User talk:Bird/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
revert my user talk page. I am telling you and I will continue to report to the pages where I have contributed that I have no confidence in the information I contributed. You may revert pages to the condition they were before I edited them and I will have nothing to say about my contributions.

Further, after more research, my opinion about the copyright of images I contributed changed. I now know them to be copyrighted image that cannot be used on Wikipedia.

If they are US govt, then it's OK, they are public domain, unless they come from a third-party source. Could you specify where?
No, i don't care to further help you find images for your project. I'm telling you I posted them then later discovered them to be copyrighted. Period.
It would be great if you could just tell me exactly what it was that caused you to do this, then perhaps we can all take a deep breath and figure what's going on. Yours in good faith. --Lexor|Talk 16:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi there Bird.  :) Can you tell me why you suddenly have no confidence in what you've written? It looks great to me. What sources did you rely on? If you've based your articles on your understanding of a subject which you've read a lot about, there's no need to delete what you wrote. If you've made mistakes (and I doubt that you have) then they will be corrected over time. Nothing in wikipedia is instant - wikipedia evolves. I'd be very sad to see you leave, you seem like just the kind of contributor we value most.  :) fabiform | talk 16:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi there Bird.  :) Can you tell me why you suddenly have no confidence in what you've written? It looks great to me. What sources did you rely on? If you've based your articles on your understanding of a subject which you've read a lot about, there's no need to delete what you wrote. If you've made mistakes (and I doubt that you have) then they will be corrected over time. Nothing in wikipedia is instant - wikipedia evolves. I'd be very sad to see you leave, you seem like just the kind of contributor we value most.  :) fabiform | talk 16:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

you seem like just the kind of contributor we value most
That is because I fabricated a user identity with the intention of creating oen that is favorable to group think her. Nobody here knows me and it is apparent that when my real values show, I require more than some want to put out. the show is over "bird"
but what do you require? I still don't know what you mean. it sounds like this whole thing was an experiment in testing the community, but if so, for what purpose? --Lexor|Talk 16:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What I meant by that was that you care about the content you're adding. Contributors who care are contributors who are valued. Nobody here knows me either, but I believe that I add useful things to this project in my own small way. fabiform | talk 16:25, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Bird: you know, this is a wikiwiki, not a peer-reviewed journal. We strive for accurate content and we need educated people (like you seem to be) on every subject. If there are mistakes, we hope they will be sooner or later mended, but -in my opinion- a slightly wrong article is better than nothing. Pfortuny 16:21, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, you've blanked the brain article within the last hour, claiming that its factual accuracy was questionable and that the images were violations of copyright.

I don't see indications on the copyvio page as to where the images are copies from so that it can be checked as to whether they are really that. You are thus not following standard Wikipedia behaviors which is highly objectionable. You seem to have been here for a bit, so you should have been aware of the ettiquette. Also, disputes as to the accuracy of the article are NOT grounds for blanking the article.

So far as I can tell, this is just a one-off incident, but I will look into it. If I find that you have been blanking without due cause in other places I will take the appropriate steps necessary to start the arbitration process or whichever strand if appropriate towards getting you watched a lot more closely. Your apparent vandalism has been noted and you have been warned about it. David Newton 16:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The history is longer than it looks like, David, I for this time would not call it vandalism. Pfortuny 17:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
David, you might want to look into Talk:Brain to see the source of this issue. Bird is reverting his edits to the state before he started working on them. It appears s/he may have been ticked off about the focus on image trivialites and felt that not enough attention was being paid to factual accuracy and/or peer review (and in fact was perhaps deliberately putting in a few false facts to test the community). We would have to look over the edits carefully to see what was actually done. It's all very strange and vexing, but it appears the reverts have stopped and perhaps Bird has logged off. I suggest waiting a while to see if Bird returns or not, and then doing whatever repairs are necessary. --Lexor|Talk 17:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but blanking an entire article and putting a line of text saying that its accuracy is disputed it NOT the way to go about that. I was just looking at the Recent Changes and happened to see the rather suspicious subject line of bird's last edit of the brain article. I then saw it had been blanked and started to investigate. I called it apparent vandalism, not just straight vandalism. However, given that I have come across several other articles that have been largely blanked over the past few edits, I am more inclined to say it is vandalism. It is a strange type of vandalism, but it is vandalism I am forced to conclude. I am leaning towards putting this on the vandalism in progress page so that other sysops can have a look at and fix some more of the problems and also keep an eye on things if/when bird logs on again. David Newton 17:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's 27 articles I count that were either completely or mostly blanked or had rather odd things done to them. Even the Community Portal had a FAQ link removed for no apparent reason. I have reverted most of those articles that others hadn't found, and I have noted what is going on on the vandalism in progress page. Blanking or nearly blanking over 20 articles is certainly vandalism so far as I am concerned, regardless of whether the person wrote the articles as well. David Newton 17:31, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
With regards to the FAQ, I hear tell that he wrote the School FAQ which extolled some of the features of Wikipedia and indicated that it could be used as a resource in schools. However, some of his comments indicate that earlier (check the history of this page, methinks) indicated that he was withdrawing any such support and reccomendation. Fennec 18:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree. It's just very strange, because we had a good contributor who felt that there was not enough attention to peer review being done (and too much attention on image formatting), and then disappears in a huff, blanking his/her pages as s/he goes (and not reverting them to the pre-Bird state as s/he had indicated s/he was going to do on Talk:Brain. But it could be even stranger, have a look at Bird's comments on User talk:Fennec to see what I mean. I'm not sure if this entirely premediated, or whether Bird was being ironic. All very odd. --Lexor|Talk 17:32, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
David, you are right, but as I followed the case in real time, I noticed it more as someone becoming mad and trying to destroy his/her own work than as vandalism. But I am not trying to defend these acts. Pfortuny 18:40, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello Bird,

