User talk:Bikeric

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

See my comments here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What a coincidence. BobMifune came here to harass you as I was writing my previous comment to help you regarding his behavior towards you. He's a newbie too. An experienced editor would have been polite and provided you with gentle guidance, if indeed it was needed. BobMifune was just blocked yesterday for a day for his own behavior. So I suggest you continue to do as you wish, as long as it follows wiki policy. Newbies are welcome here--don't let that nasty note left above from another newbie dissuade you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's all take a step back here. Bikeric, if you're a legitimate account here to contribute to the encyclopedia, welcome! It looks like the welcome people haven't caught up to you yet with their "welcome to Wikipedia message" - sorry about that. There are lots of pages to help you get started, and lots of people willing to help out. Please note that's our main purpose here, to create and improve articles. Chit-chat, voicing opinions, and stuff like that can be useful if it helps you and others write the article, but we don't do a lot of discussion just for the sake of talking. Everyone has a right to their own talk page within reason, so if someone asks you to leave them alone it's a good idea to honor that. You can go to the article talk pages to discuss changes to the article. But either way it's best not to accuse people of things. Just assume good faith and realize that other people may have different opinions. I agree with both Bobmifune and LegitimateAndEvenCompelling here - if BobMifune wants to be left alone you should, but he should have been a lot more polite in asking. Assuming again that you are an editor with a legitimate new account, please excuse the jumpiness, but that's what people sometimes do in response to accusations. There's a policy called civility that's a little more rigorous here than on most websites, and helps people get along. Now you know. Cheers and happy editing. Wikidemon (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was under the assumption that the talk pages were for discussions, but my mistake BobMifune. I left a message on his talk page about something I found interesting. I am now being accused of vandalism? I have not made a single change to any article on Wikipedia, and I do not plan on it for some time. If a discussion is not what the talk pages are for, then by all means let me know where those discussions are meant to take place. I am not going anywhere. My intentions are to expand my knowledge base and, I feel that the "knowledge" being spread by BobMifune needs to be challenged. His actions let me know that I may be hitting the mark, and possibly a sore spot with my discussion, which is why it keeps being deleted. Why not add to the discussion instead of pretending it does not exist? The only response I have seen so far is a "final warning" from BobMifune that he will remove me from Wikipedia, with no discussion on my comments from him at all. What gives? Are all the editors this way? I certainly hope ...... Bikeric (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bikeric, I have been here for years and I have never before seen anyone act like BobMifune. You picked a winner. My advise to you is to not engage BobMifune further on his Talk page.
Wikidemon is more typical, however. I disagree with him all the time, but always as part of a civil conversation on the best way to improve various articles. Ultimately we often agree. Almost all people are civil here and attempt to follow Wiki policy. Don't let BobMifune get you down. Just ignore him and don't comment further on his Talk page, unless you no longer mind his responses such as they are. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, BobMifune has no power to "remove you from Wikipedia," so relax. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the advice LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. I am disappointed in what appears to be a take-over of Wikipedia. I take issue with persons who feel that their version of the truth is the only version allowed to be seen. An article page should reflect all sides of the subject matter, especially if the subject, ie Mark Levin, is so polarizing. Wikipedia is having a problem with the Editing process right now. The quick solution taken, was to lock the article page. This does not solve the problem. What can be done? A perfectly glowing review would not be accurate, nor is an article which contains strictly negative opinions. Why not have a page with simply dates and facts, and leave the opinions out of it? Some major steps need to be taken in order to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. Bikeric (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The integrity of Wikipedia is fine. The problem is that there is a perception that things are one-sided during the times when some editors violate wiki policy and act one-sided. It is not Wikipedia's fault, per se, that the page is so lopsided now. Using Wiki policy, editors will right the wrong eventually.
My advice to you is to edit other pages right now, or in addition to Mark Levin, just to get some experience under your belt. The Mark Levin page is not going away. You can always work on it in the future. But having that experience will go a long way toward making you an effective editor who works with the community to improve Wikipedia's pages.
How about this. See what pages I've worked on ("top edited articles")and see if you can contribute there. Then I can guide you as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk)

FYI, that nasty guy who attacked you, BobMifune, has been banned permanently from Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC) membership[edit]

Every time you change the info box, you prevent anything from being shown. Do you even check the page after you make edits? In any case, membership by organizations are almost always self-reported. Except organizations where the lists of it's members are reported to the Government(unions like the SEIU, AFL-CIO). As one can see by looking at the NRA, the Boy Scouts of America, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Conservative Baptist Association of America, to mention a few, organizations self-report their membership numbers. If you have a specific criticism of the numbers, you need to find a reliable source and take it to the talk page. Having what seems like a WP:SPA and continued reverting the page, while leaving errors, does not improve Wikipedia. DD2K (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know that every time I correct the membership box it dissappears. Does not do so on my end.

