User talk:Linepainter

This user tries to work harmoniously with others.

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of JaimeB64 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Linepainter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Linepainter (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You'll need to request unblock from your original account. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have a question? Are you willing to answer it intelligently if you are able or will you abuse me as you have my life partner? Are you calling me his puppet or is a sockpuppet something else?

Perhaps the sockpuppet is a device that you use for personal enjoyment?

Jaime and I are filing complaints as we speak with friends and colleagues as to the abusive manner in which you and your cohorts have handled this matter, in fact not only are we not issuing any donations in the future but we have also been encouraging our colleagues to cease to do so as well.

One of my personal friends sits on the staff of the Vancouver International Airport and once the holidays have passed we have discussed possibly contacting Google and asking them if they would like to promote their wiki at a reduced cost with the carrier and with our media relations. This is just one of our contacts and Jaime has discussed speaking to his contacts at the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) about the situation because we both feel as do others in our social circles that Jaime's contribution to the success of the Raccoons was notable. It may not have historic importance or cultural importance to you, however the Raccoons television show was a huge hit in Canada and in fact in the years that Jaime worked with his colleague and fellow alumni Kevin Gillis (both attended Opeongo High School) they won many awards including a Gemini which is equivalent to a Canadian version of an Emmy.

I encourage you to open dialogue with people rather than goat them and incite them with your accusations and your holy that thou attitudes.

I myself will be writing a letter to the Wiki Foundation and encourage them to have a proper section of the wiki with a non biased panel to lodge complaints and remove abusive admins from their positions. Ganging up on someone, "vandalizing" their Talk page and then accusing the person of abuse is hypocritical. Perhaps you should all be placing similar bans upon yourselves and take the same punishment. I agree that you are not worthy of respect if you are not willing to be respectable.

You are suggesting that a large body of guidelines developed by consensus through discussions engaged in by many interested people over a period of years be overturned because you disagree with it. Do you think that's realistic? Are you suggesting that the rules are fine except that they should make an exception for someone named Jaime Buelow? Or are you suggesting that Wikipedia would be more valuable as a serious reference work if everybody who is pleased with his own accomplishments were permitted to post vanity articles about himself?

I'd like to ask you: Have you read any of these guidelines? We've given you a lot of links to follow so you can see that those of us with whom you two have been dealing directly are not making these things up just to give you personally a hard time. I ask because, for example, you seem not to have bothered looking up what the term "sockpuppet" means here. I also ask because you seem convinced that if and when you speak to the Wiki board, they're going to be appalled by our behavior. In fact, we're following the prescribed procedures exactly as intended, and you'd know that if you'd looked at them yourself.

Speaking of the sockpuppet thing: Not knowing what the term denotes, you proceeded to make smarmy, sexual comments about it. Your life partner began cursing and insulting and threatening people very early on in this little drama. Yet the two of you then plead that you're the ones being abused. I think most people, including all these people you say you're consulting with, would be shocked by the idea that not having an article about you on Wikipedia is a form of abuse.

I already explained to Jaime that WP:Notability is not inherited. It doesn't matter how well known the Raccoons show is: Wikipedia does not draw its own conclusion from that, that people with significant involvement in it are themselves inherently notable. Instead, Wikipedia waits to see whether others have drawn that conclusion. The theory is if those people are notable as a result, it would be reflected via non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. In the absence of such coverage, complaining about Jaime not being judged notable by Wikipedia's criteria amounts to complaining that other sources haven't written about him. What do you think would happen if Jaime were to walk into the lobby of Maclean's demanding that they write an article about him? What do you think would happen if his response to being told, "No, thank you" resembled his response to being told that here?

