Jump to content

User talk:Mixvio: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Gcarini (talk | contribs)
204 edits
→I applaud you: new section
Mixvio (talk | contribs)
642 edits
m ←Blanked the page
 
Line 1: Line 1:
== Clay Aiken accidental reversion ==
Although I reverted your first change deliberately, I didn't mean to revert your second change -- I didn't even know it was there until I saw the history page (after another change I made). Anyway, I'm not going to revert, or even touch your changes after this, although I do believe that it could be shortened considerably. Please accept my apologies for second (accidental) reversion. [[User:ArglebargleIV|ArglebargleIV]] 23:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message -- there's definitely more heat than light around that issue, that's for sure. (That's why I should stay out of it. :-) ) [[User:ArglebargleIV|ArglebargleIV]] 00:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia under the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that nobody may [[Wikipedia:revert|revert]] an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the ''effect'' of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.<!-- Template:3RR --> [[User:Kuru|<font color = "green">'''Kuru'''</font>]] [[User talk:Kuru|<font color = "green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC) <br clear="both">

Just to be clear: I understand why you're frustrated - but let it go for now and keep up discussions on the talk page. [[User:Kuru|<font color = "green">'''Kuru'''</font>]] [[User talk:Kuru|<font color = "green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 03:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

== Clay Aiken Advocacy Request ==
I have responded to your advocacy request regarding the [[Clay Aiken]] article. I will be reviewing the history of the matter and getting back to you later today or tomorrow.

However, please read my response at [[Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance#Clay Aiken dispute regarding the John Paulus story]] to make sure you understand what the real issue is. [[User:Kmweber|Kurt Weber]] 13:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

== Mediation Case: Netoholic & Locke Cole ==
: You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-07_Netoholic_%26_Locke_Cole|this case]] to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Suggestions_for_mediators|suggestions for mediators]]. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures.
--[[User:Fasten|Fasten]] 16:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

==Civility==
You said recently: ''Well, then you're blind.'' Please try not to make inflammatory comments like these. You don't have to agree with other Wikipedians, and you don't even have to particularly like or respect them, but you must be [[WP:CIV|cordial]] to everyone, as they must be to you. Thanks for understanding. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|poll]]</small> 18:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

:: I left a reply on your talk page. - [[User:Mixvio|mixvio]] 18:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't make excuses for others; I wasn't aware that some sort of personal information about you was brought into the debate, or that your comments had been tampered with (that's never all right), or I would've taken someone to task about that, too (I haven't been able to follow the discussion as closely as I would prefer). Regardless, two wrongs don't make a right. I don't find your reasoning compelling. Unless between friends, sarcasm is mostly uncivil, and I can see no way in which "Well, then you're blind" can be considered a courteous comment. Please try to temper your comments; if I see misbehavior on the part of others in this debate, I'll be glad to rap their knuckles too. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|poll]]</small> 18:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
::::I couldn't leave a message on a personal talk page because this person is using a dynamic IP, but I did leave a short comment underneath this business from your blog. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|poll]]</small> 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

== Mediation ==

Hello, mediation has begun in [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12_Clay_Aiken_page_dispute_regarding_the_John_Paulus_allegations]]. [[User:Tufflaw|Tufflaw]] 04:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
:With respect to recent comments you made at the mediation page, I felt it was more appropriate to respond to them here, although I will place these comments there as well only if you so wish. I removed many of the comments made by other editors in addition to yours. If it seems like the majority of comments removed were yours, perhaps that might be an indication that you are continually going over the line during the course of this discussion. I've been very concerned about your attitude towards this mediation, especially since you were the one who requested it in the first place. Comments to the effect that you never expected this to work and only filed for it so that you can cite it a future arbcom case are not very conducive to a spirit of cooperation and consensus. One-liners between you and other editors similarly do nothing to further this mediation. If you feel that I'm not handling this in a neutral way then I apologize. I can only assure you that the only interest I have in the outcome of this mediation is a consensus between the parties. I was randomly assigned to this mediation, so I did not seek it out in an effort to impose my own opinion or POV upon the article. My concern is that when one or more of the parties do not trust the motivations of the mediator, it's very difficult for a mediator to manage a discussion. If you truly feel this way, then in the interest of continuing this mediation I would step aside and request another mediator to help reach consensus. Please let me know what your thoughts are on this matter, thanks! [[User:Tufflaw|Tufflaw]] 18:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for your recent message - I'm using the terms sort of interchangeably. In my most recent post to the mediation page, I mentioned that I'm looking for a consensus to compromise, that is, that whatever the compromise solution is, it meets with consensus. [[User:Tufflaw|Tufflaw]] 19:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
:::As I said on the Aiken talk page, it's certain to be rejected by the arbcom, so I won't be participating, no. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|poll]]</small> 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

