User talk:OLD

Welcome!

Hello, OLD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a fist 20:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mail-order bride edits[edit]

I'll split the difference with you. Let's dump the "concerns" and keep the "comparison". I agree that the concerns are POV-ish and are going to be contentious forever. (Whose concerns are they? Frankly, I don't have any such concerns, do you?) The comparisons, on the other hand, are fact-based and the language NPOV. Let's keep them and links to the main articles. Agreed? -Gavin 15:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~ OK; I am all for peace. The concerns are what I believe are radical feminists; take a look at this article and you will understand what it is about http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111.html Michaellovesnyc michaellovesnyc

Yeah, that's nothing but garbage. As I mentioned on the talk page, I worked for two years in a marriage agency in Ukraine. From my experience, it is much more common for men to preyed upon than women. Almost every guy who came to our agency was legit. They had bad luck or bad experiences in America (most of our clients were Americans) and were hoping the agency could help them do better. I never saw a case were a woman was taken advantage of, but I saw several where men were. On a positive note, I know of a dozen couples who are happily married living in America with children because of this agency. They share photos, call back and say hi now and then and are quite thankful that mail-order bride services exist. -Gavin 23:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was used for a green card. I think 75 % of the women I met is St Pete were pulling one type of scam or the other. The men on the tour were VERY high caliber; business owners and entrepreneurs. Alot of them were very bright just looking for someone decent. I met some real beautiful connections but not the right one. I am going to Ukraine in July; hopefully have better luck; what about you? Have you gone on any tours?

Never did any tours. I worked for a software company that outsourced their dev work to Ukraine. It turned out that my office was shared with this marriage agency so I was with them all day every day. In a nutshell this is what I saw: the majority of men looking for Russian wives are misfits in some way, whether it's looks, personality, self-esteem, whatever... The majority of women who are genuinely looking for men are also misfits in some way. As it turns out, beautiful normal women with cheerful, attractive personalities have no need of marriage agencies. Their social lives are filled with quality, eligable Russian/Ukranian men. If you see such a woman working hard to land you. Beware! I don't say any of this to denigrate the women or men. It's just my observation. The best way by far to sort this whole thing out is to just go to Ukraine and live. Start teaching English or whatever and become a social butterfuly. You'll meet countless people and really get to know them. You're almost guaranteed to get better results than using an agency or tour. I myself am a bit of a misfit, but my social life was always full. I could've married almost any one of the women I dated, but part of my misfit-ness is that I'm marriage averse. Gavin 03:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. ((unsigned|Raichu}}

Anti-fraud measures[edit]

Hey Mike... We struck agreement on the other stuff, so I'm hoping we can strike it again here. The "anti-fraud measures" definitely don't belong in this article. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide and there is no scope for such material in this (or any) article. I know you put some work into it, so I just want to make you aware of why we should delete it before I charge in and do it. Are we agreed? -Gavin 02:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take care of the deletes. This method of sending messages is kind of awkward, but it's the only way available right now. Gavin 21:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you already took care of it. Cheers Gavin 21:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics[edit]

The problem with the demographics is two-fold. First, it's not referenced. This is the kind of thing that must have references cited. The second, larger problem is that the correlation between mail-order bride concentration and demographics is not established. This is purely a guess. (As is the correlation with alcoholism, wife beating, etc.) The M/F ratio in Serbia, Georgia or a dozen other places may be even more skewed, but how does this effect the number of mail-order brides coming from those countries? Even if you think you can accurately answer that question, Wikipedia does not allow original research or conjecture. To include any such material, you'd have to have it referenced to an authoritative source. Gavin 00:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This stuff doesn't work, Mike.

"However, it is necessary to meet in person for immigration." is POV statement--you're writing this article from the POV of an American. You can move that statement to a section in the article that deals with US policy, but it doesn't belong in the main body text. What is NPOV is what I had before. "...courtship is brief or absent." This statement covers brides from all countries and their would be spouses.
"Demographics play a large role in the mail-order bride phenomenon." How do you know? There's no research on this. You can't state this unless it's an estblished fact. It's not.
"There are social factors that contribute to the shortage of men and the desirability of Western men. Alcoholism is rampant and the HIV rate in the former Soviet countries is almost double the U.S. rate." All this may be true, but again, there is no established correlation between HIV rates and mail-order brides.