A Gemini award could make all the difference—if there was evidence that Jaime had won one. I can find no such evidence, unfortunately. Google returns no hits for "gemini awards" "jaime buelow". But I didn't stop there. I went to the comprehensive award search database on the Academy website. I didn't limit the search to winners only, and I chose to search all awards rather than just the Geminis. I searched for Jaime Buelow. Then I searched for Jaime and then I searched for Buelow. No matches. To make sure that the search tool wasn't broken, I ran a search for John, and it returned hundreds of listings. Please try it yourself and let us know if you get a different result. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that you "vandalized" his articles and his talk page before he did any of that and I believe in the freedom of speech. If he chooses to curse at you then perhaps it was because of the lack of respect you have demonstrated to him and to others and trust me we have documented cases of you doing the same to others.

1988 Won Gemini Best Animated Program or Series (The Raccoons) Kevin Gillis Sheldon S. Wiseman

Ah. Kevin Gillis. Yes, he's in the database. Nominated for nine awards, won one. So ... there is an article about Kevin Gillis, and that's just fine.

What you are calling "vandalism" is ordinary maintenance in conformance with published Wikipedia guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you bringing up freedom of speech now? As I already pointed out to Jaime, freedom of speech is a freedom from government restraint on what you can say in your private life and in public. It doesn't mean that you have free access to everyone else's forums.

Jaime didn't answer this question. Maybe you will. Do you think you have the right to stand up in a movie theatre in the middle of a film and start delivering a political speech?

You are using a private website. By using it, you agree that the website's rules will apply to your activity here. If you don't agree with that restriction, then you are free not to use the website. That's how it works on almost every website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as stated before this is not your forum either it belongs to the wiki foundation and the people...therefore jaime and myself have as much a right as you do to do as we see fit for the good of wiki and it's readers not some power abusive mods and/or admins. I have found many articles even this one where YOU are dictating what is notable upon your OWN interpretations of who and what is NOTABLE. The fact remains that Jaime is a part of a collaborative effort in an artistic field and there are a couple interviews with him but until such time as I can visit ontario and seek out those publications then we are at an impasse because you are too stubborn to admit that he does qualify under wiki's criteria

Your logic is badly flawed. Ownership by the Foundation does not confer on you the right to use this site in violation of it's own guidelines. 69.181.253.230 (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know whose forum it is. I am functioning according to their rules. You and Jaime "doing as we see fit" are not. The article was not. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No you are making personal attacks, you call my logic flawed and yet your decisions are based on zero knowledge of the subject matter. You have made this a personal matter and have encouraged the continual debasing of my partner's information and continue to insult people. You have ignored credible facts and sources simply because you PERSONALLY do not agree on the subject matter.

Fact 1: Jaime listed information on Opeongo's wiki entry. 2 of which still remain. Melissa Bishop and Cliff Saunders. Fact 2: Jaime added 2 other alumni himself and a fellow student who worked on the movie 300. Fact 3: I personally corrected the entry regarding Cliff Saunders because the person listed in the link is not the same Cliff Saunders. Fact 4: All of the people that were added to the page because of the importance to Canadian culture and significance. Trust me there are many people in the WIKI that you deem notable that the rest of the world do not. All the people that "vandalized" these entries were not Canadian and have no knowledge of the subject matter. Fact 5: The sources cited are credible and valid whether you decide to believe so or not. Fact 6: Initially these editors/admins were asked to specify specifically why this article was invalid and yet it is your interpretation of notability not the one we read on the criteria. Fact 7: The term "sockpuppet" regardless of definition is derogatory in nature and wiki should be ashamed of using such a term. Alias is a good word so why not use this instead of something so sinister sounding. Fact 8. The only real "vandalism" has been done my spiteful wiki volunteers with chips on their shoulders and zero first hand knowledge of the subject material. Fact 9. Wiki was based on the exchange of information that others may find educational or informative and this is informative. Fact 10. You will not stop people from correcting your flawed information and this article is one that will be a pet project to see that it is included. Never underestimate the power of a woman that you have made personal attacks on.

This is the first of many articles to follow so you may want to keep abreast. He has been kind in this one. http://jbuelowblog.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/is-there-a-viable-solution-to-wikipedia/

Response to "Fact 4": If someone is included in Wikipedia based on the existence of abundant, independent reliable sources covering the person in depth, then it is inherently false that "the rest of the world" does not consider him notable. Therefore, I will decline to "trust you" on this point.

