User talk:NYDCSP
|
Hugo Chavez[edit]
Hi, I replied there. F.F.McGurk 23:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, FFMcG. We'll sort it out for sure. NYDCSP 23:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: ALBA Removal[edit]
According to WP:V, "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor" JRSP 00:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- That is sort of the wikipedia equivalent of sticking out your tongue, my friend. Let's settle this on the ALBA talk page, shall we? Dispassionately, I hope. Thanks NYDCSP 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Welcome[edit]
Sure thing, glad to have you! Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --AW 21:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
help identify anonymous vandals[edit]
This link (User:82.23.36.174) is now active. A userpage has been created that may help to warn other patrollers about this account. You may want to create more user pages with this template for other IP addresses that have been used only for vandalism. Paul 19:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Paul - that's really helpful to learn how to do. NYDCSP 19:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. It makes it easier to keep track of long-term occasional abuse if we create these pages. The other things we can do are: always put warnings on the User Talk pages for these IP vandals. Then it's easy to see when they return. Without a User page or a User Talk page, there's no way to track them. Paul 19:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Anderson Cooper...again[edit]
You just provided comment on a WP:BLP dispute earlier on the Anderson Cooper page. Since then, I added new content to the Personal Life section that was thoroughly sourced (and in one case, one of the sources was additionally defended as notable by two added sources, I mean how thorough do I have to be) and, as I noted in two places on the talk page, NPOV in my opinion. I further defended the relevance of the information to the page. An anonymous IP user User:66.255.146.202 blanked the entire Personal Life section today, without comment, after you specifically said on the talk page that such an action was going too far. This is also the second time this user blanked this section without comment or defending the action. I posted a simple please-stop notice on his user talk page that this was vandalism, explained why, and that I would complain before I reverted (as I suspect it might lead to a revert war). I would appreciate your review of this, and perhaps consider protecting the page, or semi-protecting the page, until at least, perhaps, other editors have weighed in on the addition? Thank you. I'm going to revert the blanking now, but I will not violate the three-revert rule. I think the content I added was proper, and the way I went about it also proper. NYDCSP 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Bear in mind the possibility that the IP address is the subject of the article, or someone related to him (either family or professionally). Have you asked why the section was removed? Upon review of the section, I note it is just speculation, and so five paragraphs (even if referenced) seems like serious overkill, and probably skewing the article out of a neutral treatment of the subject. There was no anonymous removals of the section when it was just a simple paragraph stating (parahprasing) 'there has been speculation but Cooper has denied it'. Proto::► 09:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- But it prompted serious criticism from a notable source, raising doubts about the subject's integrity as a journalist in a manner directly related to the subject's own comments on the matter. The editor has blanked out the entire section without comment. You are supposing something here, when in fact it would be the editor's responsibility to explain themselves, or to otherwise engage other editors on the talk page to discuss this matter if it is controversial to him or her before blanking it all out. I would raise the unspoken complaint here -- I would counter your supposition with another. What if this is someone connected to CNN who is worried that this NPOV content from notable sources will interfere with their multi-million dollar marketing campaign of Mr Cooper? What if, in addition, other editors wish to supress notable content from a notable source such as The Washington Blade because of an anti-gay bias? I think you also must weigh those suppositions with the same weight as the one you have put forth here. And in the end, they are all suppositions because this blanking is going on anonymously, and cannot rule the day here. I recognize this may upset some of Mr Cooper's fans, as well as him personally, but WP official policy says that cannot be considered if the information is not libelous or slanderous (it is obviously not), from notable and verifiable sources and properly cited. What's more, since Mr Cooper HIMSELF raised the matter of his personal life being something he "doesn't talk about" or discuss, and a notable source has in turn raised a question here about his integrity on that very point, and a journalist's integrity is everything. If you blank that out, I would say you are ELIMINATING the balance of the section. And you are, in my view as an editor, engaging in censorship on behalf of a subject's commercial and financial interests (given the content in question) rather than allowing for balance under your own rules of the road, as well as perhaps siding with homophobes who wish to supress sourced content from a publication like the Washington Blade, which is a verifiable and notable source which has run an editorial on this subject's integrity as a journalist over this specific issue! And both would be a possible subject for a press article, to be honest. Then, would you still repress it? NYDCSP 14:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think there's a clear requirement for some kind of reference to this issue. However, I think that five paragraphs is lending undue weight to what remains speculation, albeit well-sourced speculation. I also think that this is effectively a content dispute, and at this moment in time doesn't require administrator intervention. If the anonymous IP editor continues to remvoe the section, without providing any kind of justification for their actions, then inform myself or another admin and we can take further