User talk:Miked789

Your recent contribution(s) to Wikipedia are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! -- No Guru 19:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contribution(s) to Wikipedia did not provide specific references or sources. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Editors may choose to remove material you have contributed if it is not verifiable. Please provide specific references in your contributions to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content. You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. -- No Guru 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your case with the AMA

Hello. I'm a relatively new AMA member looking at your case and interested in the possibility of taking it. I've taken the liberty of looking at some of your edits and have a couple of questions. I noticed that your last few edits on the Gordon Campbell article and your edits used sources such as http://www.deceivebc.ca and http://policyalternatives.ca. I understand that you're having a dispute with editors who are claiming that the sources you are using are partisan. Wikipedia's reliable sources policy outlines the types of sources Wikipedia uses; the list tends to favor works by figures like academics and journalists. I understand that this tends to favor mainstream media and academic-type sources which are not always open to alternative views. However, I was wondering if some of the information you are trying to add to the article might be covered by mainstream media or similar sources. If you could find coverage in more standard media, this would likely put you on much more solid ground in an edit dispute and the opposition to your edits might be softened. I'd also encourage you to open up a dialogue on the article's discussion page, Talk:Gordon Campbell. Perhaps you might be able to reach agreement on the sort of sources that would be usable. Best,--Shirahadasha 02:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to take this case? I can't do anything unless you'd like. Feel free to drop me a note on the case page or my talk page and let me know what you'd like me to do. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Got your message. Just wanted to let you know that I'm only an advocate, not a mediator or arbitrator, so I can't "rule" on anything. All I can do at this point is try discuss the matter with the other editors involved and see if we can find away to bring more of your point of view into the article in a way that hopefully everyone will agree is appropriate and within Wikipedia policies. Hopefully we can resolve the issue this way. I expect to start on this later this weekend. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a moment and let me know if you agree with the wording of this summary of the issue? Thanks, --Shirahadasha 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Partisan Edits

Please stop your partisan editing of Gordon Campbell.

...bs deleted...

NO. Since you seem unable to provide any balance yourself, I don't see how you can talk. Many, if not most of the articles I added are important FOR balance. As I previously stated, his current page reads like a Gordon Campbell press release by his personal publisist, my guess it's helped by people such as yourself removing any negative article about him. The fact that you don't see that makes me believe that you are a brown shirt liberal Campbell supporter.

Once again, I point out there are articles about how his government gave raises to doctors and nurses. Why then, does the fact that he cuts other healthcare workers by 15percent and imposes a contract, after he specifly said he wouldn't, why is that not relavent? It shows his character, esp when the same thing happened time and time again. Why is it a bad thing for balance to have his poor qualities, his missteps shown along with his press release?

By the way, I know how to be unbiased, I can't say the same for you. You are removing every single negative article, even though they are proper. Lets get history right.

Zig Hiel heir WikiMart

Your behaviour

It is not appropriate to call another user a Nazi. Don't let it happen again. --JGGardiner 08:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...

Actually, Mr Gardiner, it was a reference to when Michael Campbell as editor of a magazine, (and the brother of Gordon Campbell), when he had a front page picture of NDP insiders/MLAs photoshopped so they were wearing brownshirts uniforms.

Mein Gott.

And to be sure that I do not offend thee and thine, which is the problem, the reference to a brown shirt liberal, or the salute? Or both together? Because if I had wanted to reference him as a nazi, I would have, and plainly spoke it, and did not. I did reference him as a brown shirt liberal, which, I do not consider to be a nazi. I want that to be very clear. I do not call people a 'nazi', thank you.

I do know the difference between a liberal brown shirt, which I consider a person who uses their power to bulldoze their personal opinion, viewpoint, policy, whatever, to get their way, versus say, a political system that espouses the murder and brutal domination of others by physical means, including genocide.

I do consider a person who removes every single 'non-glowingly positive' article about Campbell a brownshirt liberal, esp. when it seems they are not even trying to see the point I am trying to make, esp. when they are not bothering to see which, if any are reasonable and should stay, and are just removing every single article, by rote. As apposed to a nazi, who would have removed the articles by rote, then shown up at my door, kicked it in, raped my wife, then killed me and my family.

