User talk:Speed Air Man/Archives/2007/June

BNP article

How can you not see how badly POV the whole thing is? i vandalised the intro because it's rediculous how left wing the viewpoint of the article is written from. The anti fascist has put 'fascism' in their idealogy section when it's blatently incorrect and gives 3 bigoted sources to explain his POV. I have re-written the whole intro and corrected their idealogy to the correct term "ethno-nationalism" because radical right wing populism is a term only used by the left and carries a purely negative connotation and ethno nationalism is more precise than british nationalism. even though my version is FAR superior and NPOV and better structured AND sourced, it gets reverted instantly by trolls (mainly emeraude) masquerading as balanced editors. please do something about this, or at least instigate discussion, because no-one is willing to do anything except revert my edits and accuse me of vandalism 86.146.123.194 13:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I reverted back to the last version that I could find that hadn't been messed up, my actions were not to address the current debate, merely to wipe the silly edits and vandalism. I don't make major edits to articles of this nature as I can't be bothered with all the pointless wikidrama that occurs on a daily basis (because as you know, the internet is serious business), nor can I bothered to intervene in bun fights. If I had my way, the BNP article would be locked and then have a peer review. If it makes you feel any better, yes, I do think the article is unbalanced and contains a POV by stealth, however, I can't be arsed to start entering into lengthy debates about subjects that do not interest me. If you still have problems with other editors try this - WP:M - I have found it quite useful S.A.M.14:20, 4 June 2007

Huncote Article

Oh please. You are one comical individual. My writings on Huncote were factual. People may have found them entertaining, but then Huncote is an entertaining place. It is all the truth. At no point does this site say Wikipedia sites can't be amusing or look at negative points. My writings were vandalised by you. I guarantee more people would rather they were there than wished they weren't. Have you really got nothing better to do with your time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cambumbo (talk • contribs) 12:54, 5 June 2007.

• Your edits were nothing more than baseless attacks and unfunny comments. Yes, wikipedia does list negative points but the point you are mising (or conveniently ignoring) is the NPOV guidelines. Feel free to ignore the rules here, but don't expect other editors to follow suit --Speed Air Man 13:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Speed Air Main, your claims are the baseless assertions here, not Cabumbo's. Cabumbo's edits were in no way attacks or even attack-like; they were observations about life in a particular village. They appear to be clear WP:OR, but to my reading they also appear to be likely true and realistic assessments of fact. If Cabumbo is able to provide published references to the drinking and drugs activity, then it should be admissibile here just as any other fact would be. I think there is no reason to impugn his motives and assert hostility on the part of Cabumbo. From the tone of your user page, you seem to get off on generating an air of superiority about yourself. Here is a clue: it is not working well. Heathhunnicutt 20:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

user page now has satire disclaimer, I apologise if my replies have offended, I sometimes forget that people are sensitive and easily offended. No harm intended ;)--The internet is serious business 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

King's School Peterborough

Hi, you listed the King's School Peterborough article as having a disputable POV. Whilst i do not disagree could you please highlight disputed areas for me? I have been trying to improve the article for a while now whilst adding sections and improving existing ones so i would like to help here also.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Warriorofrovac (talk • contribs) 10:50, 9 June 2007.

Just getting over my hang-over so I'll get around to pointng out which bits I think may benefit from a rewrite/rephrase. Do you want me to highlight this at the article's talk page, here or yours? --The internet is serious business 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be easier for me if you could put them on my talk page please. (Warriorofrovac 15:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

New Testament Church

The Pentecostal Mission is NOT the church talked about in the New Testament. By redirecting any search for 'New Testament Church' to your page, you are proclaiming that you are. If you want to put a disambig at the top of the page then fine, but stop vandalizing my work. Angry Aspie 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

have left reply at your page--The internet is serious business 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work Sir