action (either blocking the IP, or semi-protecting the article). Proto::► 14:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- But it prompted serious criticism from a notable source, raising doubts about the subject's integrity as a journalist in a manner directly related to the subject's own comments on the matter. The editor has blanked out the entire section without comment. You are supposing something here, when in fact it would be the editor's responsibility to explain themselves, or to otherwise engage other editors on the talk page to discuss this matter if it is controversial to him or her before blanking it all out. I would raise the unspoken complaint here -- I would counter your supposition with another. What if this is someone connected to CNN who is worried that this NPOV content from notable sources will interfere with their multi-million dollar marketing campaign of Mr Cooper? What if, in addition, other editors wish to supress notable content from a notable source such as The Washington Blade because of an anti-gay bias? I think you also must weigh those suppositions with the same weight as the one you have put forth here. And in the end, they are all suppositions because this blanking is going on anonymously, and cannot rule the day here. I recognize this may upset some of Mr Cooper's fans, as well as him personally, but WP official policy says that cannot be considered if the information is not libelous or slanderous (it is obviously not), from notable and verifiable sources and properly cited. What's more, since Mr Cooper HIMSELF raised the matter of his personal life being something he "doesn't talk about" or discuss, and a notable source has in turn raised a question here about his integrity on that very point, and a journalist's integrity is everything. If you blank that out, I would say you are ELIMINATING the balance of the section. And you are, in my view as an editor, engaging in censorship on behalf of a subject's commercial and financial interests (given the content in question) rather than allowing for balance under your own rules of the road, as well as perhaps siding with homophobes who wish to supress sourced content from a publication like the Washington Blade, which is a verifiable and notable source which has run an editorial on this subject's integrity as a journalist over this specific issue! And both would be a possible subject for a press article, to be honest. Then, would you still repress it? NYDCSP 14:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your decision not to intervene because I think that would be very provocative. I do not find an editorial in The Washington Blade newspaper, written by the editor himself, to be "undue weight" in balancing Mr Cooper's own statement on this issue. I will keep an eye on the anonymous users in relation to this matter and will keep you informed.NYDCSP 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Stopped editing[edit]
I have stopped editing. See Talk: Anderson Cooper and chances are you might, too. And I expect someone will want to delete this user page, but I won't allow it. NYDCSP 18:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks and anti-semetism[edit]
Hi, please refrain from using such terms as 'sheister' (assuming you mean 'shyster') which is a term used to describe lawyers of the Jewish faith and race in a derogatory way. The use of such terms perpetuates their damaging effects on society and should be avoided.
Also, using it to describe my actions (as you did) in a negative manner is classed as a personal attack. Please do not do this as it damages the atmosphere in which we voluntarily edit this site. Remember that is what we are, volunteers, editing a site for free with nothing to gain except our own feeling of happiness afterwards. Getting angry about something on here is pointless and will only cause the deterioration of relations between yourself and other editors around you.-Localzuk(talk) 21:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh please. Don't even get me started. I'll just leave your comment here for everyone to see, and let it speak for itself, along with your many ridiculous tactical attempts to get people banned based on the fact that you're wrong about the rules of Wikipedia and you just want to silence them instead. ps. how do you know what my race or religion is when you pull some obscure reference out of your hat (it's your style) to claim some sort of victimization? Stick to the facts. Stick to the rules as they are written instead of interpreting them to suit you and pushing the delete/ban/censor button so readily. And take your own advice too.
- Don't worry about me, friend. I'm not an editor anymore. I prefer to spend my time on relevant activity rather than editing this pointless exercise of a website that cannot succeed. NYDCSP 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I have never threatened to ban you or have you banned - I have simply informed you that certain courses of action can lead to you being blocked. I don't misinterpret the policies as far as I can see. But then, even if I do, you should still assume good faith and realise that we are still here to improve a site - not push a particular view, fight amongst ourselves etc...
- My comment explains very simply that a word you used can be interpreted as being a derogatory term and can be interpreted as a violation of our WP:NPA policy. Nothing more, nothing less.
- If you have indeed left, that will be a bad thing. Even if our views are opposing a lot of the time, they are still valued.-Localzuk(talk) 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've read your comments on that talk page and others, I know your spiel already, so no need to write it here. You do indeed use threats, as you're doing now. And don't tell me about assuming good faith from editors who equate being identified as a gay person with being a "smear" or "libelous". That I would even care to work with such people on anything meaningful is a laugh, and I wised up to it. This is why a Wikipedia will never succeed. Some bright spots here and there perhaps, but the whole thing is ephemeral and, unlike a real encyclopedia, has no real editor(s). And I'm almost embarrassed to admit I cared. NYDCSP 23:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
OK[edit]
The usual, from the usual, aiming for FAC. Wikipedia:Peer review/Venezuela/archive1 Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)