Response to "Fact 5": I don't know what anyone else has said in this regard, but I don't think I said at any point that I believed anything you or Jaime wrote to be untrue. Accordingly, there is no point to this remark.

Response to "Fact 6": What's the location of the criterion or criteria you found under which the article written about Jaime would qualify? If you can provide that location, well, that's what would have been effective if you or he had cited it to begin with instead of jumping right into rage and contempt.

Response to "Fact 7": A person to whom the term "sockpuppet" is applied is a person who has intentionally engaged in subterfuge in an attempt to get around Wikipedia's rules and perpetuate misbehavior. In other words, a person who has been acting in a sinister manner.

Response to "Fact 8": You haven't said any specific thing about Wikipedia's criteria for notability that indicates to me that you have read and familiarized yourself with them. If you had, you would know that the actions taken were proper practice and you would stop calling them vandalism. Knowledge of the subject matter is irrelevant—which is in large part a justification for the notability guidelines being what they are. Because the assessment of a person's notability is based predominately on coverage in independent reliable sources, we get to rely on the knowledge and judgment of people who are familiar with the subject matter. So I don't have to be Canadian, and I don't have to have ever heard of the Raccoons show. I just need to observe a lack of evidence of coverage of Jaime even by Canadians who know the Raccoons.

Response to "Fact 9": Incorrect statement. Wikipedia is expressly not for many kinds of information. See the article, for example, on WP:What Wikipedia is not.

Response to "Fact 10": When has any of this discussion dealt with flawed information being corrected? As for "the power of a woman" etc.: Really? Are you serious?

—Largo Plazo (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My partner has also sent an arbitration request to this person listed below because we believe that you lot are simply a lynch mob with no desire to be constructive or a positive influence in the Wiki community. I find you insulting and Josh Gordon, your comment that I should reply under my own account is a clear example of your stubborn behavior. I created the other acct on my cellular and have decided to reply to your silly accusations and your bashing on the home computer. Do you have issue with that?

AGK (Anthony): wikiagk@gmail.com

I see you are busy ticking off more than just Canadians, Mark

http://www.change.org/petitions/jimmy-wales-and-wikimedia-foundation-remove-mark-arsten-s-admin-rights-on-wikipedia-mark-arsten-deletes-all-pages-that-glorify-islam-and-muslims-and-any-facts-written-against-zionism

Did you check the history behind the deletions? Do you understand how deletion discussions work on Wikipedia? Mark had no part in the nomination for deletion or the discussion. He merely followed through on the consensus reached by those who did participate. And then you accuse him of deleting "all" articles of such-and-such type—and then you only had two examples to give? I'm not a lawyer, but I think you might want to consult with one to make sure you haven't stepped into defamation territory with that petition. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm really??...I am neither the author or had any prior knowledge of said article until I googled the information using his name and much more exists if someone is willing to look.

Further investigations shows that Mark's nomination page for an admin had to be protected due to a high volume of vandalism. Seems that there might be a history here? Mark perhaps you need to evaluate the reasons why you and your cohorts are being vandalized and stop your personal vendettas against others. http://ency.cl/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mark_Arsten

Instead of reading it on a mirror website and trafficking in innuendo, why don't you just look at the nomination here on Wikipedia and check the history? It appears that a single person operating under three user names and then switching to an IP address kept vandalizing the page. People do come here and vandalize pages. Even if it was a person who had a beef against Mark, well, it was probably a vandal who was mad over having been blocked for vandalism. This is hardly an indictment of Mark. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well give up, Largo. As was noted earlier, logic is not strong in this one. 69.181.253.230 (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the insults rather than any basis in facts. Just more evidence of your troll like behavior described by my partner.

