User talk:ObiterDicta/Archive 2

216.154.134.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
WikiDoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WikiRoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WikiWoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GST2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brampton 2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WikiRoo

A couple of comments: 1) Copyright does not have to be asserted -- putting something in the public domain does. There is no statement on the website the material is lifted from that it has been placed in the public domain so we have to assume that it isn't until told otherwise by the creator of the material or their assignee. 2) I disagree about asserting notability, although this could be debated. Providing someone's title isn't a statement of notability. Even CEOs aren't universally assumed to be notable under Wikipedia guidelines, let alone people under that level, which is the case in the two instances I've flagged. --Gary Will 20:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's copyright law does not place government publications in the public domain. And publications of municipal governments are even trickier, since municipalities are creations of provincial government and we'd have to talk to a lawyer to know how government copyright rules apply to them. See Crown copyright#In Canada. --Gary Will 20:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo-Doo-Roo

Oh great. Thanks for the heads-up. I see his first acts under his new account were to edit four pages with "Please do not edit this page for the moment" notices on them and to remove another notice that said "this notice must not be removed." And those are probably the least aggravating edits he's ever made. Just have to hope for the best. --Gary Will 23:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common guy's give me a break. I'm trying to do good work. Don't gang up on me againWikiWoo 03:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo

I see you've dealt with WikiWoo lately, so I was wondering if you could check out his ridiculous edits to Susan Fennell (which remain due to my reverting three times already) and its talk page and try to pound it into WikiWoo's head what original research is and how to cite an actual source. (He's citing Google search results as references for his edits!) Oz Lawyer 01:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh. This is getting annoying. I think I have a solution, though. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING

I noticed your BAD revert on City Managers. The revert noted a request for a cite. To avoid agravating editors, simply ask for a cite like this ^{[citation needed]} to avoid being against Wiki policy for CENSORSHIP. I have corrected your erronious revert and added the cite you requested. My responding to your censoring revert was not a revert, but it was me responding to your request for a cite. Since it was correction of a censorship in BAD way you went about asking for a cite. Again the proper method is to requste a cite [citation needed] ^{[citation needed]} rather than deleting content arbitrarily for no reason and blatantly saying that you deleted somethign due to no cite. Other people are editing too and your should behave CIVILY and avoid offending people that are volunteering their time and effort to expand wiki.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility? Pot, meet kettle. I fail to see how an edit with a polite explanation of the reason therefore is not civil. Deleting content that is irrelevant to the article in question is not censorship and not against WP policy, it's good editing. Per WP:RS, an editor can delete unsourced content. If you would simply start researching before writing your articles, more of your content would stick. You should invest the time to research, as you would save everyone (including yourself) much aggrevation. I don't delete material that complies with WP policy. JChap T/E 22:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I don't delete material that complies with WP policy...(according to your own POV/interpretations)Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 22:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained on the talk page/in the edit summaries. If you would try to defend your choices based on WP policy rather than just calling everyone who disagrees with your edits a censoring vandal, you would be less frustrated. JChap T/E 22:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know I am ready, willing and able to defend my contributions. That's why I get upset when reverts are done that avoids discussion that allows people to defend their contributions. Treating me like some kid vandalizing articles is insulting to say the least. I am sure that the idea of reverts and other processed was not ment as a means to censor information since Wiki does have a policy against censorship. Legitimate edits should bear in mind that their adherence to form should not overide the interest of not censoring information.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 23:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explain my reverts either in edit summaries or on talk pages. I have tried to engage you in discussions about policy and your typical reply is that I am a "CENSORINGVANDALGESTAPOGANGSTER." You do not justify your edits on the basis of WP policy. People have been banned for exhausting the community's patience by engaging in your pattern of behavior. You are making a lot of unnecessary enemies here. I have no connection with or love of the Peel government, I just want articles on WP to be well-sourced, verifiable and nPOV. If you would produce edits that comply with these policies I would be happy, as I would not have to delete them. When your edits meet WP standards I have no problem keeping them. JChap T/E 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is OK to jump in here as I am new and still learning myself. The key to this discussion seems to be in Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors."

