User talk:GordonWatts: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:36, 25 February 2007

Terri Schiavo

Per Wikipedia:Community noticeboard#Community ban request on User:GordonWatts:

You may not edit articles related to Terri Schiavo
You may not link or suggest links to your own sites
Your participation in Schiavo articles is restricted to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day. Note that this does not mean one thread, edited numerous times, it means one edit.

Failure to abide by these restrictions will lead either to an outright ban, or to ArbCom (who will almost certainly apply precisely the same restrictions, but with more force). Guy (Help!) 15:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"* You may not link or suggest links to your own sites" I have just seen this message, so I am not prepared to respond to all points, but this point seems to be in violation of current Wikipedia policy: WP:COI clearly says that "If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page or file a Request for Comment to the wider community, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia," not that I suggest links to my web papers very often. Also, Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing point 6 states that "If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: Describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant." This one requirement alone is a violation of the Wikipedia policy I just quoted. I am interested to see what my the violations are. As I recall, I was accused of linking to my site, promoting my site, and excessive talk, but last I heard, talk is permitted, even if it is a minority viewpoint. To restrict a person's speech based on content seems a violation of Wikipedia policy, but I have not seen the latest posts.--GordonWatts 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free advice - worth every cent.

Hi Gordon, I saw this comment of yours: "I have proof here that others are lying when they claim...". Now, I don't know if people are right or wrong, but I'm sure they aren't lying. At worst, they are mistaken. Can I trouble you to choose your words more carefully in the future? Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they are lying; I call a spade a spade. However, I did make a point to be polite, did I not, in the process of calling a lie?

Just this morning, I learned my cousin, Catherine, just died. She was only about 53, and i have been very preocupied.--GordonWatts 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 * Your participation in Schiavo articles is restricted to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day.  Note that this does ''not'' mean one thread, edited numerous times, it means one ''edit''.
 Failure to abide by these restrictions will lead either to an outright ban, or to ArbCom (who will almost certainly apply precisely the same restrictions, but with more force). <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
+:'''''"* You may not link or suggest links to your own sites"''''' I have just seen this message, so I am not prepared to respond to all points, but this point seems to be in violation of current [[Wikipedia]] policy: [[WP:COI]] clearly says that "If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we '''strongly encourage''' you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page or file a [[WP:RFC|Request for Comment]] to the wider community, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia," not that I suggest links to my web papers very often. Also, [[Wikipedia:Spam#Canvassing]] point 6 states that "'''If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page.''' We usually recommend that editors [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: Describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant." This one requirement alone is a violation of the [[Wikipedia]] policy I just quoted. I am interested to see what my the violations are. As I recall, I was accused of linking to my site, promoting my site, and excessive talk, but last I heard, talk is permitted, even if it is a [[minority]] viewpoint. To restrict a person's speech based on content seems a violation of [[Wikipedia]] policy, but I have not seen the latest posts.--[[User:GordonWatts|GordonWatts]] 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 == Free advice - worth every cent. ==
 Hi Gordon,  I saw this comment of yours: "I have proof here that others are lying when they claim...".  Now, I don't know if people are right or wrong, but I'm sure they aren't lying.  At worst, they are mistaken.  Can I trouble you to choose your words more carefully in the future?  Thanks, [[User talk:BenAveling|Ben Aveling]] 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
+:Maybe they ''are'' lying; I call a [[spade]] a spade. However, I did make a point to be polite, did I not, in the process of calling a lie?
+:Just this morning, I learned my cousin, Catherine, just died. She was only about 53, and i have been very preocupied.--[[User:GordonWatts|GordonWatts]] 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)