Thanks for adding the references to Britains got talent. Been checking to see if they have been added since the citation tag was added and decided today to remove them as nobody had added any and as soon as I do....lol --The internet is serious business 16:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought someone else might have got searching for some, but obviously it wasn't the case. Your removal prompted the search for some at least! Bungle44 16:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Helpme

{{helpme}}

What do you need help with? Put {{helpme}} back up with your answer. --ais523 10:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Having trouble with banned user evading block with Anon IP (and being very abusive with it). Starting here - The Nimbus Cloud of Roshi. Seems to warrant a redirect (as per WP:EPISODE), which I have restored. However, Anon (whom I suspect to be User:Recoome keeps replacing it with synopsis (and now calling me a cunt in the edit summary). Even if it does warrant a page then it should an user that is not banned doing it. Very frustrating! I have no interest in the subject matter, just trying to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. Options?--The internet is serious business 10:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reporting the situation to administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents would probably be correct if you suspect it's a banned user (or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if it's sufficiently obvious, which I don't think it is in this case). Ordinarily, you should discuss a situation like this with the user on their User talk page (or on the article's Talk page, which makes more sense with an anon if you let them know about it another way because anons don't have reliable Talk pages), and see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for what to do in a content dispute (which this seems to be). --ais523 10:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tried to talk to the guy, all he does is blank the pages and abuse me in the edit summary--The internet is serious business 10:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably worth letting admins know, then. --ais523 10:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Adoption check-in

Hi Speed Air Man, how's it going? I've been pretty non-active on the wiki lately, but I wanted to check in with my coachees/adoptees. Have any questions/concerns/coaching aspirations? Feel free to email me if you like. Cheers and happy weekend, Fang Aili ^talk 20:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Manhunt 2

No problem. I have been keeping a watch on this article since the news came out. I actually have very little interest in the game, much more of a GTA player, but it's clearly a subject that needs to watched. John Hayes^talk 13:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Moar of a GTA player? don't let Jack Thompson hear you say that ;)--The internet is serious business 13:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a case of The Press getting their information wrong (although I am a Journalist so my opinion may be a little biased), but I think it is more of a case of users choosing to interpret the reports in their own form and manner. But you are half correct, Ireland and Italy have both sought outright bans, with the first having done so and the latter seeking to do so. Evilgohan2 19:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Recoome's evasion

If you really wanna do something about it, contact Deskana. He is the sysop that blocked him for the sockpuppeteering and disruption. Or you could just tag his ips userpages with the sock tag. Lord Sesshomaru

merely disruptive editing to prove a point by a teenager very bitter at being banned. Can't say I'm that fussed about it, however, he clearly is very knowledgable about the subject and I feel that the articles could have been considerably improved with his continued input, unfortunately, he couldn't control his tendancy for being abusive to other users and sock puppeting....a shame--The internet is serious business 10:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you continue to revert Recoome's edits. Just take it to WP:SSP because you're wasting your time. I shall speak to Recoome and Deskana. Lord Sesshomaru

because as a banned user, he doesn't get editing priveleges and any edits made by a banned user (good or bad) can be reverted on site without fear of 3RR. I don't feel I am wasting my time, I am acting to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. What I find really interesting is, he wikistalks and jealously guards the articles in question, yet, makes no other contributions (such as more episode synopses). This kind of behaviour is only to cause trouble and that says two things 1- he is still very, very bitter at being banned (and will continue thus for some time) 2 - is a person that must have his own way regardless of anyone else. I certainly won't stand by and watch this wonderful project brought into disrepute. Bottom line, he's banned and should just behave with some dignity and move on. I have already emailed an admin about this and requested page protection until this blows over. I know a range IP block was suggested (and can still be implemented), however, I really don't want to see other editors in New Zealand suffer if they are on the same ISP. I was hoping he could understand this but obviously has no consideration for others....like I said earlier....a shame--The internet is serious business 00:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Gorean