I do, however, find the salute rather enjoyable, esp. as sarcasm towards those who order me about. So which is unacceptable? The 'brown shirt liberal' or the salute? Or is it both together?

I am not trying to be annoying, or funny. I would really like to know. For example, if someone tells me, "I don't want you to post on such and such an article, your just too biased and partisan", is it allowed for me to say "zig heil mein xxxx, btw, this is sarcasm is _not_ to imply you are a nazi"? Because that is the way and reason I use that salute.

Thankyou

Both are unacceptable. Please see WP:CIVIL. I'm willing to assume, to your benefit, that you don't really understand the implications of the words. I assume that your understanding comes from watching war movies because your phonetic approximations got all three four-letter words wrong. But please don't let it happen again. --JGGardiner 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people fail to see the "humor" in Nazi imagery. Nazis were only funny on Hogan's Heroes. In reality, they were not much of a laugh. Equating anyone on Wikipedia with Nazis is not only unfunny, it's inaccurate and just plain rude. Retilian Kitten Eater 22:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 18:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

funny? Who said funny? Or humour?

BTW, just so I _am_ clear:

I fail to see where I said or implied that nazi's or nazism is funny. Or humorerous. Please don't attribute things to me that I did not say. I have not called anyone a nazi, nor have I said nazi's were funny.

When I give the salute to someone telling me what to do, Believe me, amused is not what is going through my mind. In fact, a particular two word phrase, goes through my mind. I am sure if you consider long enough, you can narrow it down.

I doubt very much the phrase would be appreciated around here, so I didn't and won't use it.

Perhaps you are mistaking sarcasm for satire. The latter is done to be funny, the former, not.

Miked789 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)miked789[reply]

Hi Mike. Some people can be kind of sensitive to these sorts of things, and misunderstand very easily, so perhaps it might be best if we just focus on what the article says and if no more is said on this side issue for the time being. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Campbell issue cont.

Hi Mike. About the issue of using the Guardian, the newspaper of the hospital employees union, as a source, Wikipedia's attribution and biographies of living persons policies do place some limitations on the kinds of sources used, particularly in a biography of a living person. The policies generally discourage using statements from a party in a dispute as a source. Although it can sometimes be used to identify what the party said, the policy does say it shouldn't be identified as a fact. Wikipedia particularly wants criticisms and disputes to be covered by journalists or academics because special care is needed when saying potentially damaging things in an article on a living person. The Biographies of living persons policy says that "third party sources", sources which come from someone (like a journalist) that doesn't represent one of the parties to a dispute, are particularly important for biographies. Has there been coverage of this particular issue in mainstream media or similar? I am wondering if there is criticism or incidents that has been covered that you might be interested in putting in the article. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion on Talk:Gordon Campbell#Preventing Edit War. Perhaps you might like to let me reply on your behalf, or if you'd like I could help you discuss the issue. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your message

First, I'm not blaming you alone for all of the problems there. The other two editors, Wikimart and No Guru (and experienced user and administrator) simply saw your edits as problems, reverted them and moved on. I'm the one who said that there was a genuine edit dispute which should be resolved. I'm the one who responded on the talk page. I thought that your edit which I reverted was problematic but obviously there is room for criticism in the article. I think that there is a legitimate dispute and that is why you need to talk to Wikimart.

Which is why I said that you need to talk to Wikimart. If it was all your fault, I'd probably have felt more like No Guru, reverted a problem edit and moved on. You can't resolve your dispute without talking to Wikimart. Which is why I thought that you should apologize for the comments. I know how you feel about the comments but I think that most others find them very problematic. I did and so did Reptilian Kitten Eater. If I was Wikimart, I'd be pretty steamed about them. I think that without an apology you will have trouble engaging Wikimart and without engagement, you can't solve the edit dispute. I had no interest in "avenging" Wikimart; he's a big boy and I'm sure can take care of himself. However, I'm interested in discussion and I know that incivility inhibits that.

