User talk:Chabuk

Archives
31 October 2005 – 7 April 2006

Read BEFORE Posting:

• Vandalism and other offensive commentary/trolling will be deleted expeditiously.
• If you want me to respond/take your comments seriously, sign them with ~~~~. I will respond on your talk page, but I will not return to your talk page after that unless you've responded on my talk page. Sounds convoluted, but I'd rather be editing articles than reading your talk page.
• Add your comments to the bottom of the page.
• If you don't agree with a change that I've made to an article, please let me know nicely and I will address the issue.

Decent

I think it was very decent of you to apologize to ED209. I'm sure the whole Eyeonvaughan thing has been very frustrating. Hopefully you can find a way to work productively with the other editors on those pages (EoV and VW excepted). Thatcher131 03:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Archiving

• So, my talk page is ginormous and I've been wanting to archive it for a while, but figured with the ongoing RfC, I should probably wait... What do you think (since you seem to know these things better)? Can I just go for it, or should I hang on? And btw, how long do RfC's usually last? Thanks -- pm_shef 17:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you could just go ahead, it is getting pretty long. I'd say, break it off at April 1, so you can put a date on the archive. As long as there's a link at the top of your talk page to the archive, it's all good. RfCs usually last a couple of weeks at least, but I'm not really sure. Mangojuice 17:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Pm_shef: This is an attempt to resolve the NPOV concerns that relate to your conduct on Wikipedia and the editing of articles that you are personally involved in.

As you know, the official policy of Wikipedia, according to WP:NOT, is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that editors should avoid contributing to articles that they are personally involved in. That doesn't mean that your edits have not been neutral; rather, it means that any editing at all of Vaughan Council-related articles is inappropriate, no matter what is written.

Here is the fulltext, from WP:NOT:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.
2. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability.
3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability.

---

I understand that you've written to a user that you will not be involved anymore in Vaughan-related articles. That's a commendable position. I'm sure there are many subjects and articles of interest to you on Wikipedia that do not relate to your father or his opponents. Do I understand your position correctly? And is this approach of abstention one that you permanently take? If so, I again commend that position. I trust, as I'm sure you do, that the administrators and the contributors to Wikipedia will maintain quality articles about worthy and reputable subjects. VaughanWatch 11:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Like Father, Like Son

(Personal attack removed) by Eyeonvaughan 06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC). The preceding comment was a copy/paste from a slanderous comment that had recently been archived in my Talk Page Archive and there was no reason for it to be re-written here. To see the comment, you can check the diff here. pm_shef 01:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thank you.
• Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - --64.231.242.202 01:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons. Your edits have been reverted. Thank you. --64.231.242.202 01:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)