She's right, 69.181.253.230, that isn't cool. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. (IMDB whether you acknowledge it or not is a credible source)(CBC has records as well but are not online so that will have to be resourced manually. We are still awaiting that confirmation.) (http://www.fanpix.net/credits/0701372/the-railway-dragon-cast-and-crew.html) (http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon_characters/59432-Bully_For_You.html) (http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon_characters/59433-Catered_Affair.html) (http://people.famouswhy.ca/jaime_buelow/directory.html) (http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_655732/the-nutcracker-prince/crew) (https://myspace.com/jaimeonline/video/blue-toes-the-christmas-elf/48902216, link to the actual production Of Blue Toes)

"IMDB whether you acknowledge it or not is a credible source". You're ignoring the "significant" part. IMDb routinely, disinterestedly lists everyone in the credits of every production. Inclusion of someone involved in a TV program on IMDb is like inclusion of someone with a landline phone in the phone book. It's virtually automatic, not a product of someone having taken note. An artist whose works are included in a local art show is not notable because he is listed in the event's directory of participants. Workshop panelists at a convention aren't notable because they are listed in the convention program. (IMDb is generally OK for purposes of the requirement of verifiability of someone's involvement in a production [but the bios can't be used for verifiability because they are produced by random users]. As I told you previously, the concern hasn't been verifiability it's been notability. The same will be true of any CBC listing.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground Policy shortcuts:

   WP:BATTLEGROUND
   WP:NOTBATTLE
   WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
   WP:NOTFACTIONS
   WP:BATTLE

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning and Wikipedia:Edit warring

Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making changes to content or policies, and do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.

In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions. Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree. Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction with the main goal of disrupting Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints.

That would have been good advice for you and Jaime from the onset. Note especially the part about "consensus". That's the part that you have previously referred to as "ganging up on" you. In Wikipedia terms, the consensus was against you. You and Jaime have refused to accept it, and have been battling to get what you want despite the consensus. Grudges? Might we say that someone who doesn't let his dealings end here but goes on to blog about them and to post a seemingly defamatory online petition against one of the administrators is nursing a grudge? —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Largo my partner is right about you...you are a confrontational idiot and the only consensus that matters is what the Wiki review board will do with you and your cohorts for your inept handling of this matter. Not only are you intentionally obtuse you fail to state any facts properly. The petition was not started by Jaime or myself it was simply unearthed when investigating the history of your little lynch mob.

Ah, my mistake. I read too quickly through your presentation of the petition and through the petition itself. Sorry about that—even if your response was to make a false accusation about my intentions and to generalize my mistake to a failure to "state any facts properly". —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you actually believe that your attacks and confrontations, your snide remarks and deletions are constructive or cooperative in any fashion? "Editors in large disputes should work in good faith to find broad principles of agreement between different viewpoints." you have done none of that. And I find you calling people sock puppets and in my case a MEAT PUPPET objectionable and degrading not just as a woman but as a person. I will be working with people and with the Wiki Foundation hopefully to not only have that term removed but to have the people in this discussion apologize for its use. Remember back in the day the n word was considered acceptable and it is clear that this term is not meant to uplift or honor anyone it is there as a method of devaluing the person to a thing rather than as an individual that merely has an opinion other than your own. I request that you cease and desist in the use of in the future.

