User talk:Skwing

Thanks for coming to the Roman Catholic Church page and helping me with that difficult editor! Please feel free to stop by and help out whenever - we can always use editors like you! Also, if you can tell us something about yourself on your user page, your signature turns blue - not that it is very important. If there is anything I can do to help you on Wikipedia, I am not an expert but I know some things and if I don't know something, I can point you to a lot of others who know more than I do. Welcome to Wikipedia! NancyHeise ^talk 23:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS. A reliable source on Wikipedia is a media outlet with an established reputation, not just any random weblink. What exactly is your problem with Andrei Brennan? Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the post on my personal talk page came from an anon IP instead of a username, I was able to do a reverse IP lookup myself to confirm that they were indeed posting from Saskatoon. Which leaves me having to sort out a few options: you and the anon IP are both KH and are lying to me, you are KH and the anon IP is impersonating you, or the anon IP is KH and you're some random other person who knows far more about KH and hromek than could ordinarily be expected. So which is it? Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well. I was successful in my mission - to see Brennan take down down his own page which was nothing more than a masturbatory, self-serving autobiography that was full of unsubstantiated and ridiculous claims and assertions. It is too bad the drama got a little out of control and names got dragged into it. Nonetheless -Brennan's BS was taken down. Wikipedia is a better place for it! And, I know that KH et al agree. Skwing (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with the content of an article not being sufficiently referenced, the proper approach is to tag it for neutrality and referencing improvements and then leave it alone. The approach that you took, however, is absolutely unacceptable — the only truly egregious additions to the entire article, the only stuff problematic enough that it couldn't be left in the article without real sources, was added by you in the first place. Unreferenced, yes, but there was nothing ridiculous in the article until you started pissing all over it. And reread my previous post: you still have a question to answer. Bearcat (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, everything you added was completely inappropriate and not even remotely sourced. While the article as a whole didn't contain sources, there was nothing in it that violated any of Wikipedia's content policies the way your additions did. There are two different classes of unsourced information on Wikipedia: the kind that just gets tagged as "citation needed" because we need confirmation but it isn't inherently invalid content, and the kind that can't stay in the article at all because it's offensive and/or inappropriate and explicitly violates Wikipedia's WP:BLP policies. The article as it stood fell in the first camp; your additions were all of the second type.

Secondly, you were the first one on the talk page to give identifying information about hromek, not vice versa — regardless of whether his identification was right or wrong, hromek didn't identify you as KH until after you identified him. And you gave information that you couldn't possibly have known if you didn't know hromek personally, and if I look at your edit history one of the only other articles you've ever even touched is the very same high school where KH teaches. The only conclusion a remotely sane and neutral administrator could possibly draw from this is that either you are KH or you know him; the likelihood of it being a purely random coincidence is somewhere in the vicinity of what people mean when they talk about pigs flying.

And finally, my neutrality as an administrator has not been compromised in any way. Bearcat (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following only:

-conflicting information about his DOB and a statement (and supporting weblink) about his previous state of morbid obesity

-edited/removed portions of his page which were uncited and unsourced

-added in a comment regarding his state of mental illness (which was sourced with an upload of a document for which YOU promptly deleted)

And' I posted comments on his talk page that he had made himself online with a verifiable source.

That's it! I never once named names (other than Brennan) and certainly NEVER identified myself as anyone other than SKWING. If assumptions were made about who I am, there isn't much I can do about that. It's not hard to fool people clearly, a few posts and they make assumptions that shouldn't be made. Fools. Skwing (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's review this:

conflicting information about his DOB? You added an alternative DOB from an unreliable source, and deliberately tried to create the impression that Brennan was falsifying his date of birth (as opposed to the source just making a mistake). That's not acceptable. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research.
and a statement (and supporting weblink) about his previous state of morbid obesity? This would be irrelevant and inappropriate in an encyclopedia even if it were true, as it has no bearing on anything. There's no reason for trivia like this to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article at all unless you're trying to fill it with cheap personal insults.
edited/removed portions of his page which were uncited and unsourced? No, you simply blanked the whole page a couple of times. Not the same thing at all. To repeat what I said earlier, there are two different classes of unsourced information on Wikipedia: the kind that just gets tagged as "citation needed" because we need confirmation but it isn't inherently invalid content, and the kind that can't stay in the article at all because it's offensive and/or inappropriate and explicitly violates Wikipedia's WP:BLP policies. The article as it stood fell in the first camp; your additions were all of the second type.
added in a comment regarding his state of mental illness (which was sourced with an upload of a document for which YOU promptly deleted)? Firstly, Wikipedia policy prohibits sourcing article content to private personal documents that are directly uploaded to Wikipedia. For one thing, it's really easy to fake an e-mail. Content is sourced only to reliable, vetted and reputable media. Secondly, it was a document which you had no remotely conceivable way to even be in possession of in the first place unless you either (a) are KH, or (b) know KH. And finally, while mental illness was clearly your personal interpretation of the document, even if private correspondence were an admissible source the document wouldn't actually support it as a statement of fact — the only acceptable source for a statement that somebody is mentally ill on Wikipedia would be media coverage confirming that the person has been formally diagnosed as mentally ill by a medical professional.

And you most certainly did name names: you named hromek. And you still haven't responded to the incontrovertible fact that leaving out talk page comments, the only article that you've ever actually edited apart from Brennan's is the article on the very same high school where KH teaches. Bearcat (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put, bearcat. Clearly you have some training in philosophy. People like KH with physics degrees imagine themselves to be smarter than everyone else until they are caught in a lie. Then they paint themselves into a corner rather quickly. Kudos to you for your neutrality and fairness. Hromek2000 (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I give up?! Imbiciles! "hromek" is contained in Brennan's Wikipedia userid, which is visible - duh.

2) I didn't state that the article had misled regarding Brennan's DOB, rather I simply pointed out that there was conflicting information regarding it - that is quite different than implying he lied. Besides - isn't writing your own Biography a violation of Wiki policy? Clearly, even you are now conceeding that this is an autobiography by that statement - interesting.

3) I NEVER completed deleted or blanked Brennan's entire page - that is simply not true. The evidence speaks for itself in the history.

4) Neutrality - what? If Brennan were a right leaning political party it's pretty clear in which direction Mr. Bearcat leans!

It's a shame - Brennan has managed to fool yet another innocent victim (well maybe not completely innocent).

Skwing (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) "Josh" isn't, and neither does his user ID contain any information that identifies him as Brennan's partner. Both of those are details that got put on the talk page by you.

(2) Intentionally calling attention to the fact that an unreliable and inadmissible source gives different information about the subject's date of birth than the Wikipedia article does, when you believe — rightly or wrongly — that the subject wrote the Wikipedia article themselves, is inherently an accusation that they're lying.

(3) The edit history includes at least two attempts on November 8 to simply blank the page outright.

(4) I am not a biased editor. Trust me, if I didn't have a box on my user page which identifies the political party that I happen to support, you would have no way of being able to identify my political views from my edit history. I have no difficulty whatsoever in separating my own personal beliefs from the requirement to be neutral and objective in my editing.

And trust me, it's not up to you to decide who has or hasn't "fooled" me, or whether I'm "innocent" or not. - Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - the "attempts" to clear the entire page were mistakes on my part during the editing process, not intentional. The final outsome was an edit, not a complete blanking of the page. At worst I can be blamed for being a junior editor, lacking in experience.

I never typed Mr. Hromek's first name in my edits - again, simply not true. If I did, please demonstrate that because I don't recall doing so. I did identify that part of Brennan's user ID contained the last name of his partner, but did not name names or use his first name. Please re-check your facts and the post history. This was to highlight the fact that the author of the page was questionable.

Skwing (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liar. You specifically said, as I recall, "and Brennan, don't use Josh's name when you are writing" or words to that effect. If you don't remember that, see a neurologist. Clearly your brain is shutting down. 24.235.41.216 (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, all the drama! My Lord, such fun. Even got a southern Ontario based educator up in arms I see! Skwing (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just an Ontario educator. I received word that His Eminence has passed away of a recurrence of his cancer. Doubtless you will find this to be joyful news for Christmas.66.130.132.45 (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please! How many times can a man die and still be alive? Don't buy the BS, he's full of lies. Oh poor, insane man. Skwing (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]