If you think articles should be deleted, list them on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion, rather than blanking them. Please see that page for procedures. -- The Anome 17:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Having reviewed content I contributed, I now realize it all to be ridden with errors and plagiarism. I am removing information I contributed which I know to be innacurate. If somebody wants to do the research to contribute accurate information, fine. Otherwise, back off before I begin recalling errors i made while using other information. It is wrong. I am fixing the errors. Don't try me. Not a bird

Before deleting anything for plagiarism we'd better know where it has been plagiarized from. Otherwise, your claims are void. Pfortuny 19:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about I tell you i made up everything I posted and what I didnt' make up I copied. And how about I make press releases citing many other articles I made up with no research besides an old textbook. In some cases I even OCR'ed the text directly into wikipedia. Don't cross me. This site lacks the resources do anything by cry and wish it had not lost the integrity I contributed. There is nothing you can do to restore integrity to anything written under this user name and I will make a career of assuring that the work bears a record of my testimony to the inaccuracy of my work. Go ahead, poke me with a stick some more....
Oh, no. I insist, this is a wikiwiki, not the Annals of Mathematics. So nobody should take WP as a definitive source for anything. Just a starter. Pfortuny 19:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello again Bird. The correct way to deal with copyright violations on Wikipedia is to list the relevant articles on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements. Just blanking pages is against policy and will likely be reverted. If you have added copyvio to Wikipedia, then it should be deleted not blanked. Only administrators have the power to delete. What you're doing achieves nothing as everything you've ever written on Wikipedia is stored in page histories. If you carry on breaking Wikipedia policies by mass blankings etc you aren't likely to have the chance to "make a career of assuring that the work bears a record of [your] testimony to the inaccuracy of [your] work" as you will be seen as a vandal and banned. fabiform | talk 19:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Use whatever euphemism you want to shape the situation to conform with your personal reality. I am a writer who realized after the fact that I had contributed unreliable information. I will make every effort to assure that anyone who attempts to read the false, innaccurate, copied information I submitted knows that it is in fact unreliable. If you want to spend the next six months playing vigilante, ignore the subject matter and continue to go after thye person. The best thing for you to do would be shut up and quit trying to control my actions. Leave the articles the way they were without my contributions and there will be no reason for me to expose the errors in the articles. There is no correct way. The correct way is to acknowledge you have learned nothing from me and that I will not allow you to consider anything I have written or copied to the site as credible. It seems folks here are much better at fighting vandals and moving around pictures than they are at discussion biological phsycology. If that's the arena you want to play in - fighting vandals, have at it. On the other hand, if you have an interest in biological psychology, go read the 20 blank talk pages where nobody had nay interest in the subject matter. Of course the pages maintain history logs. That is where I am addressign these comments, so that anyone who studies these articles can review the history pages and realize the author fabricated or plagiarized the content. Get over it and start over.
"so-called bird"

The image blatted from the deleted version of Human brain is in the public domain. I made it myself as described on the image page. Accusations of plagiarism should not be bandied around lightly. Especially when wrong. Washington irving 19:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Make no mistake, I do not bandy lightly. My approach is forceful. If you created an image and would like to place it on a page, do so. If you would like to compile a list of regions in the human brain, do so. But if you want to create an encyclopedia based on what you think you learned from this username, you can rest assured the accuracy and plagiarism challenges will endure as long as anything sourced from this writer returns to the pages in its original form.

The list of human brain regions is based on nothing but my fancy and speculation. The image I posted there was copyrighted. If you want to start over, find some time and do so, based on your own research, and compile it in such a way that it does not mirror text I have repeatedly stated now is copied right out of a book. . "so-called bird"

Maybe I shouldn't reply, but I feel that I should repeat (forcefully) that the image currently shown on Human brain and List of regions in the human brain are in the public domain. The content I added to these and other pages is not plagiarized. I take the accusation of plagiarism very seriously. It is insulting and wrong. I think this will be my last comment on this page. I'm sorry you chose the important topic of the Brain to make an example of. Many honest and creative people have been contributing to these pages in good faith. Washington irving 19:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Protection of Vandalised Pages[edit]

OK, this has now escalated rather seriously. Your persistent failure to follow the established ways of doing things has meant that I've protected a whole slew of pages that have been involved in your reversion attempts. I have also added disputed accuracy notices to most of them, so they should be fact checked as well. Any further vandalism will result in protection of those pages as well, and yes we know about Accuracy dispute your sock puppet.