The issue wasn't different viewpoints, it was about Jaime disagreeing with Wikipedia's guidelines. Your comparison of an unflattering term for someone deemed to have engaged in underhanded behavior to a racial slur is tragic. But, then, Jaime seems to think that Wikipedia's notability provisions are comparable to Nazism, the theory being that the problem with Nazis was their tendency to "dictate what they decided was NOTABLE for their citizens". Both analogies are quite a stretch. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off I was trying to demonstrate how a term such as the n word was at one time deemed acceptable much like your term meat puppet or sock puppet which is again a derogatory term. Your failure to see that is one of the reasons that it takes so long for words of hatred and degradation to be stricken from our language. As to the Nazi references, the Nazi controlled both print material and radio only allowing it's citizens to read or hear what they deemed worthy for the public to see. I can see the similarities in your censorship as well. If any thing you should learn from History. It didn't work out so well for the Nazis and I doubt it will for you. In fact the lack of information shared was one of the reasons that the attack on Pearl Harbor ended in such a brutal attack when the executive offices of both the USA and Britain had advanced knowledge of Japanese fleets headed toward targets of either Midway or Hawaii.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Linepainter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet or a meat puppet or a puppet in any manner, shape or form. I am a free thinking individual with enough intelligence to see a concerted attack on the positive growth of Wiki and the lynching of an individual just because he started an article that pertained to himself. The only reason her did so and I assisted him is because while correcting and adding to the information to his school he added individuals to the notable alumni that others that attended that school and in the community would deem notable. His unpardonable sin seems to be that he created an article on himself because that is where the attacks on him started. We will reiterate that notability by the wiki definition qualifies him by our definition and it is your definition that you seem hell bent on using rather than recognize that locally this person is considered notable

Decline reason:

You have had the situation explained to you again and yet again, above. At best, you have responded with the equivalent of a small child sticking their fingers in their ears and singing, "La la la, I can't hear you." Many of your responses have been noticeably less polite than that. Since you appear determined to ignore Wikipedia's policies and rule, you are not allowed to edit here. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You call me childish and yet you resort to insults constantly and it is getting more and more apparent that you cannot carry a decent intellectual conversation. You remind the staff of Cartman doing his screw you guys it's my ball I'm going home mentality.

Regarding "constantly" and "more and more": I don't think you've encountered this person before. Till now he hasn't posted on your talk page or Jaime's. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You is used a general term for your little lynch mob.

Regarding your comment that "it is your definition that you seem hell bent on using rather than recognize that locally this person is considered notable": Yes, Wikipedia editors and administrators go by Wikipedia's definitions. That's why Wikipedia has definitions: to have a uniform set of them to cover everyone. It's really puzzling that you consider this to be an outrage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you have been cited several articles where Jaime appears and the Gemini award was given as a collaborative work of which he is a part of...you just refuse to accept that as notable when it clearly meets the criteria given by Wiki.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Linepainter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Again I will continue to ask for an unblock until such time as a proper member of the Wiki shows up and has a chance to review ALL the material other than just a group of losers who do little more than personal attack so you can see why you get personal attacked back

Decline reason:

If you've spoken to the arbitration committee about this, then they can deal with it. I'm revoking your talk page access too. [stwalkerster|talk] 23:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user tries to work harmoniously with others. (could have fooled me) This user is a Wikipedia Online Ambassador. (again good example for wiki and your country...if you are an ambassador representing the best your people have to offer I would find someone else to do business with)

A note

Please be aware that the people who block accounts and accept or reject unblock requests are Wikipedia administrators. I'm not sure what sort of 'proper member of the Wiki' you are waiting for, but I'll leave your request open in case one does come along. Peridon (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A proper member of Wiki personnel meaning either the arbitrator we have requested to review this situation or an actual member of the Wiki Foundation. Certainly not another person just covering the butts of other abusive volunteers. Just like the police should not be policing themselves there is no objectivity in what has transpired with this attack on my partner.

Please sign talk page posts with ~~~~ - it makes it easier to see who said what and when. I don't think the Foundation intervenes in matters like this. All the Wikipedias (different languages) have different rules, although a lot of things are similar - mainly because some things work and others don't. Rules are mainly made by the communities, as are the appointments of admins, bureaucrats, arbitrators and stewards. Foundation people handle legal matters, operating system matters and so on. There is a handful of paid people, and when they edit for the Federation they have (WMF) after their names. They often edit as volunteers too, under other declared names. All the rest of us are volunteers. I'm too tired to look into the background of this matter, but I will just point out two things possibly worth looking at that may not be official policy (can't remember...) but which affect things a lot. One is WP:TLDR, and the other is WP:DUCK. I'm off to bed now. I hope you get things sorted out. Peridon (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]