ugh, blocked 48 hours for civility violations |
Undid revision 421236171 by Lifebaka (talk) the truth seems to hurt you--keep covering it up. |
||
Line 948: | Line 948: | ||
---([[User:Gharr|Gharr]] ([[User talk:Gharr#top|talk]]) 23:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)) |
---([[User:Gharr|Gharr]] ([[User talk:Gharr#top|talk]]) 23:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)) |
||
==Civility block== |
|||
I see that you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gharr&diff=next&oldid=421229520 read my message], and I see that you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gharr&diff=next&oldid=421231978 didn't get it]. Attacking other users (such as calling them "creepy") is not acceptable. Telling others you will keep an eye on them is a statement that you plan to hound them and is not acceptable. Take the next 48 hours off; when you come back, stop with your combative attitude and try working with people to get something done. Accusations against others will result in longer blocks. <font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font>[[User talk:Lifebaka|'''++''']] 00:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:29, 29 March 2011
Directory of subpages
Directory
Main user page Subpages of the main user page
- User:Gharr/Draft --(personal use) Used to make draft documents
Welcome to new users and old users; I'm glad you are here. Thank you for being a part of this community.
Contributing to Wikipedia articles, talk pages and other tasks can seem complex.
Wikipedia is not without a controversial side, it's not perfect and neither are people who founded or are high level members of Wikipedia.
As a volunteer here, I also have faults. I am passionate about the articles I argue for or against and that can be a good thing or a bad thing. Ultimately I appreciate anyone who takes the time to dedicate their time to Wikipedia articles, debate and other tasks regardless of if it is for monetary, power or voluntary reasons. Thank you!
Wikipedia does seem to do a lot of good. It has no restrictions to the number of articles you can write. It encourages you participate.
Good luck and have lots of fun and I will say sorry in case I end up having to oppose you in a talk section or ask for your material to be removed for example. In the end I would like to see a cooperative effort to improve an article or for suggestions of where an article belongs if it does not make the tough criteria that Wikipedia demands. I believe every author of a article loves that article they made and should get as much respect as possible.
I also accept that sometimes people will be so far apart that working in a cooperative manner will be impossible (and these separations may not always be obvious if for example a person or group of persons is motivated to monetarize a website or shorten the length of articles so they increase exposure on the mobile telephone network). Such divides can be tough to bridge and I am sorry if I fail to do so. I hope the nature of the Wikipedia will not suffer from such conflicts, because ultimately I want as many people who wish to be Wikipedians to feel welcome and valued here.
Welcome, I'm glad your here :)
I hope you enjoy being a part of this community. Thank you for making the effort to contribute to Wikipedia’s content and quality.
Barn-stars to show thanks and appreciation to other wikipedians
Barn-Stars Dedicated to Other People
To those suffering through sickness or feeling unwell
The Get Well Soon Barnstar
The Get Well Soon Barnstar | ||
This award is not for me. It's a special wish that you get well soon. This lets you know we hope you're okay. The internet has made the world a smaller place and we feel bad when you are not happy. (Gharr (talk)) |
To all those people who have suffered though disasters
I know people from all over my country and all over the world. I may have never met all of you in person. When disaster or conflict situation strikes some place in the world I do feel worried about you. I feel sad that you, the people you love or your friends might have been hurt or killed. There has been a lot of disasters and conflict situations of late and I just thought I should provide somthing to say: "I hope all is well in your life and you made it through your troubled times unscathed."
The Angel Heart Barnstar | ||
This award is not for me. It goes out to all of you who have suffered through disasters and conflict. This lets you know we hope you're okay. The internet has made the world a smaller place and we feel bad when you are not happy. Gharr (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
To People Working on The Venus Project, The Zeitgeist Movement, and Jacque Fresco Article.
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
This is not for me. I generally take notice of edit-wars and vandalism. I know some of you in the The Venus Project, The Zeitgeist Movement, and possibly the unmerged version of the Jacque Fresco article have been spending time undoing these edits. Its a real pity you have to spend your valuable time doing this. I just want to thank you for the effort you made anyway. Gharr (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC) |
The Peace Barnstar
The Peace Barnstar | ||
This award is not for me. It is my feeling that The Venus Project, The Zeitgeist Movement, and Jacque Fresco promote peace, nonviolence, and tollerance. By definition, those people who work on these articles also promote those things. The critics voices can be strong in the talk sections, so I just want to say not everyone thinks as they do. Some of us are even thankful for the work you do. Gharr (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC) |
To My Opponents
I am passionate about my opinions and that may lead me to directly oppose your opinions or support material you don't like. Regardless of if your efforts are done with numerical advantage, privileged rights, tactical genius, obfuscation or good argument, I only chose to oppose you because I have a healthy respect for your powerful opinions and argument. Taking different sides can lead to hurt feelings; but it might lessen the edge if you know that you had me seriously worried.
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
To a worthy opponent, you caused me to be seriously concerned, I felt no choice but to challenge your views. Gharr (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC) |
To Those Visiting Because I left a comment on your article talk page, new article talk page or some other place
For those who like cats
For those who like haiku
For the Rest of you, this is all I can offer
Thanks for visiting my talk page,
The Secret Anti-Cabal Barnstar
There is a certain type of Wikipedian that builds a case against an articles core meaning. These Wikipedians are out to save "us" or save their side from "us." They will present arguments and evidence that range from solid to outright lies. They may take things out of context. It's not really important what they do to win an argument, what is important is that they are here to save their side from "them" and win at all costs.
At the end of the day it is all about science, logic, and what you believe is true. But if there is room for interpretation then, well there is room for conspiracy theories and cabals that have agendas to push a certain interpretation. Fortunately there are people out there to save us.
From my point of view (POV), people that go on talk pages sometimes seem to oppose you with questions about your loyalty, the articles truth, the actual group that supports the article, and backs statements up with any evidence they can scrape up (no matter what the quality of that evidence is). Even when these people are caught out telling a straight out lie, you can't feel betrayed because they come across as having such faith in their ideas that just maybe...there might be some truth to what they say.
No matter what evidence you place in front of these people or how often you reveal that their evidence is based on false facts, they will ignore it all and continue to argue as if nothing has happened. What conviction and well, they really are trying to save the day, the nation, or the world.
The Secret Anti-Cabal Barnstar | ||
This is not for me. This award goes out to all you conspiracy theory and "secret" cabal theorist. When an article is saying one thing, it probably isn't saying that at all. When a Wikipedian claims one thing, you know they are actually really claiming something else. Whatever the case, "they" are definitely not on "our" side.
Thanks for making us wonder and question ourselves, our lives, the bureaucracy, and well nearly everything we believe in, hold onto out of respect and honor, or take for granted. Spread the word, because we know "they" certainly will not do so! --(Gharr (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)) |
Barn Stars Explained
Wikipedia Awards are part of the Kindness Campaign and are meant to promote Civility and WikiLove.
Barn-stars are apparently something that develops a feeling of community in Wikipedia. I have to admit I would feel slightly uncomfortable going onto some strangers talk page and placing one there unless requested to do so (in which case I would be glad to once I have rechecked the correct award is going to the right person)[1]
Apparently some people have an awards page (I assume this is just a section in their talk page labeled awards)[1].
You can give these out yourself to others[1]. You don't normally leave them on your own page as I have done.
There are also personal awards[2] and other awards[3].
Personal awards are designed for a specific event or to spread good cheer[2]. Other events are for a specific action or event[3].
There is also Wikilove awards that are meant to spread love in Wikipedia. I suppose that might be similar to Hawaiian flower necklace. Anyway the Wikilove awards are currently a kitten or some other picture[4]
Notes
- ^ a b c See Wikipedia:Barnstars
- ^ a b See Wikipedia:Personal_user_awards
- ^ a b See Wikipedia:Other_awards
- ^ See User:Kaldari/wikilove
New Pages and Useful Information
- User page information
- Style Manual
- Found a user page that upsets you. The user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guidelines.
- Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol
- Special:NewPages
- Special:RecentChanges
Weekend Special by Maureen Greaves
Author | Maureen Greeves |
---|---|
Language | US |
Publisher | www.strategicbookpublishing.com |
Publication date | 2009 |
Publication place | Australia |
Pages | 156 |
ISBN | 978-1-60860-000-7 |
This book introduces a large cast of characters that take the central stage as they weave their way though life’s problems. We, the reader, look on with curiosity as we wonder how each individual character's problems might be resolved.[1]
The stage that connects each character is Jack Dempsey's vehicle. It is here we see each character as a small part of a larger group.[1]
This is a quote from the "Weekend Special" book jacket that describes what the book is about:
Jack Dempsey drives between Brisbane and Harvey Bay, Australia, transporting passengers where they need to go. Although Jack doesn’t make any appreciable amount of money with his commuter transport occupation, to the displeasure of his industrious family, it suits him better than a “real” job.
One of the most colorful fares Jack transports is the dysfunctional Fitzgerald family. Fortunately for the others, daughter Carol is a nurse and a very responsible family member. She tries valiantly to stem their mother’s descent into alcoholism as the older woman run the family bar and restaurant. The other children have moved to far-flung locations and Mrs. Fitzgerald is in denial about her problem, but Carol manages to get her to join Alcoholics Anonymous by videotaping her mother’s inappropriate behavior when drunk.
The other passengers include James, who is having an affair with a sophisticated married woman twenty years his senior, and Johnnie, a travel agent who seems to have an unsavory double life.
Jack Dempsey never has a dull moment driving around his dramatic and diverse passengers!
The author realized her publication on the internet was not being noticed or read at the time. She then decided to have it published in book form. Her decision meant that the book form would use the American language to tell the story, rather then the Australian language of its setting. This in turn allowed the book the maximum chance to reach the widest audiences and also made the publisher happy.[2]
This is a quote from the "Weekend Special" book jacket that gives a short summary about who the author is:
Maureen Greaves was born in Bundoran Co. Donegal Ireland. There she attended St. Louis Convent where she gained honours in her Intermediate and leaving Certificates.
Maureen also gained honours in English Literature and Free Lance Journalism. She has traveled to many countries in the world settling in Brisbane, Australia during the Eighties. Muareen attended TAFE COLLEGE there gaining diplomas in Short Story writing and Free Lance Journalism. She has had short stories published in leading Australian magazines and is published online with Triond.
In her teens, Maureen and her friend Margaret went to Belfast Northern Ireland in search of employment. Being Catholic was a drawback so they went instead to London England, where there was greater freedom. Maureen got married in the sixties and had two children, Diane and Derek. She now lives with Diane in Brisbane Australia.
The "Weekend Special" has been published by "strategic book publishing" and can be found in "Australian Libraries".
The author also added this incredible summary of her life, the book and a message about the need to be given a chance:
My name is Maureen Greaves I grew up in Bundoran a little town in co Donegal Ireland There I attended St. Louis Convent gaining my Intermediate and Leaving certificates. I also gained honours in Free Lance Journalism and English Literature. I have written books on the Irish Troubles one titled The Orange and the Green. This book depicte a Cathloic family caught up in The TROUBLES. Shaun O'Donevan is cruelly taken from his family and interned in Long Kesh the notorious prison where the hunger strikers like Bobby Sands and his fellow prisoners all died in the name of the cause. I came to Australia in the 1980s and have had short stories published in leading Australian magazines and the stories are also published on line with Triond. WEEKEND SPECIAL IS A BOOK SET IN AUSTRALIA QLD TO BE EXACT. It tells the story of seven passengers being driven from their homes in Harvey Bay to their work place in Brisbane. Jack Dempsey owns the bus and even though he doesn't make much profit in the venture he loves mingling with his passengers and listening about their home life and they are not without intrigue. Take Nora Molloy for instance she would put Scrooge to shame she is so mean and this shows in all her doings with the other passengers. Nora is in trouble with Gwen her flat mate over a fridge. Gwen wants her to buy a new one and Nora is livid at the very thought. She is friends with Stella Cosgrave the judge's daughter who mixes in Nora's opinion with the lower classes with no qualms whatsoever. Like Pat Cassidy son of Mary Cassidy who scrubbed floors for poor and gentry alike before she got cancer and is need of pallitive care. Stella is having an affair with Karl Davis one of the executives Nora works for. Of course Karl is a married man with a young daughter called Charollete. Stella is friendly with Nora because who else can tell her about Karl it is music to her ears hearing about him. another passenger on the bus is Mary Muldoon. Mary is a flamboyant character who runs a taxidermy shop.Scandal surrounds Mary in the theme of Jacques her son who her husband took away from her when she was caught smuggling wild life into the country. The book depicts the everyday life of ordinary people going about their business but it also unfolds the darke side of humanity in the line of scandals and intrigue. I would like if my book got a chance to be read and gain merit on that. If nobody gives you a chance well then where can you get heard just that one breakthrough that many of us crave. LOOK AT SUSAN BOYLE SHE GOT A CHANCE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENED.
The book would be good subject material for schools and Universities They could benefit in their English Studies on how to write fiction and structure a story. They could learn about how to plot a story and get first hand knowledge on how to write a novel themselves if they so wish
This above quote from the discussion section of an article I posted may end up being deleted by wikipedia, so for the moment I have not referenced the link it belongs to. Perhaps this will be a historic note and encouragement to future generations of writers should the original article I posted be deleted.
Gharr (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
References
Greaves, M; Weekend special; Strategic Book Publishing; New York [2009]; ISBN: 9781608600007
External links
- "Weekend Special by Maureen Greaves"
- "National Libraries of Australia, a text listing that includes Weekend Special in its list"
- "historic pamphlet showing author talk at brisbane square libary--the place where ideas about the book were talked about: page 5"
The article Weekend Special by Maureen Greaves has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not meet any of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books). Only sources provided are lists or self-published.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The-Pope (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's process of evaluating articles
I'm thinking of talking about my experience of posting my first article. It has been a very interesting experience. After my article on the weekend special was published I got messages of:
(1) Additional references that can be "verified"
(2) Additional references from "third-party publications"
(3) For the topic I chose (a book) it had to be "notable"
While I did add additional references, the main topic of the book being "notable" appears on the surface to have not been met, even though the basic level of being notable had been met.
Since I started to get the feeling that I may not be able to meet the criteria for a notable book (the five points in a nutshell) I added a discussion (that the author amazingly also contributed to) about why Wikipedia should not ignore new literature. I don't know it this will work.
According to Wikipedia, to halt rapid deletion I had to insert a {{hangon}}
tag. I did this and a nice box popped up in the text view asking for a delay to the deletion.
I get the feeling Wikipedia is open to being flexible from the following quote:
Gharr (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
This is quite interesting: Wikipedia has it's own "style manual". I have heard that each school, university, company or organization has its own style manual. I should have realised that Wikipedia would have one too. Generally (from having read the "Australian Style Manual") they tend to be guides only as they cover a wide range of publications.
Gharr (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Deletion of article delayed
Wow, I placed a {{hangon}}
tag, and Wikipedia removed the rapid deletion message.
I'm not sure if this will prevent them from deleting the article, unless the author's argument helped. I did provide an argument also, but the requirements mentioned above have not changed, so I currently see this a simply Wikipedia giving everyone one more chance to comply with the original rules mentioned above.
I suspect they will not worry about loosing new and modern literature—my follow up argument.