As for my editing, I'm mostly happy with it. I never called you biased; I think that we all have biases and that is why editors have to adhere to neutral wrtiing (NPOV). I also never called you partisan; from my understand, a partisan is an adherent to a group and I only know that you hate Campbell from your advocacy request, not that you adhere to another party or group. I don't think that I said anything like you are a horrible person. Although I can work with editors which I think are troublesome or genuinely awful people. You have to do that to edit here. It is simply unproductive to dismiss other editors the way that you and Wikimart dismissed each other. For example, a little above your message is one from another user who once accused me of a being a "sockpuppet" (a Wikipedia no-no) for the purpose of causing other offences around here. But now we get along rather well. In "real life" if someone insulted me, I might be justified in insulting them right back and turning my back on them. You can't do that here. Wikipedia does demand more of us than we might be expected to produce in real life. Wikipedia also demands neutrality in our writing even though in real life I wouldn't always talk in a neutral manner about a man that I dislike such as Gordon Campbell.

Having reviewed all that I've written, I think that most of what I wrote was acceptable. I did have criticisms of your edits but I think that they were legitimate. The edit that I wrote to your advocate was more blunt than something that I'd write to a new user but I thought the point of advocacy is having a user who is experienced. I do still think the brownshirt and salute comments were a bad thing and I am that I brought them up generally. However, I do think that my second edit (this one[1]) was at least a little insulting. I do think that it was appropriate to direct you to to Civil and I did want to say that I thought you might not be understanding of how others feel about those words but I did say it in an insulting way and I'm sorry for that. It shouldn't have happened and I apologize for that.

I hope that you consider what I've said. You're the one who wants to change the article and you really should know that in a straight-out edit war, the status quo will always win over a controversial change. If you want to actually change the way this article reads in the future you are going to have to work things out with other users. --JGGardiner 20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Gardiner:

       Perhaps it was your phrase "lack of human decency” that led me to believe you considered me to be a horrible person. One generaly equates a "lack of human decency" with, hmmm, people who rape then bury children alive, or suicide bombers, or fill in the blank.

You also accused me of accusing others of being biased and partisan, and that you can not do that if you want to be honest discourse, yet it was wikimart who accused me of being biased and partisan. So again, you are being a hypocrite when you don't call him on it.

Don't blame me if you don't like the label when you make yourself a suite.

BTW, when a person calls himself reptiliankittineater, I tend to think it's for the purpose of baiting, and I tend not to care what he/she thinks.

Also, it's not hostility, but if you are going to step up and say what you think, then you are going to get a reply when you are being a hypocrite. You call me to task for something, then you go and do it, or don't call someone else to task when they do it to me, then what do you expect?

You can go off crying to someone saying I am so hostile. But I'm not. I'm standing up for myself against a person who insulted me. Whether you disguise your insults or say them straight out they are still insults. And if you don't want to deal with me, then don't. Isn't that easy?

As for the poor admins or editors such as wikimart, since he has from the start told me I am biased and partisan, and allowed all the negative articles on campbell to be removed (or removed them), then I can only say that he too, is a hypocrite, and I will apologize when hell freezes over.

BTW, if you think that anything I have said on wikipedia equates to a 'lack of human decency' then you need to get out more and take a look at whats going on the world.

Miked789 22:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)miked789[reply]

AMA case Status

Hi Mike! Haven't talked in a bit. I understand that when you started the AMA case, you might have been looking for an arbitrator or someone who could make a ruling for you. I can't do that. All I can do is help represent you to others, if you'd like, and perhaps offer some suggestions. Would you like an advocate or to continue using me as an advocate under these circumstances? If so, perhaps it might be helpful to discuss matters a bit when you'd like to reply to other editors related to the Gordon Campbell issues. And if this wasn't what your wanted, we could always simply close the case, or, if you'd prefer, try and get you someone else. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, will close the case. You're welcome to fill out the feedback form. Best of luck. --Shirahadasha 22:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]