==Your RFAr==
[[User:Mixvio|mixvio]], I think your Arb com case is premature. You all would be far better off to try and resolve this between yourselves. If the arb comm decides to take the case, they will make rulings about the behavior of editors not the content. IMO, there has not been disruptive behavior of the type that warrants arb comm intervention. The case load of the commettee is so high that it take more than a month for most cases to be settled. If you all put your minds to it and focus on the policies that guide content selection, you all will have the dispute settled in a week. Outside opinion of [[User:FloNight|<font color = "darkblue">'''FloNight'''</font>]] [[User talk:FloNight|<font color = "green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 02:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
:Well, I agree with everything FloNight said. The arbcom will reject it, and this whole process will only serve to embitter feelings even more. After it gets rejected, there'll still be negotiating to be done, and this won't have helped matters. I know you're frustrated, but it's really not the way to go. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|poll]]</small> 02:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


[[User:Mixvio|mixvio]], there are other steps in content dispute resolution that you have not tried. Let me ask you a few questions to clarify the situation. You can answer them here or just think about them.

'''What are you trying to accomplish with the RFAr?'''

'''Are there other methods of dispute resolution that are more appropriate?'''

'''Will the parties to the dispute be willing to listen to input from the wider Wikipedian community?'''

'''If yes, do you think a content Rfc is appropriate?'''

'''If no, do you think a behavior Rfc is appropriate for the person not willing to listen to the opinion of the wider community?'''

I hope these questions will help you clarify your options. I recommend that you discuss your RFAr and other methods of dispute resolution with a neutral third party before you take any further action. [[User:FloNight|<font color = "darkblue">'''FloNight'''</font>]] [[User talk:FloNight|<font color = "green"><sup>''talk''</sup></font>]] 04:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

== Four? ==
Your quote from the [[Talk:Clay Aiken]] page:<br>
''"I'll continue to argue that the page remain protected so you cannot further corrupt it with your strangeness and I'll do everything in my power to prevent the four of you from enacting any further damage."'' <br>Four? I count Triage, Jmh123, and Maria202 as three opponents of your proposals -- and if you're counting me with them I must protest strongly. Because of what I see as a slowly growing storm of publicity, I agree with you that some reference to the [[John Paulus]] article needs to be in that article, until the allegations are either proven, disproven, or faded into the mists of time. I was TRYING to figure out a way to get the reference in there while satisfying at least some of the critics. Just because Jmh123, and Maria202 are editing the subpage I created to demonstrate my proposal (which was, shall I note, shot down by everybody, including you) does not mean that I support their changes, far from it. I've tried to help find a compromise in the last couple of days, and right now not only does it appear that Triage, Jmh123, and Maria202 aren't ready to compromise, but neither are you, which is okay, I suppose, but I don't need to have bricks thrown at me as well. [[User:ArglebargleIV|ArglebargleIV]] 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology -- I kinda flew off the handle there myself, and I wish to apologize for that. Bad day all around. Anyway, thanks, and sorry. [[User:ArglebargleIV|ArglebargleIV]] 03:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

== High five on the aiken resolution ==

Just wanted to say good job sticking to your guns on the aiken business. I wouldn't have had the patience to deal with all that but you held your own. I tried to pipe up a time or two but anymore then that and I wouldve just ended up yelling at people or throwing my computer out a window. Anyway keep up the good work. -[[User:67.183.15.135|67.183.15.135]] 01:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

== June Meetup in New York ==

Hi, I noticed you are characterized as a New Yorker so perhaps you might be in the NYC area in June. If you are interested we are having a meetup for Wikipedians in June in NYC. Take a peek at [http://wikipedia.meetup.com/52/events/4898023/ this] and please tell any other Wikipedians that you think might be interested in participating about this event. Thanks. [[User:Alex756|Alex756]] 02:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

== Response about Clay Aiken talk page reversion ==
A talk page for an article is really supposed to be used for discussion of the article, not for what was essentially graffiti like the first edit in the section I removed. The second edit I removed was, IMNSHO, part of a vandalism spree on several pages (which I reverted everywhere else). Where it was placed on the talk page was not a factor in my decision to remove unconstructive crap from the talk page, and I do not think that my removals would be considered vandalism. Heck, I personally think he's gay myself, but that kind of stuff is unconstructive towards creating a better article and a better encyclopedia.<br>Nevertheless, I've reverted my removals, tagged them with <nowiki>{{unsigned}}</nowiki> tags, and added my comments. Someone else can deal with the fallout as far as I'm concerned. -- [[User:ArglebargleIV|ArglebargleIV]] 14:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