Gharr (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(AfD)tag
Cool, the next step to deletion, since I assume the hagon tag and the previous discussion has failed or been ignored is a thing called a "Articles for deletion (AfD)" tag.
The hangon tag I placed does not necessarily stop the deletion process, it simply delays it. So I expected the process to go forward if the discussion failed or was ignored! Strangely enough, I didn't expect augments about non-original research" or "copyright."
I assume this is Wikipedias try at making sure I have not copied the article from some place or produced material that I assume gives me rights of copyright to the article. There must be some strange rules for people who write encyclopaedias I suppose.
Gharr (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is also a really cool site to visit: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." It is fascinating to read all the authors reasons and augments about why their articles should not be deleted. I realize that articles are coming in from all over the world, but there are quite a lot scheduled for deletion and thus there are many that you can browse through and read!
Gharr (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Notability As Defined By Wikpedia in the future
"Notability" was apparently defined in 2005 and caused controversy in subjects like comics and companies[1].
I myself think information on companies and even comics some times is interesting or important. I have wondered about those who would be brave enough to comment on state organs or companies that may one strike back at the author. Certainly encyclopaedias have respected the state by reporting on historic news in biased ways (sensitive topics about war for example may be misrepresented for decades—the Australian light horse for example[2]). A citizen of a country is no different from a company that prints an encyclopaedia!
I believe Wikipedia will bend notability rules when confronted by the powerful governments or industries. This is the reality of our system.
I see Wikipedia’s attempt to limit content as two fold:
1) Wikipedia wants to define itself as a brand or thing to the people that read it. It wants a brand that pleases international governments, industries and the people that seek out information on Wikipedia.
2) Also Wikipedia wants to reduce the amount of space used because it costs them money.
So far, I think Wikipedia does a great job. I like to reference its pages all the time!!!
Other encyclopaedias have grown up covering other types of information. They possibly pick up on things Wikipedia refuse to accept and may even compete with Wikipedia.
It is for this reason I feel the boundaries that Wikipedia draws on are flexible, to prevent it from loosing its market share of the audience.
Thus the word “notable” will mutate, alter and perhaps become quite complex. Wikipedia has to cater to the audience, power structures (such as politics and industries) and competitors.
Gharr (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
References
User signatures
1) Three tildes
gives just your name. Use this when giving general notices on your user or talk page: Gharr (talk)
2) Four tildes
gives name and date, this is the normal signature used when you discuss things. However you should never use it in the main article as it is a contribution of several authors and belongs to no particular author: Gharr (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
3) Five tildes
give just the date stamp, use this when communicating with others: 03:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
If you want to know more about signatures
then check it out on "Wikipedia".
Article: Weekend Special Deleted
The deletion process occurred by what seemed like a sort of vote. I have read some of the other articles for deletion and the arguments can be convoluted. One seemed to list each copy of an article as proof that the entry was notable.
Also editors talking about deleting articles do in fact some times suggest more appropriate places that an article might belong to.
Sometimes articles may also end up redirected or merged.
While I argued my point, it seems many authors do not argue on the discussion page, they simply seem to edit their own pages. Perhaps that is a sign of the difficulty or arguing with editors that simply follow rules and make a decision.
Certainly this suggestion of not arguing with editors might hold some weight: ""Railing against the guidelines is very unlikely to result in this article being kept"a comment made by Whpq.
--Gharr (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
External links
AfD nomination of Weekend Special
An article that you have been involved in editing, Weekend Special, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weekend Special. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Weekend Special
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Weekend Special. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weekend Special. 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.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
AfD
Based on the above (and your list of contributions) I understand you're trying to understand the workings of Wikipedia. Some things to keep in mind when an article is nominated for deletion:
- Do not remove or alter posts by others, particularly if they involve templates. Such removal will often be construed as vandalism.
- Do not post anything that can be construed as personal attacks on others (see WP:NPA), and assume good faith.
- Look carefully at the nomination and the comments other editors are making; use the information to improve the article and try to save it.
- Don't try to control the conversation - this tactic usually backfires.
- If lack of notability is mentioned as a cause, start looking at WP:GNG; for books see WP:NB. If original research is cited, get references that are independent of the subject; if there is a suspicion of violation of copyright, don't just argue the point - see what parts could be construed as a violation and rewrite them.
- Articles that rely upon first person material generally fail. Dig up reviews (note also that the author of the book in question does not have a Wikipedia article, so a redirect to that article is not an option).
I hope this helps as you try to save the article. B.Wind (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Welcome and advice
Welcome...
Hello, Gharr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Mike Cline (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Gharr - 1st, I want to apologize for my fellow editors who did not welcome you to WP when you created your first article Weekend Special, so I did so above. Unfortunately, it did not come up to WP:NB standards and had to be deleted. There was consensus to do so and as an Admin I was compelled to support that consensus. Consensus is really the most important idea I want to convey to you in that by and large the policies and guidelines that govern WP are really consensus driven. We are all volunteer editors and operating in a consensus based community has proven to be very successful. Do not feel bad that your first article in WP was deleted. Three years ago, my first article was deleted, and I suspect I felt like you do now. Don't despair. We want you to participate and contribute to the encyclopedia, especially on subjects you are passionate about. I would encourage you to spend some time reviewing the various policies, guidelines and essays on how the WP works and what stays and what goes. With a bit of practice and experience, you will do fine and your contributions will be appreciated. Another thing that is extremely useful for new editors in to participate in Projects associated with the subjects you are interested in. In many cases, the project itself will give you great pointers in creating articles. For example, if you are interested in Books, then Wikipedia:WikiProject Books is a project you should participate in. If you ever have any general or specific guideline, policy or MOS question; just want to vent or otherwise discuss something about WP, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Again thanks for contributing.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone
I would like to thank all editors and readers of the “Weekend Special, by Maureen Greaves” and the debate to try keep the article.
When I started the article on the Weekend Special, I had no idea how big (or small) the media for it was. The publishers of the “Weekend Special” must have seen a potential or they would not have proceeded to the publishing stage—as I understand it, the author had no say in this decision.
I’m not related to Maureen Greaves or any of the other numbers of authors, artists or businesses that I support (with or without them knowing it or perhaps knowing but not acknowledging it). I do maintain a business like friendship with the people I meet. I may have a conflict of interest if you mean that I look up to any people who succeed in producing something as real life heroes—be it a product or service.
I support these people because I want to start my own business and I am getting to know the environment they face (that I must face also). I like Wikipedia because it is a success in my view, but real life products and services must work on staying around for as long as possible. This is a new era in the world in my opinion (but I am sure I can find lots of examples and evidence that is easily available) and many new possibilities exist. The rules must be flexible and able to be challenged.
I have lived through the age where machines can beat humans at chess when it was thought to be a sign of intelligence. I have seen the debate of test tube babies, women using their dead husbands frozen sperm to have a child and many other things that have tested laws that we once thought were impossible to challenge. I have lived in an age when I could still witness the wonder that was caused by man going to the moon—a task that was thought impossible and the strange contingency plans that were formed when man went to the moon (like was it’s surface solid, what was that gunpowder smell and the unexpected feeling of the Earth setting on the horizon).
Editors can follow the rules, but they should not be considered to be inflexible or binds that can not be broken. Already, as I have mentioned above, many major rules and boundaries to thought have been broken many times over. My argument should not be treated as a rebel or as spilt milk; it should be treated as a normal respectable response to a person who is used to increasingly seeing the rules as shifting ground in this modern era.
As for the Weekend Special, I can only speak about what seems to be the local situation and the things that I can find on the Internet. My internet searches have shown that the weekend special is being sold by a number of web pages to various locations all over the world. However, I do not read every newspaper and I do not have access (or the multilingual language skills) to know what goes on in every newspaper or magazine in the world. For my part, I am not aware of any radio, newspaper, television, or magazine article about the weekend special. I do not own a radio or television and have not done so for years.
