User talk:Wnjr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Michael Byron "Mike" Nifong

Hi Wnjr, could you ellaborate on your deletion of my edit to the Mike Nifong article? Generally, I agree that "speculation" should not be a part of Wiki articles. However, I disagree that content you deleted is speculation in the context of the significant 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal has had significant national exposure, and debate. Consider the contemporaneous reporting of O. J. Simpson, who was "not guilty" in the criminal case yet found liable in the civil case. Nifong is newsworthy solely because of the Duke case, and the most significant aspect of the case was his conflict of interest between his career and election pursuit vs. his duty to be honest. Currently, the article fails to cover that the prosecutors conduct is not solely a question of ethics. I agree that the North Carolina bar has only instituted ethics charges against Nifong, and thus Nifong at most will suffer a non civil and non criminal penalty related to his membership in the bar, and perhaps his disbarment. However, Nifong does have a significant civil exposure to the wrongly accused who were found innocent. Furthermore, any time a lawyer makes a statement before a court or tribunal which is knowingly false (which includes misleading), it is a crime. These points have been reported by several news organizations. There is no "speculation" involved in reporting the relevance of the preliminary allegations and findings of the NC bar and its members, as the same facts have civil and criminal penalties. I do agree with the following:

  • There is no certainty at to whether those harmed by the Duke scandal will sue Mike Nifong.
  • There is no certainty as to whether a North Carolina prosecutor or a Federal district attorney will prosecute Mike Nifong for criminal acts by his false and misleading statements before the Court and conspiring to withhold evidence.

However, the article makes no assertion related to those two points and is NPOV with respect to those questions. If the article fails to report the civil and criminal predicament of Nifong, the imho it is POV. I am giving you the opportunity to explain your thoughts prior to my reverting your edit.

--Knowsetfree 21:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your assessment of Nifong's situation, but I do not see how it justifies including your opinion of his likely fate in the article, it would seem equally justifiable to state that "Ultimately, Nifong's conduct in the lacrosse scandal may not result in civil litigation and criminal charges against him."
If your points have been made by news organisations as you say, then please revert the edit and reference them.
Wnjr 09:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wnjr requests vandal unblock for shared IP

{{unblock|not a vandal, shared IP}} 82.198.250.15

82.198.250.10

Hi, unfortunately I am not going to be able to unblock those IPs as evidence shows they have been used to do harm to Wikipedia. Additionally, the first IP appears to be a school IP, so my recommendation to you would to be to edit from home instead. --Pilot|guy 18:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have that option. It's ridiculous that Wikipedia blocks registered users from editing from shared IPs. --Wnjr 10:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of minor edits tag

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thank you.

Some of your recent edits have been identified as abusing Wikipedia tools or policy. Abuse is not necessarily vandalism, but it is strongly discouraged. Although abuse that occurs only occasionally may be tolerated, a pattern of serial abuse constitutes a long term pattern of abuse, and may lead to your being blocked.

Your contributions list shows that you virtually always mistag your contributions as "minor."[1] "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."[2] Even a cursory glance at recent edits you have labeled minor reveals that you are flagrantly misusing this tag by making substantive edits that clearly could be and have been "the subject of a dispute" and labeling them as minor. Simon Dodd 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism and editwarring is always a minor edit. Please refrain from making hyperbolic threats you cannot back up, it's boring.
Wnjr 09:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Given that practically every edit on your contributions list is tagged "minor", either you're abusing the tag, or you've yet to make a substantive contribution, preferring to do nothing but what you consider to be "[r]everting vandalism and editwarring." You've been warned. If it happens again, admin action will ensue.Simon Dodd 12:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[WP:AGF]? There's a simple way to solve that "either", and that's to look at the edits I've made, and yes I make a lot of minor edits, there a lot of vandals and POV-pushers around, if your baseless allegation were true at all then my edits would be regularly reverted, which is easy to check. I repeat, don't threaten me, it only makes you look like a fool.
Wnjr 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Any time you want to go to an admin with your edit history and ask them to determine whether your changes - to pick just two recent examples - to George Galloway and Ann Althouse that are marked as "minor" meet the criteria of "only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera," you go right ahead. Your edit history speaks for itself. I'm not threatening you, merely warning. And after your behavior in recent days, you have to be joking to cite WP:AGF at me.[UPDATE: Yeah, you know what? Never mind leaving it to your choice to have an admin look at your record, or arguing about WP policy. Let's have an admin look at your record and determine whether you're in violation.][3] Simon Dodd 14:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lot of heat about nothing here, folks. Simon, there was absolutely no need to come in here, guns somking, with block threats and all the rest. Wnjr is obviously a good-faith productive contributor. You could really have brought forward your request more politely. Wnjr, with all due respect, on browsing through your contributions I do think there were a few where the "m" tag was not very appropriate. Now, peace, everybody, okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate here what I already said at the admin noticeboard, as to why I added {{Uw-longterm}} tag: I wasn't aware when I added the secondary tag that {{Uw-longterm}} was a "level-3 warning ... speaking of 'only warning', 'vandlism' and 'you will be blocked.'" At WP:WARN, that tag is described as having the purpose of flagging a "[l]ong term pattern of abuse," which would precisely describe User:Wnjr's record of a long term pattern of abusing the minor edit tag. That's why I added it, and if that isn't {{Uw-longterm}}'s purpose, perhaps WP:WARN should be changed to reflect that? ;) Simon Dodd 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely you noticed what it said when you hit "save"? I don't think continuing to describe an error as abuse is helpful btw. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but it didn't seem sufficiently off-point to merit removal. The WP:WARN description of the tag is to warn a user for a long-term pattern of abuse, and User:Wnjr has a long-term pattern of abuse - the shoe fitted, even if it wasn't precisely the style of shoe that I'd normally deem appropriate. Again, if that template is not intended to flag a long-term pattern of abuse, which is really the only reason why it would be inappropriate to have used it here, WP:WARN should be changed, because that's what it describes the tag's purpose as being. Alternatively, if the language of the template is excessively harsh for the purposes for which the tag is held out, the language of the template should be changed. There is clearly a mismatch between means and ends. Perhaps there should be a separate tags for a long-term pattern of abuse (which is what we have here) and a long-term pattern of vandalism, which I'm certainly not accusing User:Wnjr of. Simon Dodd 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
So it's the tags fault? Again please stop labelling an error as abuse. It's offensive, so please just stop it. As I asked on the AN there must be more to this than meets the eye. Do you two have a history? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Theresa, I've replied on the AN thread and we should take further discussion there so as not to bifurcate the discussion.[4]

