User talk:News4a2

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, News4a2, 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:

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! ~Richmond96 t • c 04:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

{{helpme}}How does Wiki deal with people who think they own a page and are the only ones entitled to enter information?News4a2 (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the specific situation. WP:OWN is the relevant policy, but can you explain what the issue is? You don't need to use {{helpme}} again, I have your talkpage on my watchlist now. // roux 07:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that page helps alot. Thank you!News4a2 (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. // roux 08:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomad2u001 can KMA

Nomad2u001 is a troll and has refused any legitimate discussion. The troll was the first to break the three revert rule because the troll obviously wants its own opinion and no balance. I'll stop when the troll stops deleting my SOURCED information. The troll's already been barred from editing previously because of its shenanigans.News4a2 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you remove that comment. Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. // roux 17:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack. I'm describing the actions of a troll who keeps deleting valid, sourced information I've placed in an article and who has refused to explain why or discuss the situation. I don't consider continuous, repetitious deletions of my contributions professional by any means, just troll-like behavior.News4a2 (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? Nomad2u001 was a troll, a sockpuppet with a lot of aliases who's now been indefinitely banned. diff.News4a2 (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Cease your edit warring, reverting without comment or discussion, and your personal attacks (above) immediately. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response, I'll refer you to [1]. I didn't start this war and I don't intend on backing down.

One more edit like this, combined with your stated intent (above) to continue with personal attacks, will get you blocked. Please try to contribute to this group project civilly. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're following me around, some kind of Wikipedia stalker because you don't like the information I placed on another page. Now, tell me, who's making this personal because it doesn't fit with your POV.News4a2 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, you'll have trouble identifying any kind of POV I'm trying to push with regard to these articles. My edits at Industrial espionage are all within policy and properly noted in edit summaries. Your revert is not. I suggest you pause and read more about our various policies and guidelines here before you get yourself blocked. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting other users isn't acceptable. Please read the policy on civility, go have a cup of tea, and calm down a bit. Please comment on content when in discussion on article talkpages, and not on contributors. Thanks. Everyone else, I suggest not continuing the interpersonal disputes here. Please discuss content on the article talkpage. Thanks. // roux 22:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

This is a courtesy notice that a thread has been started regarding you edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:News4a2. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physician assistant - vote

Your vote is requested here. Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Physician assistant. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

I am user Bstone. I have retired from this project. I have been on the wiki for near 4 years and the past 1.5 have been very frustrating. Specifically, there are a variety of editors who have obtained the status of "administrator". Some have taken this as a license to do and say what they want. This small number, who are rather vocal and regularly visit WP:AN/I, regularly employ vulgarity, personal attacks, ad hominem, hyperbole and are utterly lacking any tact. If they do not like you then your complaint- no matter how legitimate and utterly clear- will fall on deaf ears. They will turn it around and somehow blame you.

This is childish. It's disheartening. It's wrong for a project which is attempting to be the sum of all human knowledge.

I was recently outed by a long time editor, administrator and checkuser. He revealed my given name. Due to his stature and various positions he was able to get away with it with protection of other administrators. I was even told to "quit bitching" by one administrator. Any objective reading of the relevant policy can only lead to one conclusion- that my privacy was utterly violated. This form of administration drives away editors who are trying to do one thing- write an encyclopedia. However, this is not the only reason why I have decided to leave. The abusive, threatening and harassing behavior which some administrators get away with is horrifying. I used to collect diffs on this of hoping to convince someone- anyone- that these people should not be administrators. Again, this failed and their abuse continues. Even administrators who have long histories of vulgarity and personal attacks receive only "admonishments" from ArbCom. That's plain wrong.

I reserve the right to come back but likely will not. I may check this page once in a while but will likely forget it in due time.

So long,

Bstone (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC) News4a2 (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitive information

Please don't post the putative IP address of a (usually) signed-in editor without good reason. An IP address may identify a user's employer or school; publically linking the user account to the IP may discourage their participation and encourage harassment.

Do not reveal an editor's IP address – or what you may think is an editor's IP address – unless it has a direct bearing on the discussion at hand. (Examples of an appropriate mention might include cases where the user has logged out to make personal attacks, where the user regularly alternates between logged-out and logged-in editing and is involved in a dispute, or where a user has logged out to engage in edit warring or evade the 3RR.)