I was expecting other people to contribute to the “Weekend Special” article eventually from other places in the world. This did not occur (except for the author’s contribution—and I’m am honoured that the author took the time to do that) in the time frame the article existed in. The other option I considered was that Wikipedia may have had a place where it lists the large number of works being created in today’s brave new world of publishing. Today we publish works all the time in our blogs, web pages, online articles, in online-encyclopaedias and yes even in book form without batting an eye (to a person like me it is close to the feeling I get when I think of people going to the moon!).
Again I thank all those who read and participated in the aspects of my first article the: “Weekend Special.” I would have like to see my first article succeed in staying around, but it was not to be.
As I said before, I hope I can contribute to Wikipedia in the future by writing an article for it or helping out with the many articles that need work.
Best of wishes to everyone.
--Gharr (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I have added my opinion to several discussions
I have added my opinion to several discussions.
I was originally going to add additional references to the articles, but I admit I did feel a little nervous about doing large edits of someone else’s work.
Anyway, the people who check the articles had good points, so I read the articles, thought about the topic and did additional research.
Tracking the articles you contribute to can be done through the watch list, my contributions or by direct links:
I'm not as yet sure if all edits to the main article come up on a watch list--a flurry of them happened reciently and I don't think I got notified appropriately of such events.
--(Gharr (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC))
Tracking new work
Cool, I can track any new work I do by going to my User contributions page. You can't see this page as it is my personal page (at least I assume you cant see it).
Banning People
Wow, some people actually get banned here. I don't know how many reasons there are for banning a person. "Skipsievert is an example of someone being banned". At the moment, it appears that Skipsievert was banned because of (verbal?) attacks on other members.
There are certainly complex twists and turns in this Wikipedia place. (Gharr (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC))
"Wind" and "Cline" above have included some useful information that might apply here. (Gharr (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC))
In case your wondering how I got the links to Mike and Wind. Apparently Wikipedia bookmarks all heading somehow. However, if you want to place a bookmark inside your article, than that is also possible if you use an anchor.
I have placed an anchor into Cline's article at the spot he suggests that "I could visit 'wiki project books'". As pure luck would have it, Cline made a possible spelling error there as well by using it instead of if. I corrected that spelling.
I mentioned this because this is the first time I have actually edited someones work in the my talk section and I have to admit, I feel a little nervous about it since technically: my edits could be perceived as annoying [1] to straight out vandalism.
Another interesting fact is that my edit of Cline's work took effect immediately. I had previously (and rather foolishly) tried bookmark Cline's heading "Welcome and advice," and that seemed not to work probably because all headings in Wikipedia are already automatically bookmarked.
(Gharr (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC))
References
- ^ footnote: "I assume Cline will get a flag telling him I edited his article and then his valuable time will be taken up by chasing that down."
Oh man this is totally cool, some of us can’t see stuff, but administrators can reveal them!
I had a debate about that was directed at the Jacque Fresco article that had appeared and then disappeared due to an administrators “BOLD” action.
Another administrator the was able to reveal what the previous administrator had hidden! This is the article that was hidden:
The edit page history [accessed March 2011]: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacque_Fresco&diff=417178507&oldid=414597160
Jacque Fresco article [accessed March 2011]: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacque_Fresco&oldid=417178507
Another user is also in the process of making a Jacque Fresco article because of the events that have occurred, so this will be a really interesting event. I have no idea how this little problem will end up being solved so everyone ends up happy.
Also due to the strong opposition[1] to the Jacque Fresco article and The Venus Project (plus any other articles that might be generated) would lead me to expect that these type of article will become challenged in the future. --(Gharr (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC))
Making Notes Look Nice
I had problems with notes not looking nice or other sections notes occuing in this section.
Other notes occured on this page becuse of a problem with the code. I solved it by changing the code from { { References } } to < References / >. There is probably some bug or upgrade contention occuring because this should not happen if the tags worked correctly--or I used the correct set of tags for the job!
The { { References } } tag is suppose to be a much more powerful version of the tag and it allows users to add a pipe + a number: "two" to form two colums to the reference section. Unfortunately the result I got with a long reference was garbled or a line with a space in it and it looked terrible. So it is not good to use two colums when you use the notes section to make long footnotes for example.(Gharr (talk))
References
- ^ See Talk:Jacque_Fresco#The_Venus_Project_is_notable.2C_thus_splitting_it_into_logical_smaller_parts_will_not_reduce_notability for one example of the type of opposition that might be expected to The Venus Project and Jacque Fresco article
Glitches in Wikipedia deletes others & own material: Check diff after doing edit...
Boy, I just accidentally deleted someone else's work and my own.
I think it might be a good idea to check the diff pages next time I do a edit because I definitely did not do the deletion on purpose. I just did some spelling checks--across several headings--and added an anchor. --(Gharr (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC))
Wikipedia
Wikipedia is based abound five principals[1]:
- Its an encyclopedia that may hold three elements[2]:
- encyclopedia,
- Almanac and
- Gazetteer
- A Neutral point of view[3]
- No plagiarism: a lot more complex and yet critical to a "wikipedians[4]," since they can not provide "original research[5]," and yet must build encyclopedic works that are not direct copies or slight variations of existing work. However, if wikipedians use several articles, the synthesis of published material can lead to the danger of reaching or implying a conclusion that is not supported by any of the sources[6]. To avoid plagiarism, articles must also have adequate references to supporting material[7] that might be challenged or where such references would be required by law (such as direct quotes of material)[8].
- Wikipedians need to treat each other with respect and focus on improving articles in Wikipedia[9].
- "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it[10]".
Stubs
Articles may also link to stubs. Stubs are just short definitions of a word. It's not intended to be a dictionary meaning however. Stubs do need to be referenced and have stub tags applied. Stubs may also be expanded at some later date.
Negative References (Citations) aren't Helpful
A lot of editors quote negative sources[11] to justify their stance. While negative articles do have their uses, I think they break the improve article definition and hence should not be used. Since this has not been stated anyplace, this would, by Wikipedias definition be original research. Thus normally this paragraph would need editing or be deleted.
Notability in Wikipedia
“Notability is a term used within the online encyclopedia Wikipedia as an editorial metric used to determine topics meriting a dedicated encyclopedia article[12].”
While “Notability” is not mentioned in the five pillars from what I can see; you will find yourself facing several versions of this word when trying to defend your article from being deleted.
It is in-fact indirectly mentioned in “What Wikipedia is not[13].”
The dreaded Deletion of Articles
According to my information, administrators have certain abilities. One of these procedures is to enter into a process of deleting a article. The other is to merge your article with another article--this can lead to your article being effectively deleted (or reduced in size) also as further edits are then reduce the articles size.
There is actually a procedure to be followed when deleting an article.
Mergers also require a number of steps that must be followed.
Template:Platinum: I found this symbol substitution and link to article on Wikipedia's substitution page.
Reason I Re-wrote 5 Pillars of Wikipedia
While this section may seem to be a redundant copy of the "five pillars article", it is in fact not so; this article is a encyclopedia reference to all the referenced articles mentioned here. It keeps the structure of the five pillars article because all the referenced articles revolve around it. I have not tried to alter the meanings of the referenced articles, rather I have tried to put it in a form that has meaning to me.
I call it a encyclopedia article because I have attempted to obey all the rules mentioned in the "five pillars article" to produce a valid article based on those rules IMO. I assume that the article might be then debated if it was live and for real instead of just a mock up article in the My-Talk section.
Example of a Reference (Citation) Section for Wikipedia
A good example of referencing methods that would be approved of by the Wikipedia is "law school" article. While this paragraph could be seen as original research, since this statement is unlikely to have a 3rd party reference--the law school reference section need not have been created to serve as simply a good example of how Wikipedia prefers referencing to be done--we might never the less assume that it's reasonable to draw this conclusion from cited sources.
