User talk:Kratch
Welcome!
Hello, Kratch, 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Cailil talk 18:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
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 could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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. --SineBot (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
dispute
[edit]I've initiated a dispute regarding men's rights and the men's rights movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/men%27s_rights_movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayhammers (talk • contribs) 01:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Note
[edit]Kratch, a number of your edits have come to my attention and I will remind you that wikipedia has behavioural guidelines & policies. These rules are based on the principle that if an account cannot edit collaboratively it will be prevented from disrupting other people's collaboration.
These comments on Talk:Men's rights are inappropriate[1][2]. You were previously warned by User:Kaldari[3] for actions prior to this - please be aware that further combative or otherwise uncivil commentary will result in this account's editing privileges being revoked. Talk pages are *only* for discussion of how to improve articles with third party reliable sources - they are not to be used for making attacks or otherwise casting aspersions about others.
Furthermore, coming to wikipedia (or advising others to come to wikipedia) to advocate for (or against) a topic/subject is prohibited - thus single purpose accounts (defined as users who appear to have a very brief editing history, or an apparent focus on one topic area) are expected to contribute neutrally to the project as a whole in line with its goals, rather than following any other agenda. In particular, single purpose accounts should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on a single topic area is not neutral, which "could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project"[4].
Please read through our code of conduct and be aware that editing behaviour incompatible with it (such as the actions & comments listed above at Talk:Men's rights or the deleted contribution at User talk:Jayhammers) may result in accounts being blocked--Cailil talk 18:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- In response to your question here. Please take a while to read our site's main policies and guidelines. But in short stop making posts that assume and/or state anything about other editors or otherwise casting aspersions about them, rather reflect on what source material is out there in the real world and our policies for inclusion of that material. Find relevant sources that come up to wikipedia's standards and engage with the other editors on that article's talk page in an effort to find what is due from those sources. Start there while trying to assume good faith of other editors--Cailil talk 02:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have begun doing so for the content of the current men's rights article, but that will do nothing to assist with the fact that the previous content, based on the original articles intent, has been permanently lost. Due to the change in definition of the article away from it's original intent, even if the original content can be properly sourced (the reasoning given for removing it), it is no longer applicable to the article as it has been redefined. This, combined with the fact that it can not likewise be copied to a new article and corrected, due to copywrite policies. Regardless of whether I can accept goodwill or not, that is 4 years of peoples work destroyed due to a conflict in interpretation and a poor application of policy. I realize that I allowed my frustration to get the better of me, and that I now need to play nice, but I hope you understand my concern and are able to offer me some way to address my legitimate grievance.--Kratch (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- No information on wikipedia is ever really "permanently lost", all information (unless it is illegally posted, or contains personal attacks or other offensive material) is saved in an article's history. This can be reviewed and copied into a user page. There it can be worked on and when it comes-up-to standard moved to a new article or added back to the one where it came from (here is a guide for doing all that WP:CWW).
However if even after being rewritten the information breaks one (or more) of the 3 fundamental rules of wikipedia article writing the neutral point of view policy, the policy on 'no original research', or this site's rules for verification (each of these rules have sub-clauses such as notes on avoiding synthesizing material, wikipedia's explanation of 'due weight', the fringe theory caveats, the explanation of reliable sourcing and a caution on not giving equal validity) it cannot be added and would have to be removed. Also if there is an undue delay in getting a userified page up to standard it may be deleted also.
The only copyright issue for wikipedia would be if material within the article was in copyright violation, if that were the case restoring that would get who ever did it into trouble. If that's the situation here that material can never be used and arguing about it is a cul de sac - material infringing copyright cannot be added and will be deleted that is a rule common to all websites and webhosts everywhere. Whether one likes that policy or not is irrelevant - it is not up for negotiation. Furthermore, wikipedia's greatest caveat for use is that it is an open source project if one can't handle the fact that their work will be constantly revised and rewritten (and maybe removed) one should not seek to be part of the project - things "change and change utterly" that is the terrible beauty of wikipedia.
