User talk:Reporter99

Welcome!

Hello, Reporter99, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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! Skäpperöd (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[1] Skäpperöd (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your LTA page

Creating a long-term abuse page about an editor with a clean block log and that has been with Wikipedia for almost 4 years is a gross abuse of WP:AGF and says more about yourself than it does for that person. Don't do this again please. Issues should be taken directly to the person with whom you have a disagreement. Tommy! [message] 11:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for your 'Welcome to Wikipedia' message... 'friend'. I am a new editor who has spotted gross abuse and reported it where seemed appropriate.

The argument on the Schapelle Corby page illustrates people have tried to rationalize with him previously, to no avail. It isn;t a disagreement, it is abuse, and I reported it.

It does seem that you have simply jumped in line behind an established editor, regardless of his behaviour. This apparent closing of ranks says more about yourself than it does for myself. Reporter99 (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have some leeway because you are new, but saying someone is a vandal after 4 years of clean editing qualifies as an attack. As said previously, WP:AGF is a good read. Tommy! [message] 11:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay off my page. Your position is absolutely clear, and I have no wish to have any dialogue with you. You are, frankly, offensive. No more edits from you here please. You could not have been more ignorant or hostile to a newcomer had you set out to be. Reporter99 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion

The discussion on AN/I that you added to is closed - which means no one can add to it. The issue was closed becuase no admin issue appears to have existed. I've posted and responded to your comments below. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content originally posted on AN/I

I used this content to illustrate something larger, because it was a good example.

The point I make above is unambiguous: WWGB seeks to replace a demonstrably impartial phrase with one which is not. But that is not the issue in itself. The issue is what this illustrates.

As some have been fond of telling me, WWGB is an established editor. Therefore... why is he making such an edit? An edit which is obviously flawed? And edit he has repeated several times.

But more, that edit aligns with a whole series of edits on that page which demonstrate the same impartiality.

THAT is why it is relevant here, and not just a content issue. Along with the other edits it demonstrates a position and an agenda. Hence the complaint. Reporter99 (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB seeks to replace a demonstrably impartial phrase with one which is not, this is a content dispute. Admins are not there to decide whether WWGB is impartial or not - AN/I is there for when people are being uncivil or when consensus needs enforcing. While you may or may not have identified an edit that isn't impartial and may be detrimental this does not undermine WWGB's wider contributions. If WWGB was exhibiting the same activity in numerous other places or being disruptive to prove his point then AN/I is the right forum.

I strongly advise you to open a discussion on the talk page of the article; the fact you have not done so up to this point is not really helping the situation. Dispute resolution always should start at the talk page. Beyond that there is the BLP noticeboard which will handle content issues such as this (though I stress try the talk page first).

There is a page called WP:BRD that I advise you read. It basically outlines the dispute resolution policy we use here; if you add content (which you did) and an editor disputes it (which WWGB did) then the next stage is to Discuss it on the talk page. That is where you need to be right now; and my offer still stands - if you open a talk page discussion I will take part in it.

This is, entirely, a content issue - and perhaps a slight civility issue. None of which is AN/I material. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "guilty"

Please read our article on the legal definition of guilt. It's entirely possible for someone to be "guilty" in this sense of the word without having done anything wrong: the definition simply means that they've been found guilty. In other words, this sense of "guilty of ____" is identical to "convicted of _____". It's not the same as being morally guilty, which obviously someone isn't if s/he didn't do anything wrong. Nyttend (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not the case in the context here. Schapelle Corby is not actually guilty. Of course, she isn't the only one who has been convicted in a court yet is innocent.

In a source which is credible it is therefore ridiculous to assign the word 'guilty' to the convicted, when it is possible to simple state the FACT: they were convicted.

This is more accurate and more descriptive. To seek with such determination to apply the word guilt smacks of some other agenda or motive. Reporter99 (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Arriving from closed AN/I thread) No, chummer, it's what the newspapers, news channels, and news barkers say, and anything counter that needs to have the same quality of reliable sources. If they are convicted of a crime, then as far as the law goes they are indeed guilty. (Likewise, if they are acquitted, the law sees them as innocent.) Your constant screaming about this does not bode well for you, so let me give you a free piece of advice: Coming across as advocating for the truth usually leads to a block for disruption. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]