Reference (Citation) overkill
Each sentence should contain one to three references. Three references are there only to reduce the effect of link-rot. Also, too many Citations (references) might be a sign of edit wars.
Generally too many citations will indicate that the author feels the material might or will be attacked and so defends the material, but instead ends up putting in too many citations and cluttering the article.[14]
Wikipedia Articles and the desire for smaller article sizes
Wikipedia like many others have realized the mobile phone network could dramatically expand the number of people that visit their site. For that reason they have made a demand that articles remain small so fast down loads can occur[15].
The argument for making an article small is that mobile users must pay a higher per second cost to access the internet. Computer users on the other hand pay a much lower price to access the internet.
Perhaps invisible to the common user is that mobile telephones are much more likely to be used in poorer countries where it is unlikely that users will also own a computer[16]. However, such users might end up being a significant percentage of people that visit Wikipedia (if this is not the case already)[17].
Merging and Splitting Articles
The result of this policy to Wikipedian’s is that there will be arguments to merge or split the articles into smaller units—since both desires are tugging in opposite directions the resultant affect is to probably aggravate parties who engage in a debate of an articles requirements.
This merging stuff seems to be a way to delete part or the entire article after it is merged with another article since the articles creator might not feel bonded to the fate of the place his/her document ended up at. For example if The Venus Project was merged into a movie, then anyone who reduced The Venus Projects material might not be opposed since the people that felt they had a connection to a article called The Venus Project might not feel the same connection to an article on some movie.
Alternatively I suppose slitting an article up might be a excuse for expanding information.
Wikipedia has no limits to the number of articles (also test bookmark)
- According to Wikipedia, there is in fact no limit to the number of articles that can exist in Wikipedia[18]. While the idea of unlimited space is appealing, it’s only true if Wiki can pay for the memory required to store such information. This is what might be called a scarcity mindset: where the Wikipedian feels that space if more important than if the article really belongs there.
- Wikipedians should in theory ignore the technical details for the need for memory storage and instead simply focus on making a good articles. This however does not seem to be the case, but not for the reasons our logic or statements from others (such as fund raising events) might indicate.
- It most likely isn’t storage cost of articles, rather it is the capturing the mobile telephone market that is the real worry and major concern for Wikipedia.
There are other places to publish material
Called “Wikipedia's sister projects,” they are alternative places you can write new for example (you still can’t do original work, but news only need reference to two sources for example.
It’s not always clear how these Wikies are made or used. I suppose part of the difficulty stems around the need to consider copyright.
Meta Wiki has several functions including the formulation of Wiki-media projects.
Commons: holds media of various types
- Wikibooks: has e-books to read or the creation of books through collaboration
- Wikiquote: had what appears to be entire texts of conversations in films and so on
- Wikiversity: lessons to teacher resources
- Wikispecies: a navigation through the classification tree
- Wiktionary: A dictionary, Thesaurus, and other stuff
- Wikisource: A record of historic works or books
- Wikinews: Similar to wiki, but only need two independent sources
Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process
This actually has several sections and deals with several scenarios.
User Access Levels
Of some interest is the ability of administrators to allow temporary restoration of an article
An administrator can see deleted revisions and diffs but those diffs can only be shared with other administrators. In order to allow all users to view the diff, the revisions in question need to be restored temporarily. Source: Wikipedia:Diffs#Deleted_revisions
Users can have a access level
- Unregistered User
- Confirmed User
- Reviewer
- Administrators must conduct themselves properly
- Bureacrats
- Steward
- Bots
The access level is has also got a diagram that shows things that can be done by each level of access.
Dispute Resolution
Try to avoid using another Wikipedians name/handlebar because this might be seen as a personal attack. Instead talk about the topics that are in that section.
You can also request a resolution
If things get really serious (to be used as a last resort): "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting:" Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Interesting:
- Sock puppetry is when a user operates several accounts for the purpose of deception and disruptive behavior. This can include logging out and making a comment as an IP-address. This behavior can lead to a block of accounts and ban of the user.
- Meatpuppetry is the recruitment or other editors to support your view. This often occurs in high profile disputes. It is considered impolite (insulting) to call other Wikipedians meatpuppets. I suppose in my terms it would simply seem that a group of people are towing a agenda or singular point of view. This type of behavior is quite serious and may result in arbitration measures.
- Some editors may share accounts. Such accounts should be declared on their user page. There is a actual user-box for shared accounts. Shared accounts are treated as single editor.
(Gharr (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC))
Notes
- ^ See Wikipedia:Five_pillars
- ^ See
- ^ See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
- ^ See Wikipedian
- ^ See
- ^ See Wikipedia:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position
- ^ See Wikipedia:Citing_sources
- ^ See Wikipedia:Editing_policy
- ^ See Wikipedia:Civility
- ^ See Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
- ^ See
- ^ Notability_in_Wikipedia
- ^ Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
- ^ Wikipedia:Citation_overkill
- ^ See
- ^ See
- ^ See
- ^ See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia
Selected Templates Listed
is it possible to edit this page???
- Welcome new users
- Template:Expand_section
- Sub-sections needed
- Splitting Article Into Separate Pages
- Template:Cleanup-reorganize
- Disambiguation explained
- Making new sections
- Text Fromatting
- Stub
- Stub Template
- Cite Book: use lower case
- Cite Journal
- Cite Encyclopedia
- Reference List, {{Reflist|2}} is used to split long listings into a specific number of columns.
- reference 5 has a interesting technique
Special Tags
Tables
[---] | [Average] | [Good] |
---|---|---|
[This Article] | [x] | [0] |
[Whole Article] | [0] | [x] |
References
I have been having some problems with them. I used < References / > to solve the problem.
Wikipedia:MOS Manual of Style
This is the first time I have had a debate with a experienced and fairly neutral editor concerned with style management of the Wikipedia. I found the experience very taxing to say the least. But here is some very interesting notes from that single encounter.
Some style editors will try and say there is only one way to write up a article, a "general rule" that applies across to all articles. This of course is not totally true: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Internal_consistency "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion."
The editor I met seemed tied up with abbreviations. In this case RBE which is suppose to stand for Resource Based Economy (Accessed March 20011: I'm not sure how long this article will last before it is deleted or merged and redirected). This had the extra complexity of being a theory as well.
I argued that a theory should have capitalization: Resource Based Economy while the other editor argued it should not use capitalization resource based economy. I accept capitals can make a article harder to read. However the style manual does not have anything specific about the capitalization of scientific theories.
Abbreviation Debate
The editor simply stated stuff of agreement and ignored what I said so I think he/she had no real argument here. I said abbreviations should be avoided in a short article as it caused confusion. I also quoted the style manual: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Abbreviations: under the heading: "Do not use unwarranted abbreviations," since it supported my view.
I also pointed out that the RBE links to another article that is not concerned with a resource based economy. This also makes the use of RBE undesirable.
Capitalization Debate
- This should be interesting:[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=next&oldid=420752799] User:Ground_Zero has made a change to "the Venus Project." will have to watch what happens here--very interesting development.
This is a very interesting fact about capitalization: " Do not use capital letters for emphasis; where wording alone cannot provide the emphasis, use italics." See Wikipedia:MOS#Italics under the heading of Emphasis.
The other editor objected to the use of capitalization by
- stating that The Venus Project can use any style manual it wants but that style manual can be ignored all together in the Wikipedia--MOS#Stability_of_articles might tend to disagree with that point of view...
