruptible:

  • Ignore All the Rules [1] + Editor Reward Board [2] = Wikipedia Conflict of Interest/Corruption

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia as stated. It is, by design, a biased platform for special interests with enough money/resources to buy "consensus" through the Rewards Board. This will be perused elsewhere.

I have no control over what you do on your private servers, but I do have legal rights over what your servers provide to the public. Remove all references to me, my properties and there respective name spaces immediately. These are intellectual properties protected by international laws and conventions and I am asserting my legal rights as the owners of same. Verne Andru 16:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, everything on Wikipedia falls under the "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" statement, including your contributions. You do not own what you contribute here. Now, as I said I can delete your talk page only if you want this account blocked, if the account is to be used further the talk page needs to stay. You can blank it but the history remains. If you have a specific copyright concern then you can point me to it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Based on the foregoing, I submit Wikipedia has misrepresented itself rendering any "contract" void. This falls under "The Statute of Fraud." And since it is systemically susceptible to bias and outside influence by special interests through the "Reward Board," and there is a policy allowing Editors who receive "Rewards" to ignore the rules, it's status as a non-profit organization should also be reviewed. Verne Andru 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


Since you seem intent on discussing the Reward Board, let me say that no one pays any attention to the reward board. I had been editing here a LOT for over a year before I'd ever even heard of it, and if you actually look there, you'll see that people aren't posting rewards for things like their own pet project, but rather for things like improving articles we should have anyway, like Lithuania - despite the monetary rewards (from private individuals), I see no conflict of interest coming from that board. If someone posted a reward for writing an article on their company or band, it would likely just be removed. Also, you're reading too much into WP:IAR -- it doesn't mean that anarchy rules here. Actually, we are keenly aware that Wikipedia is not anarchy. Finally, you seem to be ignoring that there is no rule that has really been ignored in the "hearing" on your article. What was unfair, exactly? What you seem to point to the most is WP:N, where you think the article met the guidelines but where the bulk of the independent contributors to the debate felt that it didn't. You had your chance to try to convince them, but you didn't convince them. WP:N's wording has been in constant flux, but it's been pretty much constant that it's not just sources but non-trivial coverage in sources that's required, and a lot of other things in there are vague and open to interpretation: "non-trivial", "multiple" (how many?), "reliable", "independent." What it comes down to in the end is that the guideline must be interpreted to apply or not apply in individual cases, and almost everyone in the debate agreed that the coverage was insufficient. And on top of that, WP:N is only a guideline anyway, not real policy. As I was trying to say in my comment, if those sources weren't looked at in the way you wanted them to be, you have to remember that it was also brought up that you, the author, wrote the artice (a definite no-no around here) and furthermore, that you probably hurt your own cause by Wikilawyering over minor points that other people disagreed with: that sort of behavior tends to attract negative attention. Mangojuicetalk 17:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Verne, read WP:NLT before continuing any further. We are not lawyers, and legal matters are to discussed outside of the website. I suggest you contact the foundation with your concerns. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably the easiest way to ensure an indefinite ban and the ire of the community is making legal threats. You should indeed contact the foundation, SqueakBox 18:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)