Wikipedia:Verifiability also states:

"Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to ... tag the sentence by adding the ^{[citation needed]} template.

Perhaps it would be more harmonious in many cases to add the ^{[citation needed]} template to a sentence with a section in Talk to discuss it.

Hope this helps.—Who123 00:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good advice Who123. This is what I wwas generally saying only I was a bit upset after the last several dozen different edits I made got reverted this way and I had to fish it back out of the history to add the cites. There are also things that are just reported as facts. Facts are not like opinions or stories and can bee simply picked out of articles. As in the Caledon example the fact that there is on representative for every 5000 is a verifiable mathematical calculation from the ealier part of the same piece. Plain facts like that don't need to go further than the article itself.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 00:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the only problem is sourcing, I do tag it that way (as you know). If sourcing were the only problem .... JChap T/E 02:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the details so I cannot comment on specifics. I also draw attention to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. It is difficult when new to WP (as I am finding out). It seems that more experienced users should give newcomers a bit of a break, take them under their wing, and help them to learn the system. Point out the problems with the article and what needs to be done to make it compliant with WP policies. I think most of us want to make WP better in a harmonious fashion. It is a chance to work on not just the articles but our relationships with each other. I am not a saint and am trying to learn both myself. Again, just trying to help out. Let me know if I am butting in where not wanted.—Who123 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are definetly wanted. Like a breath of fresh air. Some people tend to forget what Wiki is all about...expanding knowledge and categorizing information so people can know and see how things work. It's not the place for POV indivuals have or want others to have. It's nice to be intersting and factual without the BS media is paid to advance. Since Wiki is free and by volunteers more information can be referenced and catalogued without fear of cesorship that political and economic considerations create.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking sides here. I am just trying to help out as a fairly new user with similar difficulties. Is the article Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario? In looking at it, from my tiny experience here, the introduction is far too long. The rest of the material is very poorly cited. There are sources but I do not know if they support everything in the article. It is not easy properly sourcing and citing an article particularly when one is learning the policies of WP and how to implement them. This might be a useful template to put on your user page to help you out: .

—Who123 04:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo has been here longer than I have, as WikiDoo (talk · contribs), WikiRoo (talk · contribs) and an anonymous IP. He's convinced that I (and half the other editors at WP) are agents of the Peel, Ontario regional government. JChap T/E 16:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo

I was wondering the same thing. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: anybody who touches his work is a vandal; the local media all spits out propoganda; adding his stuff at the top of the article, even though that clearly isn't the place for it. Yep, that's our Woo. JChap2007 21:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure a checkuser would be granted yet. Perhaps a little longer to see the similarities. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - See User:Osgoodelawyer/WikiWoo for collection of evidence. Feel free to document any similarities there. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== 3RR violation ==

3RR violation

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Your edits on Brampton, Ontario violated 3RR. Also, putting a link as its own section at the top of the article is poor writing (which is why several editors have changed it). Please stop. JChap2007 00:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You put this on my talk page. I don't think I have reverted anyones page. Please explain your warning.Brampton 2006 02:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page, explaining and providing diffs. For future reference, those diffs are here:

JChap2007 02:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Vandalized my talk page with false accusations

Your posted "You reverted three times in twenty-four hours on the Brampton, Ontario article. See:"

Something is wrong with your links... Your point #1 is at 23:10 on the 27th... Your Point #2 is the same as your point #1.... Your point #3 is 2:09 28th... Your point #4 is 23:56 28th. You have made a created a false accusation of 3RR and you have vandalized my talk page with it.Brampton 2006 04:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. The second link should have been the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brampton%2C_Ontario&diff=84159535&oldid=84147136 , which you did at 1:41 on the 28th. So, to be more specific, take the version in the first diff as the baseline version. You reverted back to that diff three times in 24 hours: 1:41, 2:09 and 23:56. I hope that clarifies things for you. JChap2007 14:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brampton is currently going through Election Campains till Nov 13