- stating Capitalization in mid-sentence was wrong when clearly no example existed for the capitalization of theories. The books and wikipedia articles I consulted gave a mixed bag of results with some capitalizing and other avoiding it:
- the Big Bang
- According to the First Law of Thermodynamicsand "consider applying the Second Law to the scenario...[1]"
- Monetarism
- Keynesian_Revolution
This line pretty well says we were both wrong: "Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Sourced from MOS#Stability_of_articles. Since The Venus Project did not use capitalization for the resource based economy, I decided to not take the capitalization of the Resource Based Economy any further and conceded that lower case letters were acceptable.
However on the note about The Venus Project ( that it should loose "The" and instead use "the Venus Project") I upheld the view that it should be capitalized in-case of copyright or trademark. I also upheld it's status to remain capitalized since it was part of the original document; more on this later...
The other editor tried to stop me from using these links Resource Based Economy and The Venus Project
- state undue prominence (making them sound like they thought The Venus Project was not a accepted idea--and editor that is biased towards The Venus Project and the resource based economy).
- state links to commonly known word are wrong, but I stated that most people would not know what a resource based economy is.
However the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style states: "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion." Again the "general rule" editors state to set things in stone does not appear to exist. It is acceptable that articles may vary in style--editors don't have to force them to be identical. Certainly the argument that "The Venus Project" should be changed to "the Venus Project" is far from safe ground for a editor to try and hold on to with a so called "general rule" for all articles since such an idea is not supported by the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. [Accessed Mar 2011]
an interesting twist in style manual
Google crome, World wide web, Windows live messenger, Mozilla firefox, Apple safari, Internet explorer are okay based on this single reference? However real world articles do not obey this rule, this article seems to ignore that rule whole sale (I have also pointed out quite a few scientific articles that do not conform to this criteria). --(Gharr (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC))
The Reason for Strong Argument With Other Editor
I will be editing other articles. If I just blindly follow a editors methods and do the wrong thing, then this might result in harm and even me teaching others the wrong things. I have spent a considerable amount of energy and time on this because I consider this stuff very important.
Also the politics and implied threats (usually to the non-administrative party (like myself)) of getting banned or loosing an article makes the debate a little one sided in some cases. For my part I was wary of traps I might fall into but I jumped in there and did my best to sort out what was going on.
3RR behaviour
see [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Handling_of_edit_warring_behaviors]: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive."
Notes
Project Notes
It's been surreal in Wikipedia. There was constant attacks against The Venus Project and now it's awful quite. I have not figured what is going on. But such changes by both sides seems highly unusual. I would have expected the pace to stay fairly constant. Perhaps there really is puppets and meat-puppets involved here. I doubt that a newbie like me could have made them quite. I suppose the mystery to the quite period will eventually reveal itself. --(Gharr (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC))
3rr
Previous Response to Edit War Tag from User:Sloane
Your notice article is unwelcome. this 3RRR notice will be deleted, I have had discussions in the talk page and have tried to be reasonable--you have little reason to put the article you attempted to put here just then.. Feel free to block or ban me because I have done nothing wrong...
I will be making mention of your behavior in the future you can count on that...
Complaint Section
I also take note of this, for this is the recorded behavior that led to this situation:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resource_based_economy&diff=next&oldid=419395734 This content has now been removed by an administrator ...see actions so far after complaint heading. This page is marked because User:Sloane booked marked this article for speedy deletion and then followed that up with a warning to me as shown in the next point (below) (12:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC))
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gharr&diff=419397995&oldid=419390996 (The unannounced sudden Warning to me)
And finally your (User:Sloane) neutrality:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacque_Fresco&diff=413847250&oldid=413380524
- This reference is moved forward in time to 01:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC): So User:Sloane is included in the span
- "A merge seems an excellent idea, although it might be best to merge Jaque Fresco and the Venus Project into Zeitgeist: The Movie which seems the only article that's properly sourced.Sloane (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC) "
- "This article barely had any reliable sources. The Venus Project article is slightly better sourced (still inadequate imo though), but maybe it's a better idea to merge the Venus Project article into this one?--Sloane (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)"
- This reference is moved forward in time to 01:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC): So User:Sloane is included in the span
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jacque_Fresco#Merge This partial article also contains User:Sloane comments shown in the above point.
- User:Sloane has shown no reaction to the state of Jacque Fresco talk page that bordered on slander. The time frames of this archived document shows that the awful state of this document has been allowed to remained in Wikipedia for far too long. I'm not only looking at User:Sloane or User:OpenFuture here. I wondering why the upper levels of administration allows this sort of thing to go unchecked for so long???--(13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC))
Recapping the events that led to this complaint in a longer form
The user called User:Sloane booked marked this website for speedy deletion: Resource Based Economy(This content has now been removed by an administrator, see actions so far after complaint heading). --(13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC))
He/She then proceeded to give me this warning: You currently appear to be engaged in a Edit war according the reverts you made on the The_Venus_Project.
I had been discussing this stuff with the person who I am supposedly edited warring with extensively[1].
User:Sloane had not even looked at this page it would seem: Talk:The_Venus_Project#Capitalization_of_.22the.22
The tag he/she put in my talk page was threatening and without warning. It stated the following: Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. But there is more to User:Sloane. This person stood by and said nothing about the state of the old (now archived) Jacque_Fresco article: [| Jacque Fresco article] other then to add:
- “merge Jaque Fresco and the Venus Project into Zeitgeist: The Movie”
- “maybe it's a better idea to merge the Venus Project article into this one”
This is the same article I chose not to complain about because it was archived and all that is left of the talk page is here: Talk:Jacque_Fresco#Merge. However the archived article failed to meet Wikipedia standards and was virtually an attack on Jacque_Fresco.
So did User:Sloane just happen to put in a delete tag on the Resource Based Economy and then just happened to put in a Edit war tag for me…I very much doubt it.
This user has abused the privileges given to him/her. I am far from impressed at the state of articles and talk pages in Wikipedia. I am getting the idea administrators are not nice people.
Since this is the standard behavior in here, I will just do my work here till some “oddball-vandal-administrator” gets the upper hand and bans me. Don’t bother asking me to become one of you, this system your run sucks.
And User:Sloane, stay the hell off my talk page, you deserve to be banned, I don't respect you (Sloane (reviewer) (Created on 31 January 2006 at 16:33--this looks a awful lot like you, a reviewer is admin by my standards.))
---(Gharr (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC))
- complaint made --(Gharr (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC))
---(Gharr (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC))
- Complaint is now archived
- Explanation on how to find archived material: how to find archived material
User:Sloane showing how to act responsibly as a administrar/reviewer BY CONTINUING HOUNDING
--(Gharr (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Actions So far after complaint
- 18 March 2011
- (diff | hist) . . Talk:The Venus Project; 10:02 . . (+184) . . Ground Zero (talk | contribs) (→Capitalization of "the": )
- (diff | hist) . . N Resource based economy; 09:50 . . (+31) . . 2over0 (talk | contribs) (rdr The Venus Project; matches Resource-Based Economy)
- (Deletion log); 09:49 . . 2over0 (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Resource based economy" (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
- (Deletion log); 09:49 . . 2over0 (talk | contribs) deleted "Resource based economy" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy; no significant edit history)
- (diff | hist) . . The Venus Project; 05:09 . . (-25) . . Sloane (talk | contribs) (Per WP:MOS and for some consistency)
- 17 March 2011
- (diff | hist) . . m The Zeitgeist Movement; 11:09 . . (+2) . . Ground Zero (talk | contribs) (→Reception: italicization)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Zeitgeist_Movement&diff=next&oldid=419279241 User:Sloane revertes another thing I argued about--The Venus Project is not based around a 1000 year cycle, it's not mentioned anyplace in the The Venus Project.--(00:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC))
- 20 March 2011
- Re-awakened snooZing Giant: I don't think my complaint has been resolved yet and cant locate the archives (or dont have the level to access them)>
- It appears as if I can't put my complaint on a watch-list, so I can't get automatic updates.
