User talk:Econewbie

Welcome!

Hello, Econewbie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You create an account to edit just my posts. I can sense from the posts you selected that you have a point of view that we should not point out who Jewish members of the media are. Well there already was a category for that, and adding Jewish media members into that category is appropriate per Wikipedia guidelines. What is not appropriate per Wikipedia guidelines is creating a new user account for the express purpose of destroying others work. I would suggest that now that you know how to edit you decide to make constructive edits. MichelleSBernard (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, there is no similar religious categorizaton for other professional journalists, especially when general or political. In other words, there is no Journalist-Muslim, Hindu, Christian, etc. If someone specialized in a topic, i.e. Christianity, dog-breeding, cooking, movies, etc. than the category might arguably be used, but probably not. One does not typically see a person's religious affiliation or heritage attached to their profession - no Lawyer-Jewish, Accountant-Jewish, Economist-Jewish, Pilot-Jewish, Governor-Jewish. There are places for that kind of detail in the article where appropriate. But usually, unless a person is noted for their religious background, and it somehow relates to the article, it serves no benefit, and an editor who's only contributions to multiple articles is "religion-pushing," looks to be ignoring NPOV.

No, I did not know there were no similar religious categorizations for other pro journalists. Maybe you should create those categories, or if you disagree with the grouping of Jewish journalists into a separate category you should bring it up on the discussion page for the category FIRST before doing your simple-minded edits.71.206.239.98 (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer to engage in an edit-war over "religion-pushing," feel free. There are plenty of third-party reviewers that can join and offer opinions when all your single-minded edits are submitted for comments. If, on the other hand, you prefer to remove all your edits yourself, and put the topic up for discussion in each article, that's fine and at least shows good faith. As for multiple user names, you know what they say about people who live in glass houses. Econewbie (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably would know alot about broken glass^[1] as far as having multiple accounts goes, I only have one and I put my name to it, unlike you.71.206.239.98 (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least you are open enough to show us your true self. Econewbie (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/323626/Kristallnacht

Sockpuppetry[edit]

Hello. Please state the purpose for your use of this account and explain how its use does not violate WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY. Thanks, Sandstein 15:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose

The purpose of the account was for anticipatory defense to protect my regular contributions and talk page from what might become a verbal conflict. This assumption has proved accurate. I also gave a more detailed justification for this on User_talk:MichelleSBernard. In my regular edits I try to avoid topics relating specifically to politics or religion and I also take seriously Wiki's Privacy policy.

The user had a prior history of distruptive, hostile, and vandalist editing, with her account creation and earliest editing for the stated purpose of deleting a person's biographical article from Wikipedia; Her prior reponses to reversions and comments by others on her talk page included profanity and counter-attacks; she wasted no time in posting gratuitious, irrelevant, genocide-related comments on my talk page.

Appropriate use

My understanding is that my use has not violated WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY:

It was not used to avoid scrutiny;
It was not used to add disruptive edits - on the contrary, it was used entirely constructively;
It was not used to deceive editors in any way as it was used to focus on one issue, category usage;
It was used to contribute to Wikis anti-vandalism policies.

As per Guidelines on "Segragation and security:"

Users with a recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about subjects in which they do not have the same expert standing, or which they consider less weighty.

A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area.

I hope that gives a proper rationale as you requested. Econewbie (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that's good enough for me. Sandstein 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/323626/Kristallnacht

[1]