User talk:Samual890

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Johnathan87 (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnathan87 for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Tag[edit]

Please address the reason the tag was placed. The tag was placed because the article relies on first party sources. Wikipedia does not rely on first party sources. Therefore, it is a problem. Address the issue, don't just remove and give a half-assed reason on the talk page that does not even really address the issue. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 12:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Samual890 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_State_University.... they have the same kinds of information that this Wikipedia article has. I think you need to understand that and move on from this. It's fine if you want to keep the tag so that people get more information as far as third party sources but getting rid of any of the information is not acceptable and not the right and fair thing to do just because they do not have a third party source. In fact, I believe as long as it is cited, regardless of what is the rule or not is what it should be. It's not like we are making up the information... and if they believe so they could go directly to where we are getting the information.

So you're saying that because another article has problems, then we shouldn't try to fix this one? That's not how it works here. Funny enough, on that article's to-do list is "Avoid excessive boosterism - try to maintain neutrality as much as possible," which is exactly what I'm trying to fix in this article. The ultimate goal should be to get this article to featured status. This will not be possible the way the article is now. What you "believe" is irrelevant if it is not inline with policy. Getting rid of non-notable information is fair and inline with policy. We do not decide what is notable. We let reliable sources determine what is notable and report it. I've showed you policies that back up what I'm saying. Unless you can show where I'm wrong by policies instead of saying "it's not fair", then you have failed to give a valid argument. I've seen a lot of editors just go through and delete stuff like this. Instead, I'm going through and seeing if I can rewrite it neutrally using non-self serving sources. I believe that I am being extremely "fair." Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 02:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Samual890 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, but the thing is Wittenberg University is very notable throughout the country. The thing is, not many articles are published on the notable things do to the fact it is a small liberal arts college. So, in all fairness, some of the sources then have to be from the university's website. I think having approx. 14 of the sites from a third party is enough and good for such a small school. Now I don't believe anywhere in the article do we write about how good the university is... we are giving out information on the notable things of the university. If you look at the Ohio State article, they talk about residence life, and i just did a search there is only one tab for it. But their university believes that residence life is very notable for their students and i believe the same for this university.

I appreciate you taking the time and effort to re-write the information. I just hope you are able to use non-self serving sources, but my point is, if you can't find those sources, leave it as it is. Because, it's notable and since it's a small school it's not easy to also find newspaper articles to use as sources. I honestly think going to the actual source is better than relying on newspapers that could not be telling the full truth.

Using "the actual source" is not better than using reliable sources. Again, what we say is notable is what said sources tell us is notable. The University itself is not the place to go to see what is notable because of, what should be, obvious reasons. I'm not arguing about the Ohio State article, we're talking about this article, not that one. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 03:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Samual890 (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm unsure why using a newspaper that could give false information is better than going to a university article page where the information actually is. We'll I brought up the Ohio State article because they have the exact same kinds of information that we have, and I feel it's just not right to say to one article, "You can have this, but this other article you can't have that." Again, Wittenberg is a small liberal arts college, that is very famous through out the country. Wittenberg doesn't have articles written about them since they are a small school however there are many notable things. For example having a museum with a collection of 30,000 specimens and artifacts for geology is very notable for such a small school. However a newspaper may not have the time to write about it. So, I'm addressing the notability for it and backing up where I got my information that they do in fact have that many artifacts.

If you want to discuss that article there, that's great, but please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Straight from WP:RS, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis not mine). Primary sources can be used, but should be used with care and the article should not mainly rely on primary sources. This article uses primary sources carelessly and mainly relies on primary sources. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 03:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009[edit]

It looks like you may have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia, at Wittenberg University. Please do not add such material without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. You really think that the article should read like the virtual tour (where you copy and pasted those additions from)? Really? Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 14:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no copy right. I re-wrote parts of it. I plan to re-insert it since there was no copy right one bit.