One needs to realize that articles in this encyclopedia are written as part of that wider wikipedia project - they are not here for anything or anyone outside of it, coming here to change articles in order to promote a POV or advocate for anything other than wikipedia's goals is 100% incompatible with working on this project and is ultimately a waste of time for those who do it. Hence my notes above on single purpose accounts--Cailil talk 14:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- No information on wikipedia is ever really "permanently lost", all information (unless it is illegally posted, or contains personal attacks or other offensive material) is saved in an article's history. This can be reviewed and copied into a user page. There it can be worked on and when it comes-up-to standard moved to a new article or added back to the one where it came from (here is a guide for doing all that WP:CWW).
- I have begun doing so for the content of the current men's rights article, but that will do nothing to assist with the fact that the previous content, based on the original articles intent, has been permanently lost. Due to the change in definition of the article away from it's original intent, even if the original content can be properly sourced (the reasoning given for removing it), it is no longer applicable to the article as it has been redefined. This, combined with the fact that it can not likewise be copied to a new article and corrected, due to copywrite policies. Regardless of whether I can accept goodwill or not, that is 4 years of peoples work destroyed due to a conflict in interpretation and a poor application of policy. I realize that I allowed my frustration to get the better of me, and that I now need to play nice, but I hope you understand my concern and are able to offer me some way to address my legitimate grievance.--Kratch (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Dispute opened by Hermiod against Kgorman-ucb about men's rights
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Men's Rights". Thank you. --SarahStierch (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Notice of article probation on Men's rights
[edit] Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- KillerChihuahua?!? 02:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Your recent comment on Men's rights
[edit]Hi Kratch, I'm here because of a recent comment you made on Talk:Men's rights. There are two things I'd like to say to you regarding this post.
- I realize it must be incredibly frustrating to try to add content and have people tell you that it cannot be included due to policy. However logical and sensible the inclusion may be to you or me, the bottom line is that we're not a place for original research; we only publish what someone else has already published. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source for the most part. This often means that we're behind the curve in trends and topics; that's ok, we're supposed to be. New ideas, trends, and schools of thought don't have a lot of published sources which meet our guidelines, and that means that sometimes articles on such subjects are less robust than more established (whether older, larger, or more mainstream) trends, concepts and views. Please don't let that frustration prevent you from helping to contribute! Focus on content which can be adequately sourced, article structure, and wordsmithing (how sentences are composed and phrased.) Keep looking for good sources, and when you find one, bring it to the discussion for ways to best incorporate the information in the source to the article. If you are having trouble navigating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you might want to consider getting help from Adopt-a-user. If you have a question about whether a source meets standards, ask at the reliable sources noticeboard.
- In your comment, you have violated the terms of the Article probation, which includes failure to assume good faith. Its a really borderline violation, IMO, but I caution you, your words from "THAT's why I'm not jumping through your hoops..." forward were not about the article, or improving the article. You were addressing your comments to, and about, your fellow editors, and not in a friendly collegiate or complimentary way. Please be a little more careful with this kind of phrasing, and confine your comments to article content and policy and related issues. You might want to go back and strike those comments (using the <s> and </s> tags.) Let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's now been two weeks and nothing of substance has been added (or at least survived certain editors), despite the presumption that editors should be working collaboratively to improve an article. I do not see any improvements being made. Furthermore, despite the zeal certain editors have shown regarding the application of policy on some content (content that happens to speak of men being treated unequally), there remains other content (that which implies men are treated equally) that remains untouched, despite clearly not meeting the standards that have been ardently enforced. Content such as the first line of Social security and retirement [5], which is entirely unsourced, not to mention untrue [6]. The first two sections of reproductive rights [7], plus the first half of the fourth, reads more like a list of women's rights being overriden by men's, and furthermore, don't appear to have anything to do with "men's rights issues", the requirement used to remove a great deal of content as "SYNTH" up to this point. But I presume that, despite this obvious selectiveness on what is to be edited, as well as how strictly the selected content is held to policy, a result that is clearly in violation of NPOV Information Suppression [8], I will be expected to continue assuming good faith, and no action will be taken against these editors, because the only way they can be called on their violation is to no longer assume good faith, which then makes me the one violating probation? Convenient how that works.--Kratch (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Remember the old cliche, "You only get one chance to make a first impression?" Well when you can charging in on your white stallion, a crusader, sword in hand, well that is how you will be remembered. One little change that I suggest is that you post something, anything, on your user page. This will change your user name from red ink to blue ink, implying that at least you are not brand new here. Carptrash (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)