- Also My original complaint just gets archived--it appears as if complaints simply move along a conveyor belt to the garbage bin and that is their method of complaint resolution. Wikipedia certainly does some strange stuff.
- (05:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC))
- 20 March 2011
- (diff | hist) . . The Venus Project; 21:30 . . (+125) . . Ground Zero (talk | contribs) (commenting out - needs citation and more detail)
- 18 March 2011
- (diff | hist) . . The Zeitgeist Movement; 18:05 . . (+21) . . Sloane (talk | contribs) (→See also: seems pretty related)
- (diff | hist) . . Talk:The Venus Project; 10:02 . . (+184) . . Ground Zero (talk | contribs) (→Capitalization of "the": )
- (diff | hist) . . N Resource based economy; 09:50 . . (+31) . . 2over0 (talk | contribs) (rdr The Venus Project; matches Resource-Based Economy)
- (Deletion log); 09:49 . . 2over0 (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Resource based economy" (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
- (Deletion log); 09:49 . . 2over0 (talk | contribs) deleted "Resource based economy" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy; no significant edit history)
- Edits by User:Sloane on 22 March 2011
- The Venus Project, 1 Delete: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=420083096&oldid=420040714
- The Venus Project, 1 Delete + add 3 tags (citation): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=next&oldid=420083096
- The Venus Project, 2 Deletes (reference section): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=next&oldid=420084130
- The Venus Project, Edits and some deletion seemingly aimed at making the article appear smaller: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=next&oldid=420084298
- The Venus Project, Altering the order of the parts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=next&oldid=420086240
- The Venus Project, Removing (with bias) see also references. Adding futurologist (with link) in front of Mr Fresco's name : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=next&oldid=420086340
- The Venus Project, Totally wrong re-edit of the meaning and aims of The Zeitgeist Movement, very questionable removal of more references--with extreem bias (certainly not neutral point of view) and adds a never seen before reference (http://icarusfilms.com/ , the YouTube reference seems okay) : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=next&oldid=420086712
- The Venus Project, deletes a template to The Zeitgeist Movement: {{Peter Joseph}}: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=next&oldid=420088666
- The Venus Project, the resultant article now looks slightly messy and less readable. Some more re-arrangement of elements might improve it to some degree. Shrinking the circular city was a bad idea--it has too much angle to it now. Misrepresents The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement because on non-neutral (opposing-side) edits.
- The Venus Project, odd, changing variable names inside template for some reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=prev&oldid=420217474
Notes
3rr outside the ring
21 March 2011
- Gaxtrope provides a edit asking for citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=prev&oldid=419823885
- Crurious, the slipping in of a non-notable argument into The Venus Project (commented out--how kind; least it's better then being accused of a 3rr edit war):
- Ground Zero also askes for citation by commeting out the entire section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=419863022&oldid=419823885
- User:OpenFuture shows up and undoes Ground Zero's work so the section remains in the The Venus Project article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=next&oldid=419863022 -- User:OpenFuture continues with his/her mission as before ( OpenFuture Views).
Re your recent ANI thread
I hope I can offer some friendly advice because you seem to be having a little difficulty navigating Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and community norms at the moment.
- First, at least partially you appear to be using your talk page (this page) in a manner akin to a blog. This makes the page confusing to follow and may be what has dissuaded other editors from taking the time to read it. You may be unaware that you can create additional sub-pages in your userspace (append the desired page name to the URL in the address bar of your browser eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gharr/PAGENAME). You might find this useful for organising and separating out your personal thoughts and observations from the communication you have with other editors.
- Second, as Lifebaka has observed on the ANI thread, it's not productive or collegiate to be abusive to the people you're requesting help from (and even less so when you're simultaneously accusing others of abusing you). The inevitable conclusion is that, if an editor is rude and arrogant when requesting assistance, it's not surprising they've fallen out with other editors and any difficulties they're having are probably self-inflicted. For the record, editors with the "reviewer" flag aren't administrators. The reviewer flag is a technical ability set for any established editor who can be trusted to screen out obvious vandalism from articles that are protected under "pending changes". The only real relevance it has to your complaint is that because the editors given this flag are experienced, their advice is often worth listening to.
- Finally:
- An editor reminding you about the three-revert rule/edit-warring is in no way "harassment".
- Occasional anonymous vandalism to articles is one of the crosses we bear for having an open editing policy; as long as the vandalism isn't excessive the page won't be protected. If you need page protection though, the place to request it at WP:RFPP and not on the article talk page (which is watched only by those who have it on their watchlist and not the admin corps as a whole).
- There seem to be some concerns that you resist content changes on The Venus Project. You need to be careful not to display article ownership.
- It's extremely unlikely that there's any sort of conspiracy against the Venus Project article. Unsubstantiated allegations made against other editors are a violation of our no personal attacks policy. If enough editors come independently to the same conclusion, it might look like a conspiracy even though it isn't (we, of course, call that "consensus" :).
Hope this helps and you take my advice in the spirit that it's given, EyeSerenetalk 15:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for your input. I think it's great :) I understand you are trying to help us all out--thanks.
- I have my opinions and I intend to say them--and that is exactly what I have tried to do. New users are not punching bags. If you use hammers I will respond in kind no matter what the Wikipedia rules are--being punished for defending myself will be a pleasure.
- As for conspiracies, there are plenty of things to worry about before that place is even arrived at: I would call it a conflict of interest if a editor who either against The Venus Project or an opponent of its theories edits that article or goes on to edit the talk page.
- My talk page is generally not about aggressive moves or actions. I will be reading your section carefully and trying out some of the stuff you have written here. Although I will not follow all your suggestions, your input is valued and I will be reading your article quite a few times (sorry ahead of time if I decide to put in anchors within your text because I find some of your stuff outstanding and worth contemplating else where). --(Gharr (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC))
removing my comment on talkpage
Hi, you appear to have removed one some of my comment here, did you mean to do that? Off2riorob (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Really sorry about that, I feel terrible. I have no idea how it happened, I even deleted one of my own comments. I have put your comment back into the article. I hope it looks the same as before.
- Also I know you might not have read my talk page, but here is why I have not been doing much to help out of late:
- User:Sloane gave out a generalized 3RR tag to me straight after he/she added a speedy deletion tag to a Resource Based Economy article that has now been deleted by User:2over0 on 09:49, 18 March 2011 (the talk page is gone also). While I am stating that a generalized (vague) 3RR tag appears threatening to a new user like me, I am also taking a hard look at the administration because I am still concerned about the terrible state that the Jacque Fresco talk page was in and User:Sloane little 3RR tag fired me up enough to have a try into asking why the administration system allows slander to remain for so long (and why experienced users like User:Sloane and User:OpenFuture ignored the slanderous Jacque Fresco talk page and so let it remain for even longer (if I had not got my back up about it and caused the article to be archived with your help).
- I have not asked for any help because I think new users should experience the roughest edges of the Wikipedia politics on their own. I have to admit when you are on the lowest levels of the editor levels things seem to be very adversarial with the higher level editors (such as reviewers and administrators). Tags like the 3RR and speedy deletion tags seem a little too weapon like to use first-off with a low level user who probably feels quite powerless in the system already. I realize we all have limited time and it takes energy to track a users behavior, but it just seems like a very unfriendly Wikipedia-environment for new users to land in. When new users voices are blocked--my voice is a little more daring then most--then things like the slanderous Jacque Fresco talk page will remain a problem (and possibly a legal land-mine) for the Wikipedia--(Gharr (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC))
This is just a test page
According to what I have been told, this will help me subdivide my material into useful parts.