  Step 1: claims to have the cure for cancer.
  Step 2: The Huffington Post reports " claims to cure cancer."
  Step 3: DD2K will post on Wikipedia that " CURES CANCER!!"
  Step 4: DD2K will claim it is sourced and needs to be left alone.

That is not how things work. Especially here on Wikipedia. If you have found that other pages here on Wikipedia are done this way than FIX THEM because they should not be that way. Let me ask again, which of the 18 NRA pages is in question? Bikeric (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Bikeric

For someone with so few edits, and edits involving only a small section of issues, your claims as to knowing how things work on Wikipedia seems strange. Were you, or are you perhaps, editing under another name? In any case, it seems you did not fully read the rules for verifiability that you yourself claim to know so well. I will quote the appropiate section for you Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves :

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field....

As I wrote, if you have a reliable source that disputes the membership statement, then you should bring that up on the talk page. I won't get into the silly "cure for cancer" comparisons, because they don't apply here. At least not to any reasonable person. You have now reverted that page numerous times, so I would suggest bringing it to the articles talk page if you find any WP:RS that dispute the membership numbers before you make any further edits. Or you may get warned or even blocked. DD2K (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is cut and pasted from the page I requested you to read. Since you did not, I will post it here. Self-published sources (online and paper) Policy shortcuts: WP:SELFPUBLISH WP:SPS WP:TWITTER WP:V#SELF

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable.[4]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Where did you find that line of yours? Bikeric (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're now at WP:3RR on the page, please don't revert again. I don't understand what you're trying to say or do there, please go to the talk page and start a discussion there to try and gain consensus. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

By your jump into the mix, am I to assume that the WP:3RR warning was sent to DD2K as well? I would certainly hope so. Have you been an observer to our actions? Have you read my reasons for the change from "membership =" to "membership claim ="? I have a hard time understanding why certain rules are such as WP Verifiability should be ignored while the 3RR should be strictly enforced. I am doing nothing more than correcting errors with WP in the article. If DD2K has asked for your assistance to prevent him from a 3RR lockout then so be it. Bikeric (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Since you've reverted after the warning, I'l going to regretfully report you at the edit warring board. You haven't used the talk page at all, when you come back, please discuss matters there. Dayewalker (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You did not read your own talk page? I posted there. You did not read my NEW comments on the Edit? The number is now sourced at 1.7 million, not 5. Pay attention to the facts Dayewalker. Bikeric (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not being honest DD2K.  You have back inserted a link (check the time of revision) as if it was there the whole time.  Nice move, but you leave a trail when you do things like that.  So I have now checked your link and you did not read sentence number 1: It should not be self serving.  Well that blows up your argument there.  I have also found a link that discredits yours.  You don't care about that source?  Nothing is more honest than the Huffington Post?  Wow.  This has been fun, and I shall talk again on Monday.  I need to go ride my bike.  Bikeric (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You haven't made a single comment on the article's talk page, which is where the discussion needs to go. Dayewalker (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
As a courtesy, I've filed the case here [1]. Dayewalker (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Result of the complaint at the edit-warring noticeboard[edit]

Per the result of WP:AN3#User:Bikeric reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: Warned) you are warned against continued edit-warring at If you continue to revert the article without making any effort to get consensus on the Talk page, you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well then. What are the rules for consensus?Bikeric (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I was wrong, and have asked EdJohnston to comment on the issue with the article. I have performed all actions requested by EdJohnston and I will no longer simply correct/revert any article page without starting a link in the discussion section first.Bikeric (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Well it isn't always black and white. Be bold, but if you are getting resistance, work with the community on the Talk pages. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

not reciprocated[edit]

On February 25, 2010, you wrote about taking out the accusation of meat/sock puppetry of DD2K and Dayewalker. This was not reciprocated and they have accused someone else of sockpuppetry, including me. A UT professor (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You have caught me off guard. How have my discussions with DD2K/Dayewalker affected you? I got myself in a pickle over a fraudulent link in the MoveOn article which was vehemently supported by one/two individuals. The issue was resolved amicably by a third party. This is the first time I have read your name on my screen. Are you accusing me of something? Bikeric (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry you've been caught up in this Bikeric, the above user popped up out of nowhere, and is now part of the sockpuppet investigation for Gaydenver/JB50000. Sorry for the spillover. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
That is now the second time you have killed me with kindness Dayewalker. Shame on you. I may have to rethink some things, and polish up future posts.Bikeric (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I just read through the Gaydenver/JB50000 sock thing. I must apologize for my previous accusations about DD2K and Dayewalker. I did not intend to create a snow-ball as big as this. I had issues with two users and questions that needed to be researched on my own before making accusations. I am glad that I did not go down the road of these other editors in the Gaydenver/JB50000 case. FYI to anyone who cares,..... nevermind. I'll keep opinions to myself from now on.Bikeric (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)