== Please abide by [[WP:BLP]] ==

From [[WP:BLP]]:
<blockquote>
Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion;
</blockquote>
The rumors/conclusions on the [[Talk:Clay Aiken|Clay Aiken talk page]] are specifically addressed by this passage in [[WP:BLP]]. Please do not restore them again. &mdash; [[User:ERcheck|ERcheck]] ([[User talk:ERcheck|talk]]) 05:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

* Please do not dismiss my comments with what you obviously consider to be a pejorative (Claymate). Clay Aiken is a living person. Therefore, [[WP:BLP]] applies. The comments are allegations and personal opinion/conclusions; therefore the policy applies (negative or not). "If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." &mdash; [[User:ERcheck|ERcheck]] ([[User talk:ERcheck|talk]]) 05:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

== Response to your comments ==

In response to these comments that you left on my talk page.
<blockquote>
''Removing information from a talk page is draconian and I won't stand for it. We're not talking about taking something off of an article, we're talking about removing an opinion that isn't even offensive off of a talk page. I'm sorry if you consider potential homosexuality negative...''
</blockquote>
#Your assessment of removing "information" from talk pages as "draconian" is your opinion, but it is counter to Wikipedia policies. There are circumstances that policy and/or guidelines direct that some comments posted on talk pages are to be removed. The particular items that I have mentioned to you are not "informational", but rather rumor/speculation/personal interpretation. The Sawyer interview comment is false &mdash; he specifically chose not to directly answer the question. Random insertion of rumors (with not even an attempt at citation) is also not informational. The fact that you "won't stand for it" is not a community attitude. Please review [[WP:POINT]].
# I never made any statement about homosexuality being negative. Please do not make assumptions. My statement is that false statements and rumors about the personal lives of living persons are negatives. (In fact, I make the same statement about the personal lives of those no longer living).

As a follow-up, [[WP:BLP]] is '''policy''', not guideline.
&mdash; [[User:ERcheck|ERcheck]] ([[User talk:ERcheck|talk]]) 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

: Your statements to me are contradictory. You are against removing comments from talk pages, yet you removed my commments concerning [[WP:BLP]] and it's relationship to those anon postings. You call me "irrational" (see [[WP:NPA]]), saying that I "continue to delete". In fact, the first time was a simple reversion, with an explanatory edit summary; the second, in case the point was lost, included the specific citation to [[WP:BLP]]. This does not constitute continuing to delete. In fact, you tread on [[WP:3RR]] with your reversions of these commments, which were also deleted by other editors for the same reasons. The policy on BLP is not only about issue of U.S. libel law, that is just one aspect.

:You are right, I have not been present for the long drawn out discussions &mdash; which means I don't have tunnel vision concerning the article; I've not been a part of the edit warring; and, I don't have an agenda related to the article. I have an interest in honoring Wikipedia policies and keeping this a serious encyclopedia.
<blockquote>
:Articles about living persons must adhere strictly to NPOV and verifiability policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives.</blockquote>
:I ask that you take a step back before impugning my motives. &mdash; [[User:ERcheck|ERcheck]] ([[User talk:ERcheck|talk]]) 22:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

== Porn Stars Talk ==

Porn Stars Talk is a show that interviewed John Paulus about his alleged sexual encounter with Clay Aiken. Have you listened to it? I think it should be added to the John Paulus Wikipedia page.

Thanks.

http://www.pornstarstalk.com/audio/episode03/


:Re: the link above. There's been a mixup. I didn't add the link. I simply changed the wording of the description.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Paulus&diff=prev&oldid=79206054] If you feel it's inappropriate you won't get an argument from me. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 18:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Hey there Mixvio -- maybe we could just make a Wiki page about Porn Stars Talk? What do you think? I notice there is another podcast Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_Of_Fools -- I live in New York City as well. Maybe we can get together at an Internet cafe and post a page up.

That way it will not be a direct link to PornStarsTalk.com but rather informational page about the show.

Pleae let me hear your thoughts. Thanks!

==Anshe Chung==
I have no desire to get in the middle of what appears to be a fun little edit war going on there, but I just wanted to point out that message boards aren't reliable sources, and even if they were...the ones found at forums.secondlife.com require registration. Everything using these forums as a reference really should have something more reliable. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]] 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:''As per Wikipedia policy, forums and sites that require registration can be used as sources provided they're requested in the talk page''
::Which policy is it that says that? [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] says that ''Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking.'' If message boards and forums can be considered reliable sources, I have a lot of apologizing to do for removing sourced information. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]] 19:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'd also like to point out from [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]], that ''Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.'' And again, I just want to say that I have no interest in this specific case, but just policy in general. I'll be just as happy either way if I learn something from our discussion. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]] 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Well, like I said before, I'm not going to get involved in the edit war. I do want to say that I completely disagree with your choice of sources. It's not our job to make sure articles are balanced. It's our job to keep a neutral point of view using the reliable sources we have available to us. These sources should be only of the highest quality when discussing living persons. Primary sources should only be used when they are published by reliable secondary sources. I'm going to try to avoid this article for a bit, but thank you for the discussion. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]] 12:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

== Reverting Edits vs Making Edits; Your activity on the Anshe Chung article ==

Please refrain from reverting an edit when said edit contains substantial improvement to the article.