I know you put in a lot of effort here, but I have to revert again.

I agree that the CIA fact book shows the numbers of men and women Russia. But it does not establish any causual relationship between those numbers and mail-order brides. I'm sorry, but if you put this kind of stuff in, I'm going to revert it. If you disagree, we can send it to arbitration and let the arb committee decide. They will absolutely rule against these kinds of edits. Gavin 02:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of sending this to arbitration, I've setup a straw poll to let the community decided whether your edits should stay. The poll is on the article talk page. There's a place for you to comment and state your case to keep the edits. If most users want your edits removed will you comply? Gavin 17:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Olga17.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Olga17.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 17:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Olga17.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Olga17.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 17:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mail-order bride[edit]

Hey, don't delete my edits for no reason. The statements I added were clearly present in the article I referenced. This kind of behaviour can have you banned.

Also, I've reinstated the origin of the term in a brief "History" section. --The Famous Movie Director 00:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, the edits you make on Mail-order bride continue to be inappropriate. The Demographics section isn't appropriate to be merged with the History section. You have also deleted statements about age difference and control as important factors in these relationships. They are other people's research, not my opinion; don't delete them just because you wish the research hadn't happened. There are certainly more references that say the same thing if you think more sources are necessary. --The Famous Movie Director 05:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Please be aware of Wikipedia's three revert rule policy. I believe your reverts of the Mail-order bride article are close to violating this policy. --The Famous Movie Director 00:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Mail Order Bride Deletions[edit]

Michael, in an effort to work this out with you before submitting it to arbitration, can you please explain why you believe you are entitled to delete hundreds of words of other's work that is cited to at least 10 different sources? Just because you don't like the facts, doesn't give you the right to hide them from others. For example: what was stated about the Fox v. Encounters Int'l case that was not factual? If it stated facts, was sourced, then you cannot delete it.

Likewise, what was not factual about the description of the murder of Alla Barney? What was not factual about the description of the murder of Susanna Blackwell? What was not factual about the description of the murder of Anastasia King?

I also really like how you leave up the link to your own website...www.imbra.org that asks if people would prefer a mail order bride over "An [sic] Nasty Skanky Stupid American Feminist"

I don't think you can seriously make a POV argument....

From Michaellovesnyc - If you want to start listing cases where women got abused or murderd how about listing each and every case where a non mail order bride was abused or murdered; I have stated many facts such as demographics that have been deleted; I can publish crime statistics showing that the murder rate of mail order brides is much lower than non mail order brides; i can get statistics and quotes from the sponsors of IMBRA where they declare that women are more vulnerable in foreign countries than in the USA; These are facts and I have many sources; many more than you have; I know about this better than you do. Yet my facts and sources have been deleted many many times.

I would rather write a fair and balanced article if you are but I will continue deleting your information if you continue to delete mine; if you want to discuss this and put together a faur article you can email me to discuss; my email is michaellovesnyc@aol.com

First of all, I personally haven't deleted any of that material -- that all happened before I got involved. Second of all, and if you really are a law student you may understand this, the material about the abuses of mail order brides is to explain the rationale of IMBRA. You may not agree with it, but that's why the law was passed...and by the way, I have zillions of real-life studies that suggest just the opposite of what you say.

If you want to write an article that puts both sides up, lets do it, and let the other editors decide....

From Michaellovesnyc 13:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)michaellovesnyc OK I agree; I will keep your stuff in but you have to keep my stuff in; but you cannot write a giant section with massive details in there? OK; I keep trying to do this right but people keep messing around; OK? Do not delete my stuff and respect my stuff; you can email me at michaellovesnyc@aol.com to discuss OK???[reply]

Your edits on Mail-order bride[edit]

Michael, I suggest you stop editing Mail-order bride for a while and take some time to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, especially the pages Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Consensus. You restored the "Demographics" material after several editors had agreed that it should be kept out since it is original research; original research is against Wikipedia policy. See an outside mediator's comments here. You are supposed to accept and abide by consensus; if you continue to violate Wikipedia policy you can be banned from editing.