The Article is intended to be on-going edits as the campaining progresses. The City of Brampton Article should have a clear and prominent link to the on-going article that is ment to inform voters of the political campains of the various candidates. Your hiding the link in a foot note goes against the intended purpose of the Article. After November 13, the article can be rendered a footnote in the Article but by all legitimate counts it should be at the top where everyone can find it who is interested in Brampton and the history in the making day by day with the current election activities. Your edits are not in keeping with the intent of the Article and should be seen as undermining the political process of making and keeping the public informed.Brampton 2006 04:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm a threat to the democratic political process in Brampton, eh? Maybe Bush should invade my apartment. JChap2007 15:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== 3RR violation ==

3RR violation

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Your edits on Brampton, Ontario violated 3RR. Also, putting a link as its own section at the top of the article is poor writing (which is why several editors have changed it). Please stop. JChap2007 00:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. I have done nothing wrong. Other have reverted my work after hours of cotributions. Please explain yourself.Brampton 2006 02:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted three times in twenty-four hours on the Brampton, Ontario article. See:

[5]
~~[6]~~[7]
[8]
[9]

Please read WP:3RR. JChap2007 02:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong with your links... Your point #1 is at 23:10 on the 27th... Your Point #2 is the same as your point #1.... Your point #3 is 2:09 28th... Your point #4 is 23:56 28th. You have made a created a false accusation of 3RR and you have vandalized my talk page with it.Brampton 2006 04:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. The second link should have been the following: [10] , which you made at 1:41 on the 28th. So, to be more specific, take the version in the first diff as the baseline version. You reverted back to that version three times in 24 hours: 1:41, 2:09 and 23:56. I hope that clarifies things for you.

The allegations of vandalism and attempts to hide information from the public that you made on my talk page remind me of a certain former editor here .... JChap2007 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your are grapling at straws and twisting events. Some of those are deletions that had been reverted and others are information moves that were changed back. I see from your user page that you are a lawyer. This is basic fabrication of evidence by misrepresentation facts.Brampton 2006 15:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have changed your earlier warning but contine making similar unsubstatiatted claim using missrepresentation. Please Stop vandalising my talk page and clean-up the mess you have left by improperly attacking me and my work here.Brampton 2006 15:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding both your above messages: reverting for the reasons you described is considered a revert for purposes of the three-revert rule, especially when no other editor supports your reversions and several actively oppose them. I suggest you read the three-revert rule carefully and comply with it in both letter and spirit, as its violation is considered a major faux pas here. JChap2007 00:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCU

I'm not certain it's him, but I'd certainly like to know if it is. I'll participate if you file it. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll file it, but I'm going to request that WW's talk page be restored first. I want to get some diffs from there related to his logic, personal attacks and usage of language. JChap2007 23:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiWoo is back

Yes, I'd say that's highly likely User:WikiWoo again, unfortunately. I'd suggest opening a RfCU on WikiWoo and Brampton2006. There is almost enough evidence for me to go ahead and indef block Brampton2006 just on the basis of the evidence you've collected, but I'd like a checkuser first. Thanks for the heads up, Gwernol 03:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, they bagged a whole hosiery department this time! Nice catch. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we've seen the last of him...but I doubt it. JChap2007 02:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, goodness gracious! Seven other sockpuppets in addition to Brampton 2006? I had my suspicions about Gay2day, since while what he was adding (information on Susan Fennell's pro-gay attitude) was, to my eyes, being a liberal kind of fellow, positive, he was kind of militant about it (and I wondered about why a gay man (as he said he was) would use the username gay2day, as though he wasn't gay other days). Then once Brampton 2006 made a comment that showed he thought Susan Fennell's attitude (or alleged orientation) was a bad thing (his last comment on the talk page before it was protected) I knew for sure it was the same guy. I gotta tell you, this is getting mighty bothersome (but I have to admit it's also rewarding to know you've shown him that he's not smart enough to go undiscovered). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I went through the histories of his various socks, it appears his statements about Wikipedians being in a conspiracy against him is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy because of his egregious violations of WP:AGF and WP:OWN. JChap2007 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]