You will be blocked if you make further attempts to reveal a user's IP address without very good reason. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very possible that ZimZalaBim is another sockpuppet of the same person who was identified as Nomad2u001. He has WP:HOUNDed me on all the pages I've contributed to. So either he's got a thing for me (don't swing that way) or he's unhappy with getting his alterego blocked. When I see a comment from you folk taking him to task for trying to have me blocked for outing a sockpuppet, I'll take this seriously. News4a2 (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZimZalaBim is not a sockpuppet of anyone, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop rambling on about these extravagant conspiracy theories of yours. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I think it's very possible that ZimZalaBim is another sockpuppet of the same person who was identified as Nomad2u001" - You realise that ZZB is an admin, right? — neuro^(talk) 17:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Some animals are more equal than others." George Orwell, Animal FarmNews4a2 (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Regarding your tone at Talk:Physician assistant, please remember to be civil when discussing changes with other editors. Consensus does not require full and unanimous agreement; people will disagree, and we must work through disagreements in a civil manner in order to reach consensus. But the tone with which you begin your remarks here and here (and in other instances) are not helpful. Please try to keep this in mind going forward. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well I'm making the allegation they're WP:meatpuppets because they're certainly not trying to involve me in any consensus building. You know, you're really touchy and thin-skinned about claiming harm WP:BOOHOO ... but I've yet to hear any apology from you for harassing me about calling Nomad2u001 a troll ... because he was a troll and has been banned. You supported a troll over an earnest user. Then again, I'm not expecting much from a WP:HOUND. News4a2 (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were invited to participate in a vote here, and there is nothing keeping you from (constructively) participating in discussion on the relevant talk pages. Accusations of meat and sockpuppetry are not to be made lightly, and I suggest you reconsider the ease at which you throw them around (including accusing me of being a puppet above - have you even looked to see how long I've been editing here?). Regarding Nomad2u001, calling someone a troll is a personal attack, whether or not it turns out to be true. (You had other attacks on other editors as well.) A final piece of advice: when an editor makes a good faith effort to provide some guidance regarding how you are apporaching this collaborative project, perhaps just take the advice, rather than defacing other's comments. Please try to participate constructively in this project. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{tnull}adminhelp}} I would like for an uninvolved admin to chat with News4a2 regarding civility, personal attacks and accusations of sock and meatpuppetry. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility: Perspective from an uninvolved admin

News4a2, Per the request above, I've spent some time going over your edits and interactions here. I have the following advice for you:

Being "right" is insufficient to be productive at Wikipedia. Collaboration is essential, and if you tick off all the other people working on an article, you're likely to be unsuccessful in getting any desired changes made, even if they're correct. It's not an encyclopedia-enhancing result, but it's an outcome I've seen multiple times. By all means, do be right... but also be nice about it. My tactics for being successful on Wikipedia are:

Understand the core policies, especially WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS (technically, RS is a guideline, but you'll get along much better if you treat it like policy.
Never let anyone know you think they're an idiot. This is my take on WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. If anything, be a hair more nice than reasonable.
Never edit when mad.

Feel free to drop me a note and use me as a mediator for a dispute or a Wikipedia coach, as needed. This place is easy to get lost in and it seems clear that you're going to be a good contributor if you can master the social environment here. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this insight. I do. However, I spent more than 10 years as an editor and reporter for newspapers and wire services, including The Associated Press and United Press International. Occasionally, the truth makes people angry. Surprise! Publishing their lies made them happy. But truth is truth, and I'm not about to suck up to some editor (who in fact, with Wikipedia's anonymity protections and ability to create myriad handles, might be a zit-faced 10-year-old in BFE with no life and ZERO credibility) and tell them they're right when they're obviously wrong. If Wikipedia can be built on lies by astroturfing some kind of artificial grassroots support, it has no future as an encyclopedia ... but as some kind of compilation of Chamber of Commerce press releases. A free press survives because it allows everyone to have a voice, dissenting voices included, not just those with the largest email list, admin contact list and a knowledge of how to work the system. The free press doesn't exist on the "It's my sandbox. Play trucks my way or leave." mentality. News4a2 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that yields some perspective on your frustration. At the same time Wikipedia conceals identities and IP addresses so people can work without fear of reprisal, it creates both an opportunity for mischief--sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry and the like. It also creates a situation where people's respect quotient is based more on their longevity, civility, and ability to argue in Wikipedia policies and terms. Thus, a person with your amount of history and experience is artificially deprived of an appropriate amount of weight. You're right--it's a fundamental flaw in the nature of Wikipedia which has been noted repeatedly. The low barrier to entry makes Wikipedia the most popular such place, but it also fundamentally prevents it from becoming more than what it is now. It's the same dynamics that make the web so useful and sucky at the same time. :-S Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm going to log on to Wikipedia here and I am going to change it ... You see, any user can change any entry, and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true!" [2] News4a2 (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding by ZimZalaBim