If you object to part of an edit a Wikipedian has made, edit it.

Your recent reversion of the [[Anshe Chung]] article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anshe_Chung&diff=prev&oldid=98670549] was unneeded. If you had objected to my removal of sources pointing to the SL forums, you should've put them back in.

Instead, you chose to revert every single improvement I made to the sources of the article- namely:
# the use of [[:Template:Cite web]]
# removing sources that did not contain information relevant to the point they were attached to
# replacing a 3rd party source with a first party source (replacing a piece written by Wagner James Au with a Press Release by Anshe Chung Studios)
# Providing a source for the claim that Anshe is known as the "Rockefeller of Second Life"

This behaviour goes against the '''Good Faith''' principle.

I've noticed your behaviour with regards to editing the article in question also has a tendency to go against "Good Faith".

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anshe_Chung&diff=98468142&oldid=98461616] Despite your claims, the points are not sourced in a suitable manner.
** Contrary to your edit summary '''"Deleted three citation requests for things that are already sourced;"''', the diff shows that you reverted the edit, instead of deleting it. This apparent oversight removed the <nowiki>{{unsourced}}</nowiki> flag from the article. Since there were unsourced statements still remaining within the article, you should've either followed up by providing a source for all statements requiring one, or by adding the flag back and apologising for your error in some way in the edit summary.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anshe_Chung&diff=98459833&oldid=98451928] The reference you removed here is a first party source- an interview between Cristiano Diaz and Ailin Graef. Your choice of words- '''Removing this citation until a better reference is found''' is inappropriate in this case because of this. While the interview does not mention the rotating billboards specifically, it does mention criticism of her advertisements in general. The best course of action would've been to put in a request for an additional source or a replacement source after removing the old one.
**It should also be noted that you removed the content as well as the citation.

[[User:Signpostmarv|Signpostmarv]] 18:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:I disagree with your opinion on sources for the reasons in the talk page. As for deleting references, I've found a better series of references that I'm implementing momentarily. I don't think that your reformat of the controversy section is an improvement necessarily because it makes the section much larger and generates negative focus that wasn't there before. - [[User:Mixvio|mixvio]] 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Not that I mentioned it, but now you do, improving the readability of a lengthy section doesn't seem to be a problem in this case. I would suggest posting your objections to the edit in the talk page for the article, and making your case for it to be reverted, so interested parties can come to a consensus regarding the structure of the [[Anshe Chung#Controversy]] section.
:: When you add your references, please take care to add them in the same <nowiki><ref name="blurb">{{Cite web}}</ref></nowiki> manner.
:: Also, please don't break up discussion threads across the userspace. It makes it harder for people to keep track of things.
:: [[User:Signpostmarv|Signpostmarv]] 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

==Re:==
It's not about a bunch of pejorative fag jokes; They're rampant on any gay-related page on Wikipedia. I don't get my panties ina bunch every time it appears on the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln or Wiccan (comics). It was about protecting the page when the issue of the subject's sexuality was clearly already a target for vandalism. The vandalism isn't random application of gay jokes. They're clearly related, but I recognize and as stated, still speculative. But at least semi-protection was granted. ::shrug::[[User:Luminum|Luminum]] ([[User talk:Luminum|talk]]) 04:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

==Aiken==
I did not know the People article was posted, since the article did not use it as a source. And yes, the source of the leak was PerezHilton, as indicated at [http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE48N04S20080924], which I noted on talk. I did nothing to insult you. However, I find it somewhat insulting you reverted my edit without looking at it. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] - [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 11:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:CNN could not have sourced People as their article was released before People's. That's why it says, "The magazine has an interview with Aiken and confirmed that he was on the cover but refused to release the article until Wednesday." The published "primary" (and I use this term generously) source was Perez Hilton, even though CNN did not mention it. [[User:Superm401|Superm401]] - [[User_talk:Superm401|Talk]] 12:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

== I applaud you ==

I applaud your efforts in the Clay Aiken article. I'm not surprised that childish individuals tried to vandalize the article. Some people are in denial about him being gay. [[User:Gcarini|Gcarini]] ([[User talk:Gcarini|talk]]) 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:16, 17 May 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mixvio&oldid=362574969"