If the Times of London referred to http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.gor/msg/0966d352414b2ba2 , then why can't we? AnonMoos 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL--The internet is serious business 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving a non-specific answer which amounts to no answer at all, dude... P.S. It is NOT a "blog"[sic], as you ignorantly claimed in your edit summary. AnonMoos

looked like a blog to me, whatever it is, did you read the part of the edit summary that said non-notable? --The internet is serious business 10:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a classic early Usenet posting on someone's personal experiences which was cited in a Times of London newspaper article. (The word "Blog" hadn't yet been invented when that post was made!) Most accounts of personal experiences can't be "verifiable" in the ordinary sense, but various people (including the editors of the Times of London) have found it to be an overall valuable insight into the Gorean lifestyle, and your approach of applying "WP:EL" in a mechanistic automatistic manner without taking into account the particular individual circumstances here does nothing to improve the article Gorean. I assume that you would have exactly the same objection to any substitute account of personal experiences I might turn up, and such alternative accounts might not be as good -- and would not have been cited in a Times of London newspaper story -- so therefore I really don't feel inclined to seek out such alternatives. Why don't you find some equivalent insight into the details of living a Gorean lifestyle which would satisfy your technical legalistic objections, and then we can compare that to what's already there? That would be something productive and constructive for you do to, which might improve the article (which just deleting a relevant link doesn't). AnonMoos 16:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Kaotians

Dude, article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4996410.stm was a very early news account by a journalist who didn't necessarily understand all the fine details of different communities. What emerged from months of subsequent foofaraw (including an appearance by the leader of the group on the British equivalent of the Jerry Springer show, and long forum discussions on the website which was the official John-Norman-endorsed website at that time), was that the group called itself Kaotians, and that both Kaotians and Goreans agree that Kaotians are not actually Goreans. The word Kaotian and the name Lee Thompson are actually mentioned in the http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4996410.stm article (did you read it?), as is the fact that "Kaotians are a splinter group of the Goreans". If your tendency toward technicalistic lawyering will not allow a mention of the fact that Kaotians are different from Goreans, then the whole section must be simply deleted, since I place factual accuracy above legalistic formalisms. AnonMoos 17:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To put it another way

You added a tag to the top of the Gorean article requesting "authentication or verification by an expert". You therefore may be interested to know that I'm the main person who is currently regularly involved in both the official Gor site (gorchronicles.com) and also editing Wikipedia Gor articles. In other words, I'm the closest thing to an expert that you've got right now, so why aren't you listening to me? AnonMoos 17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

the only problem with that is I (and other wikipedians) have no way of knowing that you are an expert, unless of course your willing to prove that you are. Merley stating you are an expert without proof is dodgy ground. With you statinmg that you contribute to the official site I'd go as far to suggest conflict of interest. I've been very willing to work with you on the article but you seem quite touchy about your contributions being questioned. Therfore, I won't be bothering with the article anymore so please edit away, it won't be me that will have to explain anything to an admin and I don't want to get into an edit war, that is all--The internet is serious business 00:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

LCFC

the rivalries thing i added isn't speculation, i know this from many conversations with different people who support leicester, i'm looking for a link to back it up as i know its true.Skitzouk 19:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

please to be reading this WP:OR and WP:CITE--The internet is serious business 21:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

on the refrence section exactly which bit needs refrencing, its all factual leicester IS in the east midlands as are forest, derby etc.

the coventry bit has the m69 refrenced and the last part is historical fact about o'neill and little so please tell which bit needs sourcing or remove the tag. Skitzouk 11:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

the reference about the M69 is just that, about a motorway, that doesn't verify the rest of that section. Regardless of whether you say it is historical fact (about O'neil) it still needs citation. Please read this - WP:CITE and WP:OR. --The internet is serious business 19:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for undoing the vandalism on my page, I actually undid your edit though, as technically it is correct, it has now been vandalised twice ;-) John Hayes^talk 23:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)