Gharr (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Stay off my talk page and stop making this personal User:OpenFuture; I already know what kind of editor you are
Looks like you avoid the 3RR by making the last edit 25 hours later, you certainly are a piece of work. But thanks for clueing me in on how to do a strike-through ha ha ha.
You got no reasons to put this talk stuff on my personal page. My next warning will not be polite. I'm already giving you a 3RR Notice soon.
I offered to talk this out with you on the Talk:The_Venus_Project page, but apparently you just want to ignore me when you think it's to your advantage and then suddenly turn talkative and personal when you think it to your advantage.
You have stated your POV to me before and this is your statement to me: “Gharr, your aggressive and rude behavior goes against Wikipedia policy. I have so far decided to ignore you because of this, but it clearly isn't working.”
Well I have tried to ignore you, but instead of taking this to the proper place as I politely asked you to, you continue to make this personal and that is against wikipedia rules and you have my warning here too.
You agressive and rude edit wars show you don't give a dam about wikipedia policy: your comments in the Jacque Fresco biography is full of POV and you ignored any slander in the article and even added to it. You have nothing but POV from what I can see and it sticks out a mile. This edit war is just a continuation of this POV--this is the kind of editor you are.
Edit War By User:OpenFuture in less then 36 hours time span as per [[3]] the time span is extended in this note
I think you understand wikipedia rules well enough to leave your comments on the Talk:The_Venus_Project but for some reason you have ignored my offer till the last moment when you knew a 3RR Edit reversion war warning is going [would go] your way. Your manipulation of time to 25 hours is noted:
- Strike 1: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=420645836&oldid=420645303]
- Strike 2: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=420715042&oldid=420651748]
Strike 3=edit war: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venus_Project&diff=420804478&oldid=420752462]--25 hours not 24 hour period...nice trick.
Next time you come on my talk page I will not be so polite--you seem to ignore me but think I can not do so also. ...
Edit warring at The Venus Project
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Gharr reported by User:Sloane (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Gharr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block log clearly says I have committed a 24 hour 3RR edit war and that is false and I have said so. How does an administrator have the right prevent my voice being heard? Is this some sort of In-Crowd club where new people are not allowed to have any rights? We--the new users--are simply abused and punished without pause while other groups of users gang up on us and get away with the very same thing unscathed?
I’m not sure exactly why I have been blocked; it has not been explained to me. It is quite clear that I have not committed a (24 hour) 3RR offense here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Gharr_reported_by_User:Sloane_.28Result:_24h.29. I think this administrator is out of line. The users that were affected by this are not here, it seams that User:Sloane is there on behalf User:OpenFuture and User:Edward321 who were the ones carrying out the 3RR edit reverts on on me! Because of this unjust punishment I have been prevented from having my voice heard in a complaint against User:Sloane for [| hounding me]—(and User:Sloane has seemingly been successful so far here in continuing that trend with a administrators help).
Since I have been blocked there may be a chance my complaint about hounding will go into the archives. Other users have claimed that silencing people are wrong, yet it has been done to me so my complaint will remain unheard. Further User:Zakhalesh has started to get involved too and seem to have sided with User:Sloane.
I get the feeling that User:Zakhalesh has somehow hijacked this session to make a claim of some sort that I have not had a chance to defend myself against. Perhaps User:Zakhalesh feels I should not access his/her personal page or something—the very thing other users do to me on a regular basis. Even in [| my complaint section] users have linked to my personal page and also claimed to have links to outside Wikipedia on my comments. None of the many people leaving comments there have bothered to say this is wrong. Perhaps new user here really don't have any equal rights here on several levels. You people have permanantly turned me off asking for any more powers in Wikipedia--many of of you seem to wield those rights like weapons against new users and do whatever you like.
However I can only go by the block log and that says I have committed a 24 hour 3RR edit war and that is false and I have said so in that complaint section.
Is this some sort of In-club thing where new users don’t really have any rights here. I don’t really know what to think of aminstrators that are behaving like this??? They say it’s wrong to ban people from a discusstion and then do that very thing to me??? Gharr (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC), edit by several intermidates of my complaint Gharr (talk) 9:45 pm, Today (UTC−4)--revised back to original--(Gharr (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but the majority of your unblock request reads as an attempt to blame other editors, the blocking admin, and administrators in general. Please read why this will not lead to a shorter block and our guide to writing unblock requests. TNXMan 03:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
you seem to think you can edit my complaint as you like and bring me up on false 3RR charges and follow that up with some sort of funny advice about the rule book that you yourselves throw out whenever you feel like it
User:Tnxman307 So I didn't commit a 24 hour 3RR but you upheld it--nice one.
User:Tnxman307 You edit my complaint--nice one.
User:Tnxman307 out of 6 billion people on earth, Mr/Ms EdJohnston just happens to reside over both a false accusation of a 24 hour 3RR and is in the page that I am accuing User:Sloane of [| hounding me]--how convienient, nice one again. \ User:Tnxman307 Should I respect what you have to say--NO.
Will I be keeping an eye on you User:Tnxman307 and EdJohnston, probably since I have to know if the trowing out of the rule book is a common occurance here.
I also wonder if creepy administrators like EdJohnston follow people around from admin complaint pages to 24 3RR complaints to no doubt make sure his mates stay safe. I mean why else would EdJohnston open himself/herself open to conflict of interest accustions unless they thought loyalty to ones mates buys more then the rule book.
Since you like to seemingly feel free to edit my complaint as you like, I put a copy here in case you admin type feel guilty about your little stunts:
Another copy of my complaint since you admin types like to edit out the truth along with the rules-------------
The block log clearly says I have committed a 24 hour 3RR edit war and that is false and I have said so. How does an administrator have the right prevent my voice being heard? Is this some sort of In-Crowd club where new people are not allowed to have any rights? We--the new users--are simply abused and punished without pause while other groups of users gang up on us and get away with the very same thing unscathed?
I’m not sure exactly why I have been blocked; it has not been explained to me. It is quite clear that I have not committed a (24 hour) 3RR offense here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Gharr_reported_by_User:Sloane_.28Result:_24h.29. I think this administrator is out of line. The users that were affected by this are not here, it seams that User:Sloane is there on behalf User:OpenFuture and User:Edward321 who were the ones carrying out the 3RR edit reverts on on me! Because of this unjust punishment I have been prevented from having my voice heard in a complaint against User:Sloane for [| hounding me]—(and User:Sloane has seemingly been successful so far here in continuing that trend with a administrators help).
Since I have been blocked there may be a chance my complaint about hounding will go into the archives. Other users have claimed that silencing people are wrong, yet it has been done to me so my complaint will remain unheard. Further User:Zakhalesh has started to get involved too and seem to have sided with User:Sloane.
I get the feeling that User:Zakhalesh has somehow hijacked this session to make a claim of some sort that I have not had a chance to defend myself against. Perhaps User:Zakhalesh feels I should not access his/her personal page or something—the very thing other users do to me on a regular basis. Even in [| my complaint section] users have linked to my personal page and also claimed to have links to outside Wikipedia on my comments. None of the many people leaving comments there have bothered to say this is wrong. Perhaps new user here really don't have any equal rights here on several levels. You people have permanently turned me off asking for any more powers in Wikipedia--many of of you seem to wield those rights like weapons against new users and do whatever you like.
However I can only go by the block log and that says I have committed a 24 hour 3RR edit war and that is false and I have said so in that complaint section.
Is this some sort of In-club thing where new users don’t really have any rights here. I don’t really know what to think of administrators that are behaving like this??? They say it’s wrong to ban people from a discussion and then do that very thing to me??? Gharr (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Copy of complaint ends here--you admin types have some real freedom of speech issues that is clear------------------
"Keep up the good work of sanitising this place folk because that way it won’t smell like a sewerage."