You rewrote the first sentences and copy and pasted the rest. Please... I can go through and post every link that you copied from if that's what you want, but we cannot allow copyrighted text. In regards to your edit summary, placing copyrighted text is not an option. It is not my job to rewrite it. I will continue to revert copyvios. Also note that reverting copyvios is exempt from WP:3RR. Reinserting this stuff despite knowing that we need to sway away from primary sources is not very good-faith. You know that I'm working on fixing that (unfortunately I haven't had much time). Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 21:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it was already reverted. I think that you should also read what Wikipedia is not. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 21:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Samual890 (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There is no copyright at all. I re-wrote parts of the sentence. And you can help me If need be, change the rest of the sentence for me. But I did not do any copy right. You are not being fair to me.

The hell it wasn't. The vast majority was copied verbatim from various pages of the virtual tour straight off of the university's website. Now, on to the latest edit. I am not going to help you turn this article into a medium of recruitment for students. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not a travel guide, and not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are an encyclopedia. We are not here to document where students can play frisbee (no joke, that's in there). We are not here to tell about every single place on campus. We are not an extension of the University's website. Please stop this. The WP:CONSENSUS looks to be agreeing with me that your additions are trivial at best. Please propose additions to the talk page (with reliable sources). Discuss and at least pretend to care about our policies. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 01:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted the links on the article's talk page showing your copyright violations. This crap has to stop. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 04:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember that talk about reliable sources? If you refuse to accept this policy, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. You have shown nothing but disregard for this and anything else that I or anyone else has said. If you do not want to help make Wikipedia better and only want to turn the article into a brochure for the University, then please just leave it alone. I'll say it again, the article should not rely on primary, self-serving sources. If something is notable, there should be a newspaper article or some other reliable source about it. If you can't find one and have to use a primary source, then it's most likely not notable. We should not use these primary sources, let alone copy and paste them. Just because Wittenberg thinks that it's notable, doesn't mean that we think that it's notable. On a side note, really, students can play frisbee there? I believe that comes very close to the Starbucks, Dance Dance Revolution, and Inn episodes. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 05:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Samual890, you'd better listen to what Apparition is telling you. If you want to stay on in this project, you need to learn how to edit properly. Apparition is giving you sound advice. And you are here basically "on probation", after your sockpuppeting spree of last week.

For now, I've blocked you for a short while to put a stop on your disruptive editing. When you come back, please make sure you reconsider your whole approach to what an encyclopedia is, including your notions of encyclopedic style, notability, neutrality, and academic ethics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this unbelievable... i try to edit and then get blocked... I'm sorry... I won't do it again!!

What did I do wrong?? I added a section for the buildings and edited the sections.... what the heck???

You've been told repeatedly what you are doing wrong, but you have refused to listen and continue to do the exact same things. If you really don't know what you are doing wrong, just read above and at Talk:Wittenberg University. I posted a new section about your addition before you were blocked last time, yet as soon as your block expired, instead of discussing it, you reverted with no explanation (edit summary or talk page). Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Samual890 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That was my fault, I'm so terribly sorry. But what I did is I looked for a couple more sources... I found some for Wweaver Chapel and Recitation hall. I also cleared up the parks section, and I also went on the clean up the Weaver Chapel stuff you didn't like. I just want to mention the buildings since they are very historical. I guess I don't know how to use wikipedia so well and I wish someone would help me just write about it instead of blocking me. But anyways.... is there anyway to get unblocked?

Due to your previous history with sockpuppets, your refusal to have any substantial discussion, and your lack of respect for policy, I would feel fortunate that the block wasn't indef. I would highly suggest that you use this time to review some of our policies, especially our 5 pillars. However, if you wish to appeal the block, WP:UNBLOCK gives instructions how. I've tried to explain and discuss, but you have continued to ignore it and brush it off. If you will stop, listen, and discuss instead of continue doing what you're doing, you might find someone to "help you just write about it" instead of getting blocked. I have no desire to stop the article from being written, I just want it to be an encyclopedic entry and not a brochure for the University. However, while I hope that you prove me wrong, I'd bet that after your block ends, one of your first actions will be to reinstate your version. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 23:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block reset[edit]

Your block has been reset to another 10 days starting from now, for your obvious sockpuppeting attempt through Andrewkols (talk · contribs). Try this one more time and all your accounts will be blocked indefinitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]