User talk:Jim Sunev

Re: Saphin

Hey, thanks for writing. Just to let you know, this doesn't nearly fall under the revert-war-type editing that would require page protection; it seems as if the vandal makes changes and disappears for a week or so. The best weapons: first, make sure the article is extensively sourced—and, not just general record label websites, but links to the specific pages from which the data is culled; second, report the vandal to WP:AIV. This helps administrators see clearly that the reported is indeed one of vandalism, and not just a content dispute. Hope this helps. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 01:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is appreciated. I know it may not seem that way, but helping make the artist's page as good as it can be by citing specific reliable sources makes catching vandalism—and blocking the vandals—easier. Keep up the good work! Radio Kirk talk to me 02:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because admins follow those links so we know what's accurate and what's not. We don't know everything about everyone, any more than other editors do; we just have the mop and keys to clean up the messes. Radio Kirk talk to me 02:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little help

This user must be warned properly (the one who you asked about on Radio Kirk's talk page. The IP) before he is banned. Warn him with {{[[Template:Test3]]}} next time he does it and after that {{Template:Test4]]}}. Then he's blocked, maybe banned. Sign your name on talk pages (Radio Kirk's and others) using four tildes. Like this. ~~~~ ForestH2

A question

Are you Jeff Saphin? RadioKirk talk to me 01:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How Do I apply these Templates?

I searched and searched, but quite honestly, I'm not to good at Wiki Yet (Jim Sunev 02:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

Deleting Saphin

I'm going to take an extraordinary step here: I'm deleting Saphin as irreparable in its current state. One side of the argument claims the other's edits are lies (despite citations) while the other restores an article that seems more an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry (despite citations). If anything substantially identical to either version is restored, it will be deleted again under WP:CSD#General criteria Item #4 and the user(s) warned and/or blocked. If this article is to be reconstructed, it will be from scratch, WP:NPOV and with the required use of reliable sources. Please see WP:FA#Music for a guideline provided by some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer. RadioKirk talk to me 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that but...

I've got a feeling that they will just repost something completely of their own creation. I can back up every fact I've posted, they, can't. With a little research this can be proven. And what if in the future, there is a third party who posts a Saphin Article? Is Saphin banned from Wiki? Can I repost a something a little less "ad" like? I'd appreciate it if you reconsider. (Jim Sunev 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

As I've noted both to you and to the other editor, anything substantially identical to either version posted thus far will be deleted, so that applies to both sides of the debate. The article must be neutral (which also means it cannot serve as an advertisement), it must assert notability (advertisement concerns again), and it must cite reliable sources, no matter who is editing—just like every other article at Wikipedia is expected to do. Finally, to get your signature to appear automatically each time you make an edit, use four tildes (~~~~). RadioKirk talk to me 02:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your name on talk pages using ~~~~. ForestH2

And, here's how you create templates. Use these in this order when a user vandalizes the page. You can skip any if it's serious vandalisim or skip which ever ones you want. Don't use the tags though. Add <nowiki>{{Template:Test (what ever test it is)}} and then sign your name.</nowiki>

Post to WP:AIV

Yes, I think you should create something that is a little less ad-like though cite sources as Radio Kirk said. ForestH2

Trust Me RK

This is Jeff Saphin, Since I know who the other "editor" is, I'm almost certain you will now see what looks like a Saphin article that fits in with wiki standards, but is chock full of lies. Since I am JS, I know what is fact and what isn't with regard to this article, I can have my people fashion a neutral article that fits wiki standards if you'd like. Would that work?

Thank You. (Jim Sunev 02:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)) Get your name to appear using four tidles. ForestH2

Yes, that would work, because only that would work. You must recognize, however, that—blatant vandalism aside, and blatant vandalism is best fought through neutral copyediting and reliable citations—Wikipedia makes it clear that, for each and every one of us (myself included), "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it". :) RadioKirk talk to me 02:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I need to make an additional note: You write "Since I am JS, I know what is fact and what isn't with regard to this article," but that can lead to another Wikipolicy, which forbids original research. As verifiability standards clearly state, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (emphasis already supplied)." The truly balanced article takes the widely published positive details and widely published negative details and creates neutrality therefrom. RadioKirk talk to me 03:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated but....

If a Saphin article is edited by that same vandal, it would also be in violation of Wiki policy. My article though admittedly hyperbole-esque, is completely factual and verifiable on the web and in the real world. With regard to neutrality: We shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that most of the Artist Articles on Wiki are not in some way approved by, if not actually posted by the Artist or their people or fans, just as the Saphin article was. Doesn't that put them in violation of wiki policy on neutrality? There is no problem with the merciless editing of a piece, that's fine, I know that's part of the Wiki architecture, but revisionist vandalism is not acceptable and also against Wiki Policy.

Help me with this Kirk, I'd like to work this out for the benefit of all well meaning parties.

would a less "ad like" article work? eg Richard Barone

--Jim Sunev 03:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Re violation of policy, that's why I've noticed both you and the "vandal" (and let me be quick to note that Richard Barone is hardly a great example—in fact, it may qualify for speedy deletion as it does not assert the notability of Mr. Barone (who may indeed be notable, but the article as written does not assert notability.) I can assist as best I can but, bear in mind, as a disinterested third party, what you and I find to be "vandalism" may not necessarily coincide. As one example, I've done massive work on Lindsay Lohan in part because my knowledge of the subject is better than most, and it is today a Featured article because it presents the positive and the negative in a tone that is as balanced as possible. RadioKirk talk to me 04:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my apologies for the repetition, but "completely factual and verifiable on the web and in the real world" is irrelevant unless you follow the first three rules: cite, cite, cite! :) RadioKirk talk to me 04:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did cite cite cite, that's what I'm trying to say. The other guy didn't, didn't didn't. He just put a link to his websites. The facts he's added by heim weren't cited in any way.

--Jim Sunev 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I must have read something wrong; I was sure I saw more than the one link. In any event, anything by any editor that is not verifiable through a reliable source is subject to deletion at any time, on any article, by any editor. Feel free to let me know when you have something you'd like me to review; in the meantime, I have to head off to other pastures for a bit. RadioKirk talk to me 04:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]