If you're an uninvolved admin, then can I see a comment from someone, ANYONE, regarding Zimzalabim's WP:HOUNDing of me and his continuous efforts to protect the good name of trolls. He's never made a comment on Physician Assistant until 22 December [diff], which incidentally is the same day he just happened to stumble on and try to delete contributions I made on Industrial Espionage [diff]. I allege he was called in, and that is the classic definition of meatpuppetry. If I followed him around and reverted his edits he'd be the first to howl injury. There's just too much serendipity and happenstance going on for that to be mere coincidence, especially considering his comment above: "Regarding Nomad2u001, calling someone a troll is a personal attack, whether or not it turns out to be true." What??!!! Just because he's been editing on here awhile doesn't prevent him from being a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet. It just means he's had more time to develop allegiances for meatpuppetry and handles for sockpuppetry.News4a2 (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk. Rather unfortunate that that's your response. I'd recommend two options: ditch the victim mentality, or just leave now. You may be right, but whining about someone else as a response to my helpful advice is discourteous behaviour. Again, being right is not as important as being cooperative. Jclemens (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}}I just want to see _any_ editor with enough courage to say the emperor has no clothes and ZimZalaBim WP:HOUNDed me. I've followed protocol. I've cited the diffs. It's Wikipedia's policy and I want a ruling. I've seen nothing but admin editors chastise me while ZZB gets off with no comment. Now you're accusing me of playing some kind of victim. Chastise me if you wish, but chastise him as well ... unless, of course, some animals are more equal than others.News4a2 (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've been watching Physician assistant for quite some time. If you cared to look, you'll see I've been involved in that page as far back as May 2008. Your first contribution was 6 months later, and other that inserting a (problematic) link at Industrial espionage, you have done little else to help contribute to this encyclopedia. Since you seem adamant at getting this addressed, I've asked other editors to review my edits. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZimZalaBim isn't hounding you. The way to get your changes to stick is to convince people on the talk page that you're right. And don't cite your blog. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see by your talk page that ZimZalaBim contacted you as well diff. Another buddy of ZZB's? Tsk, tsk. Let's try some honesty and ethical behavior people. You're admin, supposed to be impartial, not WP:meatpuppets for ZimZalaBim. News4a2 (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for further admin attention

I have attended thanks to your request for further admin attention. Having reviewed your complaint, your actions and in particular your incivil edit summary when disruptively reverting Industrial espionage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to a version containing a citation to your own blog (in defiance of WP:RS and WP:COI), I have blocked you for 24 hours. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see by your talk page it's actually a request by my favorite WP:Hound and admin WP:meatpuppet collector ZimZalaBim diff. So I appreciate the implication of impartiality but let's all try to be honest, okay? News4a2 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January, 2009

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. As in your immediately prior two edits to this talk page. If you can't accept that people are trying to help you, then you're never going to be successful here; I strongly suggest changing your outlook. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I _do_ assume good faith. I can also read and follow tracks. ZZB has tried on not less than 12 occasions to have me blocked, contacting his admin buddies to achieve that block when others declined. If you want cites, let me know. I don't consider this impartial or ethical. As you are not the subject of his attempts, you do not have the same insight _I_ do. Anybody else tries to corral people they know to achieve a personal goal, it's called WP:Meatpuppetry. But if you're admin, and your handle is ZimZalaBim, the rules that are supposed to apply to everyone, do not apply. He obviously knows how to work the system. And if the system can be worked, it's flawed. Now, if you're like ZimZalaBim, you'll now try to have me blocked for having an opinion on my own talk page. News4a2 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::More diffZimZalaBim and diff WhatamIdoing wp:meatpuppetry examples. Now tell me they're not buddies emailing each other and supporting each other.

They're not buddies emailing each other. They're experienced editors who understand Wikipedia's procedures on sourcing and have WP:RS on their watchlist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do _you_ know that for sure? Is there a category for WP:Cahoots? News4a2 (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is WP:TINC. I hope it's helpful, but conspiracy theories are by nature impossible to falsify. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Hello. Please cease your persistent insertion of a {{cn}} tag, and your uncivil edit summaries, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Numerous editors have pointed out that citations aren't necessary in policy pages. If you have a concern about the wording of the policy, discuss on the relevant thread on the talk page. Build consensus, don't edit war. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]