User talk:Other2

Welcome!

Hello, Other2, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Razorflame (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Steve Kurtz. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources. Thank you. freshacconcispeaktome 20:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to Wikipedia articles about living persons, as you did to Steve Kurtz. Thank you. freshacconcispeaktome 20:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: I tried to add a link to the links page. It was deleted. I thought it was an error. I tried again, and was presented with the summary, saying I had to add my content there. I did. It was deleted. I thought this was an error, I tried again, it was deleted. I contacted the WP contact email, and was told I needed to provide references for the information. I obtained the court case number, for the federal case, which was the source for the information I was providing. I tried to login as Other2, I could not. I thought this was an error. So I created a new account. This time, I referenced the source of the information, from the federal court case, but I was not presented with access to enter it in the summary section, only the arrest section appeared as editable. So I entered it there. It was deleted twice.

This is an instance where 2 supporters of Steve Kurtz are creating a biased report on him, and not allowing for other facts which do not support their view to be entered.

Also--why does Freshacconci, and artist, and instructor at 2 universities, and the author of this entry, gets to issue warnings AND block facts from being entered into this record? What a perfect scenerio for perpetuating propaganda; much more biased than the traditional media. --Other2

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Other2 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. freshacconcispeaktome 22:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Please see my reply above. I was not allowed to add referenced, supported information. I did not create 2 accounts to be deceptive, but because I did not understand how providing facts, referenced in a federal case, and providing case details, should be excluded, according to WP rules.

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to Wikipedia articles about living persons, as you did to Steve Kurtz‎ . Thank you. Please also see WP:OR freshacconcispeaktome 21:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles, as you did at Steve Kurtz. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is original research: please read WP:OR and use the edit summary when you make edits freshacconcispeaktome 22:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If adding a refernce for readers which cites a federal court case, containing an alternate view than what you have created is defamatory, and you threaten to block me for adding it, then it appears you have created a biased entry on Kurtz, and intend to keep it biased.

As I said, what you are attempting to include is original research. Please read WP:OR. Thank you. freshacconcispeaktome 22:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only added a information from a primary source, (and I too am a primary source), and it is allowed according to WP on primary sources, as it is

"A primary source is a document ...[public hearings, trials, or interviews] and research, experiments or observations."

There is no legitimate reason to keep the reference to the court case and these depositions out of this article.

Your last edit at Talk:Steve Kurtz

I will not make this an official warning, but you are moving dangerously close to personally attacking me and harassment. Please comment on the edits, not the editor. freshacconcispeaktome 23:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreshAcconnic--Your last edit at Talk:Steve Kurtz

Please do not add any more name calling, or threats in your post if you do not like a point of view other than your own. I will report you if you continue this behavior.

Reply

Then you will have to report me. I didn't attack you or threaten you. Warning for disruptive behaviour are not attacks or threats. freshacconcispeaktome 23:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be accurate.

I did not say you attacked me. I said "name calling" which you did by saying I was close to "troll behavior" or "personally attacking you" and accusing me of "harrassment" is a threat. I have reported you. Other2 (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Other2[reply]

Checked your history. Where's the report? freshacconcispeaktome 01:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reported it in email, to an admin. This is my only account. Other2 (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Other2[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Steve Kurtz, you will be blocked for vandalism. freshacconcispeaktome 02:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply: I only edited a detail to protect my identity, as otherwise i would be potentially subject once again, to physical harm, as I was in Pittsburgh. I wrote to you offline explaining this. In response, you referenced it again, putting me in harms way.

BLP warning

Per WP:BLP, I deleted a comment you had made. You posted again drawing attention to this. If you do so again, you will be blocked. You are welcome to make a response, but not to make derogatory comments about a living person. Tyrenius (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what you want removed, what you consider derogatory. I will consider removing those parts. You removed the entire reply. Why do you get to decide who gets blocked?Other2 (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Other2[reply]

Negative comments about someone are derogatory. Don't make them. Admins can block users for violations. I have no "professional alignment" with Kurtz: I'd never even heard of him before. Kindly don't make false accusations. Tyrenius (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, as an editor in Wikipedia, you have written primarily, and it looks like only on the arts:

WikiProject Visual arts
WikiProject Contemporary Art
WikiProject Painting
WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts
Category:Art stubs

Are you involved in the arts, art history or art theory, professionally? Other2 (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Other2[reply]

I've made my points. Heed them or face the consequences. Wikipedia doesn't exist for your personal campaign.[1] Tyrenius (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting reply. As I am the one trying to add information which would allow readers to have an informed position. I only wanted to add a citation to a court case where there was a deposition describing Kurtz Behavior....

Other2 (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Other2[reply]

Regarding Former Lawsuit

You cannot come here and pretend to be a disinterested party whilst claiming "privacy" to conceal your obvious conflict of interest. If you wish to continue editing the article, you must clearly disclose your personal connection with the issue. Otherwise, you must immediately refrain from editing Steve Kurtz. Choose one option. FCYTravis (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply--

I guess you didn't notice, that I have not yet been "allowed" by all the supporters of Kurtz, to edit the article or in some instances speak in the discussion page. That is why there is this disucssion. There is no "conflict of interest". I have addressed these issues in the discussion. Other2 (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Other2[reply]

Also, by that premise, other editors should have to state their identity, before editing on Steve Kurtz, as if they are colleagues, or political supporters, there is a conflict of interest. Other2 (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Other2[reply]