You are going the right way about being banned completely from the Wikipedia. That is now a long process, but it can happen. So, here's what's going to happen:

  1. You will refrain from any more reversions or blankings of pages that you have edited.
  2. You will go about things in the correct manner for the Wikipedia (within the limits that page protection imposes). That means that if you want a page deleted you will list it on votes for deletion. You can't actually follow the copyright violation policy of the Wikipedia now that the pages are protected, so as a substitute I would suggest putting a message on the relevant talk page giving a reference as to where the copyright violation comes from. It can then be checked.

So far you have made one solid point in one of your reversions, claiming that a page was copied from a particular book. That can be checked, but your other edit summaries have been useless in that respect, as well as being the wrong way to do things.

It would also help immensely if you would sign your posts. To do so please use ~~~ to sign without a date and ~~~~ to sign with a date and timestamp.David Newton 20:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, well, well. It's now reached the stage where the vandalism has reached the user's own talk page. Bird makes the completely false claim that he/she is being blocked from editing this page. It has not been locked down. It has had blankings reversed. After this message, I am going to retrieve the blanked messages. After that, I am going to start the process of getting the username banned. David Newton 21:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Messages that have been reverted[edit]

"How about all of you middle class pigs mind your own business and stop trying to play dictator. Nobody had any interest in this contributor until they smelled blood in the water, and now out of the woodwork crawls a dozen cockroaches clamoring to say how things should be.

There is a real simple way to get respect out of whoever created this former user name. If you have something to add, add it. If this user name reverts copy that it wrote, for whatever reason, accept it and come up with something to replace it. Otherwise, this is not an encyclopedia it is a game environment for people whose life is built around dictating the behavior of others.

My testimony is that the site is not designed to attract contributors, but rather to attract humans with serotonin oriented systems for the dopamine governed power elite who rule the site, as I so adroitly explained in the article on HPA_axis but which I later refused to validate as original or accurate because nobody cares enough to go out and bother to find out if the information that is coming over the transmom is accurate. When the information was preseneted as article, it was all good. But when it becomes a reality in your power game, I am certain one of the first replies will be to imply that I am incoherrent and that attempting to understand my reasoning before rebutting me is irrational because I offer no reason.

Lexor is so wrong to chime in with the projection that my concern is attachment to articles. I have produced far more and affected more action in this world that I will ever be able to attach to. That is the fundament of this users approach, which I stated and which Lexor failed to acknowledge - that I resent being asked to use a user name, and did so only as a concession to dominant factions in a group. The material I submit should be reviewed for accuracy, not for my reputation. I assure you, i will not allow this group to establish a sense of credibiltiy around any user name I create. This is a very intentional effort to destroy any credibility associated with this handle.

This site attempts to identify and type casting people. Editors are allowed to contribute unaltered text based on their reputation among the dopamine crowd here, not because other editors knowledgable in the field have reviewed and checked the work. I will not allow credibility to attach to the bilines of articles I write here, no matter how profound my contributions. The bottom line is none of you have the skills to work with me and you lost me in part. I will do my work from some other approach, and will advocate the same causes in whatever I do here."

"Yeh, ask a person to talk, reject what they say, lock them out of the dialogue. I can see a few Wikipedians are having a real big day in their careers here, finally with some conflict into which they can inject their confident demands."

"This page edit was made by USER:BIRD who was blocked from managing this user page. My preference is to archive all discussion so far and that is the status to which I am setting this page. If anyone tampers with it by reverting, they are not only vandalizing my creative work, they are committing an act of aggression toward me. I encourage all of you to forget about this user except that if this user announces a lack of confidence in something this user created, you go back to where the work started and pick up from there."

These were reverted, once by me, once by User:Jwrosenzweig and once by User:Ahoerstemeier. The talk page was blanked in each case and replaced by the message in question.

This is now a replacement for a page blanked, presumably by Bird. David Newton 21:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I am NOT reverting your user page. I am reverting your TALK page. Those are two entirely different things. Your talk page has not been protected, although you are actually tempting me sorely to do so. However, that would be contrary to Wikipedia policy, since I am now involved rather heavily in this situation and also because it is bad form to protect someone else's talk page. David Newton 21:31, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just tracking the netblock for

inetnum: -
netname:      PCCW-BIA
descr:        PCCW Business Internet Access
country:      HK
admin-c:      TA66-AP
tech-c:       TA66-AP
mnt-by:       MAINT-HK-PCCW-BIA
mnt-lower:    MAINT-HK-PCCW-BIA-CS
changed: 20020815
source:       APNIC

address:      Pacific Century Cyberworks
address:      Room 280, 2/F Telecom House,
address:      3 Gloucester Road,
address:      Wanchai, Hong Kong.
country:      HK
admin-c:      NOC18-AP
admin-c:      JL1059-AP
admin-c:      DL430-AP
tech-c:       NOC18-AP
tech-c:       JL1059-AP
tech-c:       DL430-AP
nic-hdl:      TA66-AP
mnt-by:       MAINT-HK-PCCW-BIA
changed: 20020606
source:       APNIC