[edit] Reverts

I'm going to reply here as the thread on AN/I is getting very long and off topic. I would say that yes if you are reverting a clearly disruptive edit you can mark the edit minor but by clearly disruptive I mean out and out vandalism. Page blanking, adding "my teacher is a knob" that kind of thing. In an edit war situation (which Simon didn't tell me about despite my asking twice, but these things have a way of coming out) then no, it's not OK to mark your edit as minor. Hope this helps. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You asked no such thing! You asked if this user and I had a history. I have no history with him/her, and I neither have any idea or any interest in who they are. The edit war you're talking about was halted by admin action an hour before I reported this violation.Simon Dodd 00:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chin up

And Welcome to Wikipedia. I don't know any welcome templates, but welcome anyway. I hope this tempest in a teacup doesn't put you off contributing. FWIW I agree with Theresa's assessment; keep making those good contributions, use the m a bit less, and stay frosty in your responses to criticism, however uncivil or misguided. Good luck! Anchoress 02:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Your Abuse, and Stop Misrepresenting My Edits

Ganging up on me on User:Horologium's behalf is a sorry way to seek to divert attention from your own history of abuse and stalking. I have never spammed WP or anywhere else, so don't try and make me look bad on my User Talk page, in order to try and make yourself look good. 70.23.167.160 12:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You endlessly spam wikipedia with links to your own writing, it is laughable of you to claim that multiple editors noticing your abuses are 'ganging up'. Don't lie about me to cover your own laughable self-promotion, I have no history of abuse and have never been accused of stalking, you post the same crap across multiple articles in bad faith and wiser editors rightly remove it.
Wnjr 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am placing a link to the article that you are so obsessed with keeping from WP readers, so that people can see what it is that you call "spam." Only the most important expose yet written on the Duke case. It's too bad that people like you refuse to permit WP to ever become an encyclopedia.

70.23.167.160 12:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing your link, it is of no relevance here, your spamming is no more welcome on this page than any other.
Wnjr 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it totally improper for you to be ganging up on me on Horologium's behalf, but you lied. No; he is not "perfectly able to issue warnings, as is any other editor, since warnings are not administrative action, they merely advise that if a course of conduct continues then administrative action may follow." He said that I "will" be blocked, which means that he was impersonating an administrator. And in lying on his behalf, you too engaged in fraud. The abuse just never ends with you, does it? 70.23.167.160 13:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I stated his actions are perfectly proper, per Wikipedia:Vandalism: "If you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it and leave a warning message on the user's talk page. [...] Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations: [...] Spam Continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism."
Wnjr 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're just another wikistalinist. And regarding your charge that I have spammed WP, you're a liar, in addition to being a stalker and a vandal.

70.23.167.160 07:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you dare spam this page. Wnjr 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LARC

hey "wikistalinist"! he he. a nice phrase from the comment above! thanks for taking an interest in the LARC page, it seems the slow burning edit war has returned to blacken our days again, so i have asked Bbatsell to take a look again, since he/she was trying to help out a while ago. cheers! Mujinga 00:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be "blackening" your days, but please stop vandalising the LARC page! Also , please desist from disengenious comments on my discussion page. You know full well that I am not objecting to my contributions being edited as you will have evidenced while stalking me. I only object o my contributions being vandalised / deleted without due cause. If you have a constructive comment to make then please feel free to leave comment on my page but otherwise please stop trolling. Paki.tv 23:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
"stop trolling" says the troll. oh dearie me! Mujinga 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)