A couple more things: It is not necessary to demand that editors "do not delete" and discuss any changes with you via email. Simply by editing any page you agree that your edits are subject to any further changes the community chooses to make. Also, marking major edits as minor, like you did here, is a violation of etiquette. Finally, you should look at the policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith. When you accuse other editors of lying or "distorting facts and statistics", this is assuming bad faith. They might make mistakes, but they're trying to help improve the article. If these inappropriate behaviors don't stop you will be reported. --Grace 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the prior version of the article, since you refuse to discuss your changes on the talk page and they are significantly large, unreferenced, POV, and original research. Please read the policies I directed you to before and explain any edits on the article's talk page according to these policies. I did not make up the policies. They are the policies you agree to abide by when you use this website. --Grace 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is Mr. Lefty, the moderator from the Mediation Cabal case. You seem to be reverting an awful lot and pushing your POV. This is not acceptable policy. You can be blocked for reverting others' non-vandalism changes more than three times in 24 hours. I would like it if you attempted to reach a consensus rather than simply reverting over and over. M r. L e fty _{Talk to me!} 01:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

I'd be happy to contribute to the mediation case. Please send me the link--where is it being discussed? --Grace 01:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's right here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-24 Mail-order bride M r. L e fty _{Talk to me!} 01:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mail-order bride[edit]

If the content of the article pertains to mail-order brides, then there is no reason it shouldn't be added. Your adding of the abuse of mail-order brides is a valid addition, though it does need to be cleaned up a bit to conform to the manual of style. Same with The Famous Movie Director's additions: gay mail-order brides can be mentioned, as they are mail-order brides. Just make sure everything is properly sourced and relevant. If you need any more help, just leave me another message. M r. L e fty _{Talk to me!} 01:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michaellovesnyc 02:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC) michaellovesnyc Mr Lefty; There is no such thing as Gay Mail Order Brides; they don't even make a cite; do you really think people looking under :Mail Order Bride is thinking there will be a discussion of Gay Mail Order Brides? How can you say that the stuff about abuse is valid and the demographics is not? How about the article about the abuse in Russia? I hope you are not biased in your outlook here. If you allow these things to be included, then you should be fair and incliude all the things I included which are far more relevent than the things this director added.[reply]

Re: RFM[edit]

Your post on Requests for Mediation has been delisted. Parties are required to follow the required format exactly, without deviation, no exceptions. If you wish to request mediation, please read the instructions provided on RfM and follow the required format. Doing so is a demonstration of good faith and respect for the processes adopted by the Committee. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Mail-order bride[edit]

Hi. I notice you and another fellow are in a revert war on Mail-order bride. Vandalism is when somebody comes to an article and intentionally adds garbage. I don't believe that either you or the other editor are vandals. Please stop calling one another names; one of the things that makes this place work is civility. Thanks, --William Pietri 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michaellovesnyc 18:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)michaellovesnyc; One of my favorite Billy Joel songs is "We didn't start the fire"; I didn't start it, but as a gentleman and a scholar, I will end it[reply]

Hello William; I believe adding each and every story of a supposed mail order bride murder is garbage and politically motivated. If the deaths of 3 mail order brides over 10 years is significant, why are the murders of 14,000 women in Russia a year not? How about details of each and every case of fraud, or each and every case of a non mail order bride? And why are the demographics not significant? I ask you to fairly look at my version and the opponents and tell me who is being political here and putting in irrelevent information. Thank you

Your comments on the Mail-order bride talk page[edit]

Hi Michael, I'm sorry you're getting frustrated with the discussion process on the mail-order bride article. This is just the way things work on Wikipedia - community-based decision making can be slow and anarchic. Like William Pietri says on the talk page, there are no moderators who are going to read "your version" of the article and have a final say--you've got to negotiate with regular editors like me. Anyway, I've posted a reply to your last comment on the talk page. It should help explain why the Demographics section is not appropriate. If there's anything you don't understand about my reply, please ask somebody - either here, or on the article talk page, or on my talk page. I'd like to try and get things cleared up. --Grace 03:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Cantwell[edit]

I understand that the Mail-order bride article is locked but the article on Maria Cantwell is not the place to continue your edit war.--8bitJake 17:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michaellovesnyc 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC) michaellovesnyc Assuming Bad Faith is a violation pf Wikipedia Policy; I have not presented any POV; just the facts. You seem to find facts offensive.[reply]

I think your time would be better spending writing in a blog or to congress where you get to work through all the anger that you feel about this issue. But I don’t think that Wikipedia is a good outlet for your rage on this issue. --8bitJake 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michaellovesnyc 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC) michaellovesnyc tsk tsk; sounds like a personal attack and another violation of wikipedia policy; of course you don't bother discussing the point at hand; your lack of using facts and relying on assumptions and opinions; is that why you are resorting to personal attacks?[reply]

RfC[edit]

A Request for Comment has been submitted against you here. Please submit your side of the story. Note that you are only allowed to edit the section titled Response, or the talk page. I know that you have already begun writing a response here and here, but I'd rather let you write the final version yourself instead of cutting and pasting from one of those pages. --Grace 22:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return to problems on mail-order bride page[edit]

I hope we're not returning to the same problems that led to your banning a bit ago. Please keep edits necessary (the dates show the incidents occured over a ten year period), NPoV (putting scare quotes around "famous" is judgmental), and truthful (he is not the "so called 'President' of Belarus, but the actual sitting president). Thanks much. --Patchyreynolds 21:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mail Order Bride edits[edit]

I'm sorry, I really don't have any idea what you're talking about; as far as I can see in my logs, I've never touched this page before. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MOB.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MOB.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on A Sister's Kiss, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It shows no claim to notability

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Murderbike 04:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Sister's Kiss[edit]

Some users are claiming that the article is not notable. Where did you obtain the information on this article? - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 03:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Drew Peterson appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Jauerback (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please adhere to the notice above. Some of the material you are adding to the article about Drew Peterson is very POV. In addition, the material I removed, which you just reinserted is erroneous. Peterson's attorney was not making the statement about being mentally unstable in regard to Stacy Peterson's sister, but to Drew Peterson's stepbrother. Additionally, points do not have to be accompanied by lengthy quotes that cover what has just been written. Please do not revert this information again. Additionally, you may want to take a look at WP:REF, which covers the proper way to format references. Finally, please be aware that contributions to Wikipedia must not copy material that appeared elsewhere and is copyrighted, as in the addition of a segment of material copied from a UPI story. It needs to be written in a new way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Drew Peterson. Thank you. Jauerback (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not keep reverting your edits. I have reverted one. Check the history a little bit better. HOWEVER, I agree with the reverts that were done on your edits. They are way too POV and you are adding in your own opinion into what the sources actually say. Also, please learn to sign your posts with ~~~~. Jauerback (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor who reverted your edits from last night. In an article like this one, there are several factors that must be kept in mind. One is that this is a biography of a living person and WP:BLP cautions against including material that may constitute slander and cause Wikipedia liability. Another factor is that at this time, no one has been charged with this crime, so it falls upon editors to maintain as balanced and non-biased article as is humanly possible. Additions to this article need to rely upon reliable sources WP:RELY. As I said above, quotes need only be added when it's important to explain or elaborate upon a point. To say that investigators had announced something was unfounded does not require a further addition of a quote saying the same thing. Also, announcing that a lead proved to be unfounded is absolutely not the same thing as the statement being retracted. That would imply that the story about the existence of the lead itself was untrue, not that it proved to be untrue in fact. Another thing that you added was a author's self-published essay on a college humor website, which is not, as you called it, a reporter's story. That is not an acceptable source. It also falls upon editors of this article to avoid making it sound like a tabloid article, which it tended to do at some points.

In regard to POV, if nothing else, inserted quotation marks around the word lead, in regard to the trucker's story, is an editorial device which conveys a decided point of view on the investigation, as does including a comment about the trucker, made by an unnamed police source. It isn't necessary to belabor the point made by neutrally adding the information regarding the trucker's whereabouts.

In regards to the statement Peterson's attorney made regarding a family member...[with] a history of mental problems, alcoholism and suicide attempts, there are many stories out there where the attorney responds to the sister's statements regarding the existence of a blue barrel. None of them continue on to say that the sister has been charged with having these issues. It is only after the police announced that the person who was thought to have helped with the barrel, and his subsequent suicide attempt, (Peterson's stepbrother) that the attorney made the mental illness charge. The Fox News source wasn't that clear on this, which is understandable as it's a compilation of the story. However if you check thoroughly the NBC5.com story from Chicago, it's very clear that the attorney is speaking of Peterson's stepbrother.

Finally, not to belabor points, but contributions may not copy verbatim from articles used as sources, as you did in